I was reading a thread the other day that got derailed into a WWII discussion, so I tought about making a thread dedicated to the many myths, realities and less know facts about the biggest war in history.
There are many more subjects I want to include, but finding well explained sources takes some time, so I'll expand on the matter as time goes by.
Feel free to discuss any and all WWII related subjects here, while of course avoiding to break any of TL rules, as we all know that subjects like this can stir up some nationalistic feelings.
Khalkhin-Gol: The forgotten battle that shaped WW2.
A battle not officially part of WWII, but that shaped much of it's outcome since it showed the incompetence of the Japanese ground army, assuring that Russia would never have to fight a two front war, and forcing the japanese into expanding more into the Pacific.
The battle of Khalkhin-Gol decisively showed the expansionist Japanese military that it was not a match for the Soviets – particularly while Japanese forces were still bogged down throughout China. The Soviets under combined their forces to stunning effect, while Japanese tactics remained stuck in a pre-modern mindset that valued honour and personal bravery more highly on the battlefield than massed forces and armour.
When Hitler finally invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 the Japanese, although tempted to join the attack, remembered the lessons of Khalkhin Gol and decided to remain on the sidelines, ensuring that the stretched Soviet military could focus its forces on just one front. This, in turn, meant that Nazi Germany was forced to fight a four year war on two fronts – against the Soviets in the East, and the British and Americans in the West.
Defeat at Khalkhin-Gol can also be seen as a major factor in the Japanese decision to expand into the Pacific. As expansion to the North-West was no longer an option, ill defended and scattered colonial territories made far easier targets. Even the United States was deemed a less formidable adversary than the Soviet Union and, if the Japanse had not lost at Khalkhin-Gol, they would surely have never attacked Pearl Harbour.
Nazi Germany was defeated in Moscow in 1941, Stalingrad in 1942 and in Kursk in 1943. By the time of the D-Day the Wehrmacht was nothing but a shadow of it's former self. The vast majority of the fighting took place in the Eastern Front.
The numbers speak for themselves. The Soviets destroyed 75-80% of all German divisions -- 4 million soldiers -- and most of the Luftwaffe. Russia lost at least 14 million soldiers and a similar number of civilians.
The Red Army destroyed 507 Axis divisions. On the Western Front after D-Day, the Allies destroyed 176 badly under-strength German divisions.
When the Allies landed in Normandy, they met battered German forces with no air cover, crippled by lack of fuel and supplies, unable to move in daytime. Even so, the Germans fought like tigers. Had the invading US, British and Canadians encountered the 1940's Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, the outcome may well have been different.
If Hitler's decision to engage in a two front war was foolish, the decision of the Japanese Empire to start a war with the US was nothing but suicidal. However strong the Japanese Imperial Navy was in 1941, Japan didn't had the means to replace their vessels and planes in sufficient numbers once it started taking losses. It didn't mattered how many battle would the US loss, in time they could rebuild again and again, because their economy and industrial output was far, far bigger than that of Japan.
There was a 0% chance of Japan ever winning the war.
In retrospect, it is difficult to comprehend how Japan's leadership managed to rationalize their way around the economic facts when they contemplated making war on the U.S. After all, these were not stupid men. Indeed, internal Imperial Navy studies conducted in 1941 showed exactly the trends in naval shipbuilding I have outlined above. In the end, however, the Tojo government chose the path of aggression, compelled by internal political dynamics which made the prospect of a general Japanese disengagement in China (which was the only means by which the American economic embargo would have been lifted) too humiliating a course to be taken. Consequently, the Japanese embarked on what can only be described as a suicidal venture, against an overwhelmingly large foe. However, their greatest mistake was not just disregarding the economic muscle which lay partially dormant on the other side of the Pacific. In actuality, their chief error lay in misreading the will of the American people. When the American giant awoke, it did not lapse into despair as a result of the defeats that Japan had inflicted upon it. Rather, it awoke in a rage, and applied every ounce of its tremendous strength with a cold, methodical fury against its foe. The grim price Japan paid -- 1.8 million military casualties, the complete annihilation of its military, a half million or so civilians killed, and the utter destruction of practically every major urban area within the Home Islands -- bears mute testimony to the folly of its militarist leaders.
During the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese committed a litany of atrocities against innocent civilians, including mass execution, raping, looting, and burning. It is impossible to keep a detailed account of all of these crimes. However, from the scale and the nature of these crimes as documented by survivors and the diaries of the Japanese militarists, the chilling evidence of this historical tragedy is indisputable.
The Unit 731 functioned as an experimental labour for military medical research during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War 2 in Manchuria, China. The aim was to research the perfect biological weapon with the capibility to kill thousands of people.
Among the prisoners were women and children. They were used to test the effects of grenades from different positions. Pregnant victims had their babies removed without anesthetics. Smomachs, limbs were removed, and blood loss has been studied. Parts of brain, lungs, liver were cut off.
Sea Lion: Why the German Could Have Never Conquered Britain.
Operation Sea Lion (German: Unternehmen Seelöwe) was Germany's plan to invade the United Kingdom during the Second World War, beginning in 1940. To have had any chance of success, however, the operation would have required air and naval supremacy over the English Channel. With the German defeat in the Battle of Britain, Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September 1940 and never carried out.[2]
The great majority of military historians believe Operation Sea Lion would not have succeeded. Kenneth Macksey asserts it would have only been possible if the Royal Navy had refrained from large scale intervention[52] and the Germans had assaulted in July 1940 (although Macksey conceded they were unprepared at that time),[53] while others such as Peter Fleming, Derek Robinson and Stephen Bungay believe the operation would have most likely resulted in a disaster for the Germans. Len Deighton and some other writers have called the German amphibious plans a "Dunkirk in reverse".[54]
Adolf Galland, commander of Luftwaffe fighters at the time, claimed invasion plans were not serious and that there was a palpable sense of relief in the Wehrmacht when it was finally called off. Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt also took this view and thought that Hitler never seriously intended to invade Britain and the whole thing was a bluff, to put pressure on the British Government to come to terms.[55] In fact in November 1939 the German Naval staff produced a study (on the possibility of an invasion of Britain) and concluded that it required two preconditions, air and naval superiority, neither of which Germany ever had.[56]
Why don't you post this in some history specified forum instead of TL? This thread will just end up in a quarrel between who's the best, who's right or wrong and that the holocaust is real/fake/over-under-exaggerated, and nothing good will come out of it.
so I tought about making a thread dedicated to the many myths, realities and less know facts about the biggest war in history.
and then in five lines you write:
A battle not officially part of WWII, but that shaped much of it's outcome since it showed the incompetence of the Japanese ground army, assuring that Russia would never have to fight a two front war, and forcing the japanese into expanding more into the Pacific.
Which is a load of drivel.
If you want to start a decent thread, don't stuff up the op.
There was a 0% chance of Japan ever winning the war. - lol
I feel as if trying to quantify "who did more" is arbitrary, at best. Both sides played amazing roles in the battle against Germany. Russia did a fucking awesome job doing what they did, and we would not have been able to invade the Western Front at all if Hitler didn't throw on his retard pants and break the treaty. However, I don't think Russia, on the same token, would have had the same success without America/Britain/Canada/etc. on the Western Front doing business.
Hilariously enough, we did not win the war -- Germany herself lost the war. Germany's command structure was so horrendously silly, that basically, everything had to be run through Hitler -- the Generals really had no -actual- control. On the day of D-Day (pardon the redundancy) there was a nice little Panzer division waiting to roll in since 6AM to stop the attack. I mean, these fuckers could have stopped the invasion in its tracks considering how basically no armor made it onto the beach until well after the initial assault was over. However, Hitler decided to sleep in late that day -- to like 2-3PM in fact -- and it was only until that time that he was able to allow the Division to move in, however, it was already too late. This is compounded by the intelligence error made by the Americans. They thought those huge hedges that cover the French countryside were only a couple feet tall, when in fact, they were a couple dozen meters tall and they were bogged down for days in that.
Don't even get me started on Stalingrad and whatnot.
I think Hitler was a little too confident, and tried to go for absolute victory. If he just bided his time, it would have turned out a lot better for him. Nonetheless, I don't think the Russians could have gotten absolute victory if not for the Western Front. Who is to say Hitler could not have just retreated back West into France, causing the Russians to expend even MORE resources? That that 25-20% extra German forces couldn't have been that turning point in the war in Germany's favor?
I'm rambling now, but whatever
Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
On December 28 2011 04:09 pred470r wrote: Why don't you post this in some history specified forum instead of TL? This thread will just end up in a quarrel between who's the best, who's right or wrong and that the holocaust is real/fake/over-under-exaggerated, and nothing good will come out of it.
Rather than pre-emptively shitting on this thread, why not contribute or keep quiet?
On December 28 2011 04:09 Sithelin123 wrote: I like World War 2 cause it resulted in Company of Heroes getting made. It is one of my favorite RTS games of all time. Also, Eastern front >>>>>>> Western front in epicness, Too bad that CoH didn't have an Eastern front version
My Great grandfather was on the eastern front in the Wehrmacht for 6 years. Stories he told... Was in Russian prison twice but one guard let him out (we are all humans) and the other shot him in the leg escaping. He was shot 7 times and hated war/racism/ethnicism by the time it was over.
Nanking Massacre was a terrible thing that has had less publicity than the holocaust. I am planning to read the book "The Rape of Nanking" which I've heard is very graphic
On December 28 2011 04:09 Sithelin123 wrote: I like World War 2 cause it resulted in Company of Heroes getting made. It is one of my favorite RTS games of all time. Also, Eastern front >>>>>>> Western front in epicness, Too bad that CoH didn't have an Eastern front version
My Great grandfather was on the eastern front in the Wehrmacht for 6 years. Stories he told... Was in Russian prison twice but one guard let him out (we are all humans) and the other shot him in the leg escaping. He was shot 7 times and hated war/racism/ethnicism by the time it was over.
I expect that the Russians would be extremely brutal to enemy POW. After all, don't they kill their OWN troops for surrendering? Your great grandfather should be lucky to be alive after all many German POWs did not survive confinement in the Soviet Union. However, this certainly goes both ways as it was the Germans that invaded the Soviets and also treated their population extremely inhumanely. To the point of being downright genocidal actually.
There's a doctor from that unit 731 who's still alive and in Japan. ( He speaks occasionally )
Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. ) His technology wasn't done until near the end of the war. He also had a chance to destroy GB until he decided to attack Russia for some odd reason and also facing a Russian winter at the same time. If Germany was exchanging resources with Japan and having Japan to never attack, it'd would went quite well. Perhaps the US would not have entered the war. He was good for taking them out of the bad economy they had prior, but he should have left the war to his generals. He's more of a politician than a military tactician. The Vergeltungswaffe weren't done until near the end of the war. He had the best chance of winning with a mass of those.
Oh man. My dad used to watch WW2 documentaries on the telly all the time. When other kids were watching cartoons and child stuff, I was watching WW2 documentaries.
One of the truly horrible things I heard from WW2 was from my great-uncle who fought in the Western Front for the British. He spent most of the war as a prisoner in a German camp. He said the British and Germans mostly got on very well; they were well treated and there wasn't really any ill feeling - both Germans and British just wanted the war to end and to go home. When the war finally did come to an end, the Americans who freed them decided to execute the commanding officer of the Germans for no reason. My great-uncle said he, and all the other prisoners, protested and told the Americans there was no reason to murder him, that the man was a good guy who was glad to see the camp taken so he could go home and see his kids - they were ignored and the man was murdered. I don't know what that German officer's children were told, nor his wife or anyone else, but it saddens me greatly to even think about it. It especially saddens me to know that whoever fired the shot and murdered him will have gone home and been treated as a hero because he happened to be on the right side, while that man's family will likely never mention his death and carry some shame because he was on the wrong one.
I know it was a tragic period of history, and maybe that doesn't seem particularly bad, but to me it's a poignant example of how horrible war is.
That said, and this is slightly off topic, I do feel as though WW2 gets too much exposure. It makes up about 50% of history programmes that you see. It was important and it's recent, but history is a lot larger and I think we can learn a lot more from studying a wider variety of events.
On December 28 2011 04:39 FuzzyJAM wrote: One of the truly horrible things I heard from WW2 was from my great-uncle who fought in the Western Front for the British. He spent most of the war as a prisoner in a German camp. He said the British and Germans mostly got on very well; they were well treated and there wasn't really any ill feeling - both Germans and British just wanted the war to end and to go home. When the war finally did come to an end, the Americans who freed them decided to execute the commanding officer of the Germans for no reason. My great-uncle said he, and all the other prisoners, protested and told the Americans there was no reason to murder him, that the man was a good guy who was glad to see the camp taken so he could go home and see his kids - they were ignored and the man was murdered. I don't know what that German officer's children were told, nor his wife or anyone else, but it saddens me greatly to even think about it. It especially saddens me to know that whoever fired the shot and murdered him will have gone home and been treated as a hero because he happened to be on the right side, while that man's family will likely never mention his death and carry some shame because he was on the wrong one.
I know it was a tragic period of history, and maybe that doesn't seem particularly bad, but to me it's a poignant example of how horrible war is.
That said, and this is slightly off topic, I do feel as though WW2 gets too much exposure. It makes up about 50% of history programmes that you see. It was important and it's recent, but history is a lot larger and I think we can learn a lot more from studying a wider variety of events.
WW2 gets a ton of exposure because its cool to watch. History channels need to keep their ratings up. They can't do that showing documentaries about life in America in the late 1920s.
On December 28 2011 04:39 FuzzyJAM wrote: One of the truly horrible things I heard from WW2 was from my great-uncle who fought in the Western Front for the British. He spent most of the war as a prisoner in a German camp. He said the British and Germans mostly got on very well; they were well treated and there wasn't really any ill feeling - both Germans and British just wanted the war to end and to go home. When the war finally did come to an end, the Americans who freed them decided to execute the commanding officer of the Germans for no reason. My great-uncle said he, and all the other prisoners, protested and told the Americans there was no reason to murder him, that the man was a good guy who was glad to see the camp taken so he could go home and see his kids - they were ignored and the man was murdered. I don't know what that German officer's children were told, nor his wife or anyone else, but it saddens me greatly to even think about it. It especially saddens me to know that whoever fired the shot and murdered him will have gone home and been treated as a hero because he happened to be on the right side, while that man's family will likely never mention his death and carry some shame because he was on the wrong one.
I know it was a tragic period of history, and maybe that doesn't seem particularly bad, but to me it's a poignant example of how horrible war is.
That said, and this is slightly off topic, I do feel as though WW2 gets too much exposure. It makes up about 50% of history programmes that you see. It was important and it's recent, but history is a lot larger and I think we can learn a lot more from studying a wider variety of events.
WW2 gets a ton of exposure because its cool to watch. History channels need to keep their ratings up. They can't do that showing documentaries about life in America in the late 1920s.
On December 28 2011 04:31 Archie_Lewis wrote: Oh man. My dad used to watch WW2 documentaries on the telly all the time. When other kids were watching cartoons and child stuff, I was watching WW2 documentaries.
On December 28 2011 04:39 FuzzyJAM wrote: One of the truly horrible things I heard from WW2 was from my great-uncle who fought in the Western Front for the British. He spent most of the war as a prisoner in a German camp. He said the British and Germans mostly got on very well; they were well treated and there wasn't really any ill feeling - both Germans and British just wanted the war to end and to go home. When the war finally did come to an end, the Americans who freed them decided to execute the commanding officer of the Germans for no reason. My great-uncle said he, and all the other prisoners, protested and told the Americans there was no reason to murder him, that the man was a good guy who was glad to see the camp taken so he could go home and see his kids - they were ignored and the man was murdered. I don't know what that German officer's children were told, nor his wife or anyone else, but it saddens me greatly to even think about it. It especially saddens me to know that whoever fired the shot and murdered him will have gone home and been treated as a hero because he happened to be on the right side, while that man's family will likely never mention his death and carry some shame because he was on the wrong one.
I know it was a tragic period of history, and maybe that doesn't seem particularly bad, but to me it's a poignant example of how horrible war is.
That said, and this is slightly off topic, I do feel as though WW2 gets too much exposure. It makes up about 50% of history programmes that you see. It was important and it's recent, but history is a lot larger and I think we can learn a lot more from studying a wider variety of events.
WW2 gets a ton of exposure because its cool to watch. History channels need to keep their ratings up. They can't do that showing documentaries about life in America in the late 1920s.
But the late 1920's was fucking awesome.
I dont know. In high school I remember being bored to tears when we got to them and just wanted to do World War 2. Though that was Canada in the 1920s so maybe its different.
On December 28 2011 04:39 FuzzyJAM wrote: One of the truly horrible things I heard from WW2 was from my great-uncle who fought in the Western Front for the British. He spent most of the war as a prisoner in a German camp. He said the British and Germans mostly got on very well; they were well treated and there wasn't really any ill feeling - both Germans and British just wanted the war to end and to go home. When the war finally did come to an end, the Americans who freed them decided to execute the commanding officer of the Germans for no reason. My great-uncle said he, and all the other prisoners, protested and told the Americans there was no reason to murder him, that the man was a good guy who was glad to see the camp taken so he could go home and see his kids - they were ignored and the man was murdered. I don't know what that German officer's children were told, nor his wife or anyone else, but it saddens me greatly to even think about it. It especially saddens me to know that whoever fired the shot and murdered him will have gone home and been treated as a hero because he happened to be on the right side, while that man's family will likely never mention his death and carry some shame because he was on the wrong one.
I know it was a tragic period of history, and maybe that doesn't seem particularly bad, but to me it's a poignant example of how horrible war is.
That said, and this is slightly off topic, I do feel as though WW2 gets too much exposure. It makes up about 50% of history programmes that you see. It was important and it's recent, but history is a lot larger and I think we can learn a lot more from studying a wider variety of events.
WW2 gets a ton of exposure because its cool to watch. History channels need to keep their ratings up. They can't do that showing documentaries about life in America in the late 1920s.
On December 28 2011 04:31 Archie_Lewis wrote: Oh man. My dad used to watch WW2 documentaries on the telly all the time. When other kids were watching cartoons and child stuff, I was watching WW2 documentaries.
What sort of miserable childhood was this :|
Miserable, that was my childhood too, and it was fantastic! You're the one missing out.
On December 28 2011 04:39 FuzzyJAM wrote: One of the truly horrible things I heard from WW2 was from my great-uncle who fought in the Western Front for the British. He spent most of the war as a prisoner in a German camp. He said the British and Germans mostly got on very well; they were well treated and there wasn't really any ill feeling - both Germans and British just wanted the war to end and to go home. When the war finally did come to an end, the Americans who freed them decided to execute the commanding officer of the Germans for no reason. My great-uncle said he, and all the other prisoners, protested and told the Americans there was no reason to murder him, that the man was a good guy who was glad to see the camp taken so he could go home and see his kids - they were ignored and the man was murdered. I don't know what that German officer's children were told, nor his wife or anyone else, but it saddens me greatly to even think about it. It especially saddens me to know that whoever fired the shot and murdered him will have gone home and been treated as a hero because he happened to be on the right side, while that man's family will likely never mention his death and carry some shame because he was on the wrong one.
I know it was a tragic period of history, and maybe that doesn't seem particularly bad, but to me it's a poignant example of how horrible war is.
That said, and this is slightly off topic, I do feel as though WW2 gets too much exposure. It makes up about 50% of history programmes that you see. It was important and it's recent, but history is a lot larger and I think we can learn a lot more from studying a wider variety of events.
WW2 gets a ton of exposure because its cool to watch. History channels need to keep their ratings up. They can't do that showing documentaries about life in America in the late 1920s.
On December 28 2011 04:15 tdt wrote: War to end all wars was biggest myth. Or was that WW1?
WWII was the war to end all wars, WWI was the "The Great war".
Actually every big war was called like that once or twice and that nickname wasn't really new, if I remember correctlyeven Alexander's great raid was called like that(well probably something similiar but the meaning was the same).
On December 28 2011 04:31 Archie_Lewis wrote: Oh man. My dad used to watch WW2 documentaries on the telly all the time. When other kids were watching cartoons and child stuff, I was watching WW2 documentaries.
What sort of miserable childhood was this :|
Miserable, that was my childhood too, and it was fantastic! You're the one missing out.
Hell no man, 1990s for life. Was a decade of epic Disney movies and awesome kids anime. Everyone liked them and always tons of stuff to talk and fantasize about.
On December 28 2011 04:15 tdt wrote: War to end all wars was biggest myth. Or was that WW1?
WWII was the war to end all wars, WWI was the "The Great war".
Actually every big war was called like that once or twice and that nickname wasn't really new, if I remember correctlyeven Alexander's great raid was called like that(well probably something similiar but the meaning was the same).
That was what i was taught in history class, meehhh Canadian bias i guess O_o
On December 28 2011 04:31 Archie_Lewis wrote: Oh man. My dad used to watch WW2 documentaries on the telly all the time. When other kids were watching cartoons and child stuff, I was watching WW2 documentaries.
What sort of miserable childhood was this
Lol i had the same childhood, was pretty awesome when i got to school and told like grade 1s about WWII i was finally center of attention for once ;D
On December 28 2011 04:09 Sithelin123 wrote: I like World War 2 cause it resulted in Company of Heroes getting made. It is one of my favorite RTS games of all time. Also, Eastern front >>>>>>> Western front in epicness, Too bad that CoH didn't have an Eastern front version
On December 28 2011 04:15 tdt wrote: War to end all wars was biggest myth. Or was that WW1?
WWII was the war to end all wars, WWI was the "The Great war".
Actually every big war was called like that once or twice and that nickname wasn't really new, if I remember correctlyeven Alexander's great raid was called like that(well probably something similiar but the meaning was the same).
That was what i was taught in history class, meehhh Canadian bias i guess O_o
On December 28 2011 04:31 Archie_Lewis wrote: Oh man. My dad used to watch WW2 documentaries on the telly all the time. When other kids were watching cartoons and child stuff, I was watching WW2 documentaries.
What sort of miserable childhood was this
Lol i had the same childhood, was pretty awesome when i got to school and told like grade 1s about WWII i was finally center of attention for once ;D
Well it's kinda obvious to call em like that, I read a speech of a british politician who gave arguments for the british imperialism and their need to take over africa(and lateron throughg that probably the world) and his second last argument was the end of all wars when it's done.
On December 28 2011 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: It's funny and awe inspiring how anyone who fucks with mother Russia gets utterly thrashed. The soviet are pretty badass when it comes to warfare.
The mongols kicked their asses didnt they? Plus the Russians are only all that great when defending. Their offensive history is anything but spectacular.
On December 28 2011 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: It's funny and awe inspiring how anyone who fucks with mother Russia gets utterly thrashed. The soviet are pretty badass when it comes to warfare.
The mongols kicked their asses didnt they? Plus the Russians are only all that great when defending. Their offensive history is anything but spectacular.
Back when Genghis Khan was rolling around because he was able to use the Russian winter to his advantage (his horses could ride over frozen rivers) but ever since, no one's been able to successfully invade Russia because for some reason EVERYONE DOES IT DURING THE WINTER
On December 28 2011 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: It's funny and awe inspiring how anyone who fucks with mother Russia gets utterly thrashed. The soviet are pretty badass when it comes to warfare.
Under another topic and if you would've chosen other words to express you opinion I probably would've let this slip and just shrugged but like this I have to quote something from the op for you
The Soviets destroyed 75-80% of all German divisions -- 4 million soldiers -- and most of the Luftwaffe. Russia lost at least 14 million soldiers
So the efficiency of the German soldiers against the Russian soldiers should be around 350% and maybe higher, although they fought in the russian winter.
your prospect saying that the Japanese had 0 chance of winning is pretty silly. America was down to just the enterprise as its only carrier in the entire pacific and even then it was heavily damaged While the japan imperial navy had its 4 carriers and an abusively superior gun fleet. The japs had a god level fighter in the zero at the beginning and had every other class of air craft pegged far above the american counter parts. half-way into the war this flipped as the japs were never able to manufacture replacements or even develop new craft. The real strength of the US navy during the pacific theater was its subs who hunted and killed
The Japanese lost to the Russians because they had armor... armor that they had been developing intensity for years while the Japanese were amazed by a light armor model. The Japanese didn't open up a Russian front because of its ongoing war with the Chinese factions and it simply didn't have the industry to build steel to do anything in a modern battlefield.
the germens and the British had remained somewhat friendly because of their alliance that took down Napoleon in the last of the wars. that relationship between the two had kept the peace all the way until ww1.
And you have to understand WW2 is like the greatest moment for america. they could do no wrong and won everything everywhere.
playing Hearts of iron 3 you really do get that feeling of a east west front divide of relevancy. The invasion of Normandy was in danger of a few panzer divisions while the Russians had to contend with whole armies of them for years across a front from sea (Baltic) to sea(Black-Adriatic)
On December 28 2011 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: It's funny and awe inspiring how anyone who fucks with mother Russia gets utterly thrashed. The soviet are pretty badass when it comes to warfare.
Under another topic and if you would've chosen other words to express you opinion I probably would've let this slip and just shrugged but like this I have to quote something from the op for you
The Soviets destroyed 75-80% of all German divisions -- 4 million soldiers -- and most of the Luftwaffe. Russia lost at least 14 million soldiers
So the efficiency of the German soldiers against the Russian soldiers should be around 350% and maybe higher, although they fought in the russian winter.
Actually that isn't likely including the full bulk of it. In terms of dead, missing, captured or disabled, the casualties for each side can be seen on page 12 and 13 of this article by David Glantz:
For the Soviet side, it was 14.7 million in total vs Japan and Germany. For the Axis (remember Germany had allies on Eastern front), the Eastern front Casualties were 10.7 million German and 1.7 million Axis. So in reality they are almost 1:1 in casualties considering the entire war. The entire Axis casualties in total were 12,483,000 soldiers killed, missing, captured, or permanently disabled in the Eastern Front.
WW2 history "debates" are terrible affairs unless done by professionals in the field...amateur attempts at counterfactual historiography are quite laughable overall, and tend to assume a continuity of thought and achievement that far exceeds realistic expectations.
if you have time at your hand and did not previously research anything on the II World war and you want to know the basics and more, watch the BBC series "The World at War" from the 60/70. Excellent production.
My great-grandfather was a POW in Siberia for 10 years because he was a policeman, he claimed that 98% of all prisoners in that gulag died during that time. Needless to say he was borderline insane after returning home though.
On December 28 2011 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: It's funny and awe inspiring how anyone who fucks with mother Russia gets utterly thrashed. The soviet are pretty badass when it comes to warfare.
The mongols kicked their asses didnt they? Plus the Russians are only all that great when defending. Their offensive history is anything but spectacular.
The Mongols didn't get all that far before Genghis Khan died. they didn't do too much more after that.
On December 28 2011 05:29 secretary bird wrote: My great-grandfather was a POW in Siberia for 10 years because he was a policeman, he claimed that 98% of all prisoners in that gulag died during that time. Needless to say he was borderline insane after returning home though.
Umm, after World War 2 I'm quite sure Gulag deaths returned to normal Stalinist pre-war levels. They did peak during the war itself though. But yeah, I heard of the Soviets arresting basically anyone and throwing them in the Gulags at the end of the war. Policeman, fireman, anyone they can get just to feed the slave labour economy of theirs.
The pianist is a great WW2 based movie, on something history classes don't spend much time covering. (Warsaw uprising/ German occupation of poland)
It was really sad, yet amazing at the same time. I for one, cant get enough of WW2, avid cod1/2 player. Absolutely love WW based fps's. It's just so interesting.
On December 28 2011 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: It's funny and awe inspiring how anyone who fucks with mother Russia gets utterly thrashed. The soviet are pretty badass when it comes to warfare.
The mongols kicked their asses didnt they? Plus the Russians are only all that great when defending. Their offensive history is anything but spectacular.
The Mongols didn't get all that far before Genghis Khan died. they didn't do too much more after that.
Actually they did a lot I think, they increased their territory by at least 100% and continued to be relevant for at least 250 years after his death.
On December 28 2011 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: It's funny and awe inspiring how anyone who fucks with mother Russia gets utterly thrashed. The soviet are pretty badass when it comes to warfare.
The mongols kicked their asses didnt they? Plus the Russians are only all that great when defending. Their offensive history is anything but spectacular.
The Mongols didn't get all that far before Genghis Khan died. they didn't do too much more after that.
Actually they did a lot I think, they increased their territory by at least 100% and continued to be relevant for at least 250 years after his death.
They took down the Kiev Empire, but they didn't get as far as they did in a lot of other places, especially the Middle East and China
Also, campaigns in Russia sometimes last for years. Russian Winter is sort of unavoidable.
The moral of WW2 is that the bigger mustache wins.
They took down the Kiev Empire, but they didn't get as far as they did in a lot of other places, especially the Middle East and China
Conquering Persia and exterminating the Abbasid population (odd change of policy from genocide to extermination) and getting as far as Egypt and almost destroying it sounds pretty far to me. Most importantly, they destroyed the world's most advanced nation. Fortunately, a bit of that knowledge and research was recovered to kick off the Renaissance in Italy. Genghis Khan was dead for quite a while when the Mideastern campaigns began.
Personally I dont trust Soviet statistics they were proven wrong too many times and we will never really know imo but thats just me.
You realize these statistics were kept under lock and key until Gorby went nuts and started releasing tons of highly classified materials? There's no reason for the Soviet government to lie to themselves (as they were the only ones seeing these documents until then). Btw, what was proven wrong lol? That's a rather bold assertion. Facts don't line up with the post-Cold War (and Cold War) propaganda you and I were indoctrinated with? Too bad.
On December 28 2011 05:29 secretary bird wrote: My great-grandfather was a POW in Siberia for 10 years because he was a policeman, he claimed that 98% of all prisoners in that gulag died during that time. Needless to say he was borderline insane after returning home though.
Umm, after World War 2 I'm quite sure Gulag deaths returned to normal Stalinist pre-war levels. They did peak during the war itself though. But yeah, I heard of the Soviets arresting basically anyone and throwing them in the Gulags at the end of the war. Policeman, fireman, anyone they can get just to feed the slave labour economy of theirs.
Here is a good chart from wiki:
Personally I dont trust Soviet statistics they were proven wrong too many times and we will never really know imo but thats just me.
On December 28 2011 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: It's funny and awe inspiring how anyone who fucks with mother Russia gets utterly thrashed. The soviet are pretty badass when it comes to warfare.
Under another topic and if you would've chosen other words to express you opinion I probably would've let this slip and just shrugged but like this I have to quote something from the op for you
The Soviets destroyed 75-80% of all German divisions -- 4 million soldiers -- and most of the Luftwaffe. Russia lost at least 14 million soldiers
So the efficiency of the German soldiers against the Russian soldiers should be around 350% and maybe higher, although they fought in the russian winter.
Actually that isn't likely including the full bulk of it. In terms of dead, missing, captured or disabled, the casualties for each side can be seen on page 12 and 13 of this article by David Glantz:
For the Soviet side, it was 14.7 million in total vs Japan and Germany. For the Axis (remember Germany had allies on Eastern front), the Eastern front Casualties were 10.7 million German and 1.7 million Axis. So in reality they are almost 1:1 in casualties considering the entire war. The entire Axis casualties in total were 12,483,000 soldiers killed, missing, captured, or permanently disabled in the Eastern Front.
David Glantz' statistics are confusing though, he maintains that "Overall, the RedArmy, Navy, and NKVD suffered at least 29 million and perhaps as many as 35 million military casualties"
edit: but yeah, the overall casualty figures are closer than the OP would lead you to believe
On December 28 2011 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: It's funny and awe inspiring how anyone who fucks with mother Russia gets utterly thrashed. The soviet are pretty badass when it comes to warfare.
Under another topic and if you would've chosen other words to express you opinion I probably would've let this slip and just shrugged but like this I have to quote something from the op for you
The Soviets destroyed 75-80% of all German divisions -- 4 million soldiers -- and most of the Luftwaffe. Russia lost at least 14 million soldiers
So the efficiency of the German soldiers against the Russian soldiers should be around 350% and maybe higher, although they fought in the russian winter.
Actually that isn't likely including the full bulk of it. In terms of dead, missing, captured or disabled, the casualties for each side can be seen on page 12 and 13 of this article by David Glantz:
For the Soviet side, it was 14.7 million in total vs Japan and Germany. For the Axis (remember Germany had allies on Eastern front), the Eastern front Casualties were 10.7 million German and 1.7 million Axis. So in reality they are almost 1:1 in casualties considering the entire war. The entire Axis casualties in total were 12,483,000 soldiers killed, missing, captured, or permanently disabled in the Eastern Front.
David Glantz' statistics are confusing though, he maintains that "Overall, the RedArmy, Navy, and NKVD suffered at least 29 million and perhaps as many as 35 million military casualties"
Thats the list beside the permanent casualties (titled "Total"). I only listed the permanent casualties for the Soviets because only the permanent casualties for the Axis were listed. Non-permanent casualties would be things like wounded or sick.
If you like, you can get another credible historian on the subject to list casualties.
On December 28 2011 04:09 pred470r wrote: Why don't you post this in some history specified forum instead of TL? This thread will just end up in a quarrel between who's the best, who's right or wrong and that the holocaust is real/fake/over-under-exaggerated, and nothing good will come out of it.
it's more likely to turn into a debate about whether or not the nukes were justified, followed shortly by thread closure
I disagree with some of the things in this OP. I'm not supporting Nazi Germany, but they definitely could have taken control of Britain. I don't think that's up for debate.
On December 28 2011 06:00 GreEny K wrote: I disagree with some of the things in this OP. I'm not supporting Nazi Germany, but they definitely could have taken control of Britain. I don't think that's up for debate.
The OP is just full of poorly substantiated opinions.
On December 28 2011 06:13 atwar wrote: lets talk about the winter war or how the finnish lost 70k men and the russians 323k LOL useless russians
Bigotry and support of close Nazi allies in the same post. Smart. I'd be thanking all my Norse gods that after almost single-handedly beating the Germans, they didn't come back around and destroy Finland, because they very well could have, especially through total war and saturation bombing to nullify the heavy advantage of guerilla warfare of the Winter War. Just saying. It is good the Soviets were not too particularly vengeful against the Germans and German allies (like Finland, although Finland's wasn't so involved in the offensives against the USSR since they didn't have much of a military to speak of) who deliberately committed genocide against them.
I hate how WW2 discussions have a tendency to deteriorate into "the Russians did it all" "no they didn't."
Both sides needed each other. The US sent millions and millions of tons of supplies to Russia, including guns of all kinds, tanks, trucks, planes, oil and gasoline, synthetic rubber, ammunition, etc., we helped them with industrial experts we sent over there when they relocated their factories to the Urals, there were several dozen German divisions that were diverted to Italy in 1943-1944, and we were the ones who eventually broke Germany's industrial capacity in late 1944 with our bombing campaign.
And they did their part by tying up and decimating hundreds of German divisions and fighting the longest and the hardest against the Nazis.
The Russians wouldn't have won without us and we wouldn't have won without them. We managed to overcome our distaste for Stalinism to beat Hitler when we needed to, sure what happened afterwards wasn't that great either but one thing at a time.
On December 28 2011 06:13 atwar wrote: lets talk about the winter war or how the finnish lost 70k men and the russians 323k LOL useless russians
Wow.... First of all, the Fins actually LOST the Winter war....And the war following the Winter war as well...I wasn't aware that having a lower body count allows you to have some sort of superiority attitude...There are many reasons behind their poor performance in the war against Finland.
Oh and btw, that poster is just propaganda bullshit. The Russians weren't fighting for freedom. You can argue they were fighting for survival but its definitely not for freedom.
On December 28 2011 06:23 DeepElemBlues wrote: I hate how WW2 discussions have a tendency to deteriorate into "the Russians did it all" "no they didn't."
Both sides needed each other. The US sent millions and millions of tons of supplies to Russia, including guns of all kinds, tanks, trucks, planes, oil and gasoline, synthetic rubber, ammunition, etc., we helped them with industrial experts we sent over there when they relocated their factories to the Urals, there were several dozen German divisions that were diverted to Italy in 1943-1944, and we were the ones who eventually broke Germany's industrial capacity in late 1944 with our bombing campaign.
And they did their part by tying up and decimating hundreds of German divisions and fighting the longest and the hardest against the Nazis.
The Russians wouldn't have won without us and we wouldn't have won without them. We managed to overcome our distaste for Stalinism to beat Hitler when we needed to, sure what happened afterwards wasn't that great either but one thing at a time.
Well, kind of.
You need to be more careful about how you use "we"
On December 28 2011 05:40 darthfoley wrote: The pianist is a great WW2 based movie, on something history classes don't spend much time covering. (Warsaw uprising/ German occupation of poland)
It was really sad, yet amazing at the same time. I for one, cant get enough of WW2, avid cod1/2 player. Absolutely love WW based fps's. It's just so interesting.
and the fins kicked some tush
We watched the pianist more than once in history GCSE :>
On December 28 2011 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: It's funny and awe inspiring how anyone who fucks with mother Russia gets utterly thrashed. The soviet are pretty badass when it comes to warfare.
Under another topic and if you would've chosen other words to express you opinion I probably would've let this slip and just shrugged but like this I have to quote something from the op for you
The Soviets destroyed 75-80% of all German divisions -- 4 million soldiers -- and most of the Luftwaffe. Russia lost at least 14 million soldiers
So the efficiency of the German soldiers against the Russian soldiers should be around 350% and maybe higher, although they fought in the russian winter.
Actually that isn't likely including the full bulk of it. In terms of dead, missing, captured or disabled, the casualties for each side can be seen on page 12 and 13 of this article by David Glantz:
For the Soviet side, it was 14.7 million in total vs Japan and Germany. For the Axis (remember Germany had allies on Eastern front), the Eastern front Casualties were 10.7 million German and 1.7 million Axis. So in reality they are almost 1:1 in casualties considering the entire war. The entire Axis casualties in total were 12,483,000 soldiers killed, missing, captured, or permanently disabled in the Eastern Front.
David Glantz' statistics are confusing though, he maintains that "Overall, the RedArmy, Navy, and NKVD suffered at least 29 million and perhaps as many as 35 million military casualties"
Thats the list beside the permanent casualties (titled "Total"). I only listed the permanent casualties for the Soviets because only the permanent casualties for the Axis were listed. Non-permanent casualties would be things like wounded or sick.
If you like, you can get another credible historian on the subject to list casualties.
Your numbers are as good as any. I just sifted through a recent german study, and it puts the overall German military dead and missing at a (for me) surprisingly low 5.5 million, including those who died in captivity.
Truly horrifying is the number of civilian deaths on the Soviet side.
Oh boy, been waiting for one of these threads. I a huge fan of WWII. (Okay that sounds terrible, being a fan of a war. Lets just say I am fascinated by the war as a whole and all of its intricate details).
I'm going to add more to this post, but for now I'll let it serve as a basic placeholder.
In regards to your points OP. Well I do think you hit a lot of key areas I would like to point out that 0% chance of victory or Operation X would not work because Y said so is never a good point. I have read several passages by high ranking Wehrmacht Officials (including Von Manstein, arguably the most brillant military commander in all of Europe throughout WWII. I'm saying this from accounts of both Allied and Axis commanders. Yes, even more so than Rommel) who fully believes he could have won the war on the Eastern Front after Stalingrad and even to an extent after Kursk if it was not for the blunders and precautions of Hitlor's command. So in turn, had they won the Eastern Front, then the Western Front becomes yadada and then the War vs Japan and you understand where I am comming from right? However I do like your posts on Unit 731 and the early Japanese-Russian conflict because I think they are key things that are often overlooked. (There are estimates that the Japanese might have killed just as many civilians as the Nazis and no one seems to care)
Let me tell you what my grandmother experienced. (she was 14 when the war began).
It's not about gunfights, frontlines. It's about life at war from common people's perspective.
When germans came, life in the village didn't change almost at all. Only the land owners and people like mailman, teacher, priest chaged. German soldiers were clean, polite, never tried to steal. My grandmother even said "gentelmen" when describing their behaviour towards villagers. She was even recieving flowers from one of the officers. The only thing that indicated it was an occupation, was that they had to work for 2 hours a day building railroad and children were tought german songs in school.
When the russian army came "liberating", it was a whole another story. My grandmother had to hide in chickencoop for two weeks to avoid rape! There was no property whatsoever. Soldiers slept where they want, eat what they want. Any resistance could mean shot in the head. Officers themselves rather encouraged hatred towards villagers instead of disciplining their comrades. They were like animals. They smelled on a mile. There were louses everywhere... My grandmother said, what best describes them: "Ruskies were cooking in chamberpots and shitting in cooking pots! There was no difference for them whatsoever!"
That was the best teaching about WWII i've ever got.
On December 28 2011 07:08 5ukkub wrote: Let me tell you what my grandmother experienced. (she was 14 when the war began).
It's not about gunfights, frontlines. It's about life at war from common people's perspective.
When germans came, life in the village didn't change almost at all. Only the land owners and people like mailman, teacher, priest chaged. German soldiers were clean, polite, never tried to steal. My grandmother even said "gentelmen" when describing their behaviour towards villagers. She was even recieving flowers from one of the officers. The only thing that indicated it was an occupation, was that they had to work for 2 hours a day building railroad and children were tought german songs in school.
When the russian army came "liberating", it was a whole another story. My grandmother had to hide in chickencoop for two weeks to avoid rape! There was no property whatsoever. Soldiers slept where they want, eat what they want. Any resistance could mean shot in the head. Officers themselves rather encouraged hatred towards villagers instead of disciplining their comrades. They were like animals. They smelled on a mile. There were louses everywhere... My grandmother said, what best describes them: "Ruskies were cooking in chamberpots and shitting in cooking pots! There was no difference for them whatsoever!"
That was the best teaching about WWII i've ever got.
Haha, that is really resembling the situation was over here. Our country was allied to Germany in WW2. When they moved through the area they built roads which are still usable today, despite not being serviced properly in quite a while. Granted, we were allies, but the extent of their military involvement in the country was rather lax.
The Russians, on the other hand... When they started pressing the front, they straight up bombed civilian towns. That is, even before they entered the country. My town is situated close to the Romanian border and it was one of the towns and cities that they bombed preemptively. Never mind that they didn't actually declare war until after they'd invaded AND despite our government's attempts at avoiding occupation by the Russian forces by severing its ties with the Reich. Oh, I should also mention that we never actively deployed troops against Russia beforehand either >_> What happened afterwards wasn't really nice either, but it's another theme entirely.
I feel I need to point out to the people who say "Russia did it all", that it was the Western Allies who bombed Germany's infrastructure and factories into oblivion. If the Strategic Bombing Campaign had never happened, things wouldn't have gone so well for Russia. Remember, German forces made it so close to Moscow, they could see the Kremlin.
Imagine if they had been well-equipped and well-supplied.
I highly doubt you can name any winner in the battle of kursk. That was one bloody tie nothin more =/
The war on the eastern front was already lost when the winter came and the supply routes were freakin huge and undefendable. And no the supplies were horrible slow. No winter uniforms, not enough ammo, not enough fuel, not enough parts for vehicles/tanks/weaponry. Same with questionable decisions like takin Stalingrad (mostly only cause of its freakin name) and afterwards dividing the shrinked remains of the german army (as he wanted to secure oilfields in the south). I am sure, the war would have waged on for at least 2 years without any support by the US/canada (etc) but still, the Sovjets would have succeeded. UNquestionable for germany and everyone else, it was the better thing a 2nd and 3rd(italy) front was established.
Looking at the Battle of Britain, I always ask myself why would you change the tactic from successfully destroying the royal airforce and their airfields (even though you can fill holes with earth again but you delay any starts and landings) to bombing a city and letting the RAF get back on track using their radar in an effective way.
My grandma and grandpa both had their stories of WW2, also of the time before Hitler was in charge and I gotta admit, that I am proud of what they did and how they got through that time. From being nearly imprisoned as they refused to join the NSDAP to my grandma just doin what the heck she wanted when her dad fell sick etc. surviving a stay in a hospital for highly contagious ppl and just doin what she wanted to do several times again afterwards (like just leavin her post at the main station for one of the HQ radio and goin home again) :D My grandpa was in a maintenance team for battletanks and unfortunately I only know what he told my mum, which wasnt that much, but that he got captured in Italy after trying to escape by a river in which many of his friends were shot and barely being evaded delivered into a soviet prison (as the americans wanted him to continue repairing their stuff).
On December 28 2011 07:25 Millitron wrote: I feel I need to point out to the people who say "Russia did it all", that it was the Western Allies who bombed Germany's infrastructure and factories into oblivion. If the Strategic Bombing Campaign had never happened, things wouldn't have gone so well for Russia. Remember, German forces made it so close to Moscow, they could see the Kremlin.
Imagine if they had been well-equipped and well-supplied.
Thats really a mis-characterisation of what happened. Remember that as the Germans approached Moscow, the US was not even in the war yet and Britain was fighting for her life, so Germany's entire concentration was on Russia. It is my opinion, as a student of World War Two, that Germany had an opportunity/chance to knock Russia out. Germany's mistake is they went for Blitzkrieg - a lightning war. A lightning war is when you do not commit your economy to the war effort, you simply knock the enemy quickly. A campaign in Russia required total war, and the Germans only converted to total war when the war was lost.
Do not confuse Germany's mistakes with British and American successes.
On December 28 2011 07:34 Ph4ZeD wrote: Thats really a mis-characterisation of what happened. Remember that as the Germans approached Moscow, the US was not even in the war yet and Britain was fighting for her life, so Germany's entire concentration was on Russia. It is my opinion, as a student of World War Two, that Germany had an opportunity/chance to knock Russia out. Germany's mistake is they went for Blitzkrieg - a lightning war. A lightning war is when you do not commit your economy to the war effort, you simply knock the enemy quickly. A campaign in Russia required total war, and the Germans only converted to total war when the war was lost.
Do not confuse Germany's mistakes with British and American successes.
The main problem was that they thought they can knock out such a huge country in a one summer campaign Russia did the only right thing. retreating, hitting here and there, leaving nothing behind and then strike back after the enemy has problems supplying their tropps, the russian winter kicks in and their own industry (safely in the back of this huge country) is established. I doubt any "full war industry" would have changed that fact. You have to be well supplied, with fuel and material. Not doable, only if you have resources captured.
On December 28 2011 07:34 Ph4ZeD wrote: Thats really a mis-characterisation of what happened. Remember that as the Germans approached Moscow, the US was not even in the war yet and Britain was fighting for her life, so Germany's entire concentration was on Russia. It is my opinion, as a student of World War Two, that Germany had an opportunity/chance to knock Russia out. Germany's mistake is they went for Blitzkrieg - a lightning war. A lightning war is when you do not commit your economy to the war effort, you simply knock the enemy quickly. A campaign in Russia required total war, and the Germans only converted to total war when the war was lost.
Do not confuse Germany's mistakes with British and American successes.
The main problem was that they thought they can knock out such a huge country in a one summer campaign Russia did the only right thing. retreating, hitting here and there, leaving nothing behind and then strike back after the enemy has problems supplying their tropps, the russian winter kicks in and their own industry (safely in the back of this huge country) is established. I doubt any "full war industry" would have changed that fact. You have to be well supplied, with fuel and material. Not doable, only if you have resources captured.
I would warn against placing a revisionist spin on what happened during Operation Barbarossa. When the Germans invaded, there was no master plan by Stalin, simply catastrophe and disaster. The German offensive annihilated the best Russian armies instantly and crushed morale. Its hard to exaggerate the scale of what happened, 2/3rds of a million Russian casualties at Kiev, 6000 tanks lost at Minsk alone, the Moscow defence line shattered in days.
Lets not pretend because one side won, they had the master strategy. They didn't.
From what I been taught and the article that I have read, the Japanese were pretty suicidal. They had no reason to start a war against the United states and should of just focus on the Russia. Or they started the war way to early and should of expanded their territory into Asia more before engaging the united states. I think the reason they decided not to attack Russia was because of the harsh climate and they would probably suffer to many losses due to the climate similar to what happen to Germany when they engaged Russia. Thus they engage the United state too early and got out macroed.
From history, we know that Germany attacking Russia was a mistake because they were not ready for the harsh winter but where else could they have attacked? Attacking GB like you said, without air or naval control would be rather impossible and was the main reason why hitler decided to focus on the eastern front. I think the failure to take GB was already the beginning of the fall for the Germans.
All I can say is that most of East Asians had no problem with Nazi Germany or never had problems with them. Chinese and Japanese were allied of the Nazis. The chinese had more problem with Imperial japan and IJ had problem with ongoing war with China, USA and lastly the Soviets.
This is probably the reason why the Nazis aren't always portrayed as "bad guys" or "villains" in history books in most of East Asian countries. Hell, one of the Nazi named John Rabe actually helped to save whole bunch of Chinese civilians during the Nanjing Massacre.
On December 28 2011 06:13 atwar wrote: lets talk about the winter war or how the finnish lost 70k men and the russians 323k LOL useless russians
Wow.... First of all, the Fins actually LOST the Winter war....And the war following the Winter war as well...I wasn't aware that having a lower body count allows you to have some sort of superiority attitude...There are many reasons behind their poor performance in the war against Finland.
Oh and btw, that poster is just propaganda bullshit. The Russians weren't fighting for freedom. You can argue they were fighting for survival but its definitely not for freedom.
They never stated they were fighting for freedom. The poster was most likely not even made by the Soviets. It isn't even in any Soviet language and more importantly it looks too silly and comical to be propaganda. It's just anti-Soviet satire of the Soviets if anything. However, the Germans started the whole "let's wage war for our freedom" fad in the justification for the invasion of Poland. To be fair though, as Germany was, before electing the Nazis, very oppressed by a puppet government and bankers eating up everything domestically, and up to the start of WW2 was exploited by foreign nations through the post-WW1 terms, were at least actually fighting more more for their freedom than say we have in the past 60 years, and as you know, all our wars in this period have supposedly been for our "freedom and democracy". :|
However, the fact of the matter is the Soviets were fighting for their freedom. If they were defeated in the war, they would be under the rule of the Germans, thus killing their freedom. Furthermore, look who invaded who, and while that's irrelevant as war was inevitable between the two nations and the Germans picked the best timing to start the inevitable war with the USSR, it was very clear that if the Soviets lost, the nation would lose all freedom and would be completely subject to the Axis.
I would warn against placing a revisionist spin on what happened during Operation Barbarossa. When the Germans invaded, there was no master plan by Stalin, simply catastrophe and disaster. The German offensive annihilated the best Russian armies instantly and crushed morale. Its hard to exaggerate the scale of what happened, 2/3rds of a million Russian casualties at Kiev, 6000 tanks lost at Minsk alone, the Moscow defence line shattered in days.
You ignore the fact that the Soviets were caught completely off-guard. It was a surprise invasion, the time of which was unexpected, which was also in a period where the Soviets were in the process of re-organizing their military structure. This is why the timing was the most optimal for the Axis invasion. Give the Soviets another year to finish reorganizing, and the German juggernaut would have been stopped much sooner than at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad. Maybe even at Kiev and Minsk. Possibly even at Soviet-occupied Poland.
On December 28 2011 06:13 atwar wrote: lets talk about the winter war or how the finnish lost 70k men and the russians 323k LOL useless russians
Wow.... First of all, the Fins actually LOST the Winter war....And the war following the Winter war as well...I wasn't aware that having a lower body count allows you to have some sort of superiority attitude...There are many reasons behind their poor performance in the war against Finland.
Oh and btw, that poster is just propaganda bullshit. The Russians weren't fighting for freedom. You can argue they were fighting for survival but its definitely not for freedom.
They never stated they were fighting for freedom. The poster wasn't most likely not even made by the Soviets. It isn't even in any Soviet language and more importantly it looks too silly and comical to be propaganda. It's just anti-Soviet satire of the Soviets if anything. However, the Germans started the whole "let's wage war for our freedom" fad in the justification for the invasion of Poland. To be fair though, as Germany was, before electing the Nazis, very oppressed by a puppet government and bankers eating up everything domestically, and up to the start of WW2 was exploited by foreign nations through the post-WW1 terms, were at least actually fighting more more for their freedom than say we have in the past 60 years, and as you know, all our wars in this period have supposedly been for our "freedom and democracy". :|
However, the fact of the matter is the Soviets were fighting for their freedom. If they were defeated in the war, they would be under the rule of the Germans, thus killing their freedom. Furthermore, look who invaded who, and while that's irrelevant as war was inevitable between the two nations and the Germans picked the best timing to start the inevitable war with the USSR, it was very clear that if the Soviets lost, the nation would lose all freedom and would be completely subject to the Axis.
That depends on your perspective on freedom. Large areas of the USSR hated Stalin and the Kremlin - they had their own identities and hated the Soviet policy of stamping it out. Just like Libyan/Syrian citizens hoped for foreign intervention, many cultures within the USSR wanted to see an attack on Russia.
On December 28 2011 07:49 SheaR619 wrote: From what I been taught and the article that I have read, the Japanese were pretty suicidal. They had no reason to start a war against the United states and should of just focus on the Russia. Or they started the war way to early and should of expanded their territory into Asia more before engaging the united states. I think the reason they decided not to attack Russia was because of the harsh climate and they would probably suffer to many losses due to the climate similar to what happen to Germany when they engaged Russia. Thus they engage the United state too early and got out macroed.
From history, we know that Germany attacking Russia was a mistake because they were not ready for the harsh winter but where else could they have attacked?Attacking GB like you said, without air or naval control would be rather impossible and was the main reason why hitler decided to focus on the eastern front. I think the failure to take GB was already the beginning of the fall for the Germans.
There are several things which troubled me when I read this post but I'll try to focus on the 2 mainreasons here.
1. They could've concentrated their forces in the west and actually everywhere else where they needed them instead of trying to conquer russia and forcing themselve to bring their men to the east 2. The main reason(and pretty much the only reason...) why hitler decided to attack the russians was no rational decission, russia was an ally of germany(Stalin didn't believe it at first when he was told that hitler decided to attack russia), the mainmotive was founded in his views on the races and a certain degree of paranoia.
On December 28 2011 07:46 Ph4ZeD wrote: I would warn against placing a revisionist spin on what happened during Operation Barbarossa. When the Germans invaded, there was no master plan by Stalin, simply catastrophe and disaster. The German offensive annihilated the best Russian armies instantly and crushed morale. Its hard to exaggerate the scale of what happened, 2/3rds of a million Russian casualties at Kiev, 6000 tanks lost at Minsk alone, the Moscow defence line shattered in days.
Lets not pretend because one side won, they had the master strategy. They didn't.
You got a point there, as Stalin didnt expect Germany to attack it was quite the surprise and that gave the german army also quite an advantage. Also after the Winter War Russia realized their army's structure sux and they started changing to a more "german" way of army structure.
Also take into account, that the Russians actually could afford losing that much material and human "Material"
Attacking GB like you said, without air or naval control would be rather impossible and was the main reason why hitler decided to focus on the eastern front.
Naval domination isnt that important. First and most important thing is the air superior, and that is where they failed miserably after a very successfuk start they changed the tactic which ruined it. Naval warfare proved to be inferior to airplanes, as one torpedo, one bomb can sink whole warship
ohhhh i just read an awesome book on WWII called All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-1945 by Max Hastings, I highly recommend it as it gives a pretty awesome account of a lot of things already discussed in this thread. Such as operation barborossa, a very detailed account of the eastern front. the fighting in the pacific as well. and also reasons for pearl harbor.
you can find the book online if you look hard enough o; as it is semi-expensive, or at your library
but regarding the topic itself.. i feel pretty bad that such terrible things could actually happen. specifically stuff on the eastern front. of course im not surprised by the variability in human behavior, from peaceful people into pretty not so peaceful people... but ahh, it's disappointing to be part of humanity when I think of what's happen in the past
On December 28 2011 08:09 jodogohoo wrote: ohhhh i just read an awesome book on WWII called All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-1945 by Max Hastings, I highly recommend it as it gives a pretty awesome account of a lot of things already discussed in this thread. Such as operation barborossa, a very detailed account of the eastern front. the fighting in the pacific as well. and also reasons for pearl harbor.
you can find the book online if you look hard enough o; as it is semi-expensive, or at your library
but regarding the topic itself.. i feel pretty bad that such terrible things could actually happen. specifically stuff on the eastern front. of course im not surprised by the variability in human behavior, from peaceful people into pretty not so peaceful people... but ahh, it's disappointing to be part of humanity when I think of what's happen in the past
If most people really knew what happened on the Eastern Front, it would change their perspective on humanity. It even can put the Holocaust in perspective. However, the westernised, Call of Duty brigade have made D-Day the star of the show, and the Allied invasion too. No one knows about the terrible loss of life in Russia.
I just wanted to point out a statement of my grandpa who fought in Russia and was hit in the arm (destroying some nerves, he can barely move his left hand since then): He said he doesn't regret joining the Wehrmacht voluntarily, if he hadn't done that he might be dead now. I really had nice and interesting conversations with him about WWII. First there was like a barrier approaching this theme because I can understand that you wouldn't like to talk about this, but then he gave me some insight. All in all he just tried to live through the war (he was lucky though to live in a smaller town with an harbor which wasn't bombed because there were neutral swedish ships) without getting involved in anything that might be harmful. He didn't shoot a man or sth. like that. After that I feel like we should respect these people more, most of them weren't evil or only did evil things after being manipulated over years. My brother once asked my grandpa wether he "bumped off a Russian" in war. I felt so terrible hearing that question.
Germany did initially completely dominate Britain, Herman Görring controlled Britain completely, because they had military targets. But after a while, they took civilian targets. While this sound horrible, it's probably 1 of the most deciding factors in the war, because sure, USA came into the war, but fact is they weren't well trained and generally not very beneficial in winning. But this, this allowed british troops to get in the air and fight the german pilots(before they couldn't even get into their plains) Churchill is very famous for a quote on this, saying ''Never has so few, did so much for so many'' about the RAF. Without this change in tactics, Britain could have never joined the battle, because they would have been under siege.
They probably couldn't ever take control of the sea, but they had too much control of the air, so it didn't really matter. This was never a joke attack... Even Nazis doesn't joke with bombs
On December 28 2011 08:29 Cinim wrote: about the operation seelöwe(the actual name!!)
Germany did initially completely dominate Britain, Herman Görring controlled Britain completely, because they had military targets. But after a while, they took civilian targets. While this sound horrible, it's probably 1 of the most deciding factors in the war, because sure, USA came into the war, but fact is they weren't well trained and generally not very beneficial in winning. But this, this allowed british troops to get in the air and fight the german pilots(before they couldn't even get into their plains) Churchill is very famous for a quote on this, saying ''Never has so few, did so much for so many'' about the RAF. Without this change in tactics, Britain could have never joined the battle, because they would have been under siege.
They probably couldn't ever take control of the sea, but they had too much control of the air, so it didn't really matter. This was never a joke attack... Even Nazis doesn't joke with bombs
I'd suggest that you read your post and then teh post it was directed to again.
On December 28 2011 08:29 Cinim wrote: about the operation seelöwe(the actual name!!)
Germany did initially completely dominate Britain, Herman Görring controlled Britain completely, because they had military targets. But after a while, they took civilian targets. While this sound horrible, it's probably 1 of the most deciding factors in the war, because sure, USA came into the war, but fact is they weren't well trained and generally not very beneficial in winning. But this, this allowed british troops to get in the air and fight the german pilots(before they couldn't even get into their plains) Churchill is very famous for a quote on this, saying ''Never has so few, did so much for so many'' about the RAF. Without this change in tactics, Britain could have never joined the battle, because they would have been under siege.
They probably couldn't ever take control of the sea, but they had too much control of the air, so it didn't really matter. This was never a joke attack... Even Nazis doesn't joke with bombs
What I got from this - America was just a huge decoy.
On December 28 2011 07:08 5ukkub wrote: Let me tell you what my grandmother experienced. (she was 14 when the war began).
It's not about gunfights, frontlines. It's about life at war from common people's perspective.
When germans came, life in the village didn't change almost at all. Only the land owners and people like mailman, teacher, priest chaged. German soldiers were clean, polite, never tried to steal. My grandmother even said "gentelmen" when describing their behaviour towards villagers. She was even recieving flowers from one of the officers. The only thing that indicated it was an occupation, was that they had to work for 2 hours a day building railroad and children were tought german songs in school.
When the russian army came "liberating", it was a whole another story. My grandmother had to hide in chickencoop for two weeks to avoid rape! There was no property whatsoever. Soldiers slept where they want, eat what they want. Any resistance could mean shot in the head. Officers themselves rather encouraged hatred towards villagers instead of disciplining their comrades. They were like animals. They smelled on a mile. There were louses everywhere... My grandmother said, what best describes them: "Ruskies were cooking in chamberpots and shitting in cooking pots! There was no difference for them whatsoever!"
That was the best teaching about WWII i've ever got.
While we're at sharing stories from them grandparents...
My grandfather (born 1937) told me more than once about how it was regular business for the american fighter planes to shoot them on their way to school. Yes, we're talking about 6-7 year old kids. Part of this experience was the reason for him becoming a pilot later in his life. What he learned is: The height at which he was shot from when he was a kid is a height at which the pilot was 100% aware that he was shooting children, not grown men.
A story from my great-grandmother (born 1911, she owned a bakery in nuremberg during the war) was that at one point shortly before the war ended (1944ish) a black GI came into her house with some kind of MP in his hand shouting "EGGS. GIB EGGS." while pointing the gun at her - from what she remembered he looked as if he hasn't eaten since days. Once she figured out what he was on about she threw him about 10 eggs into a pan, and gave him some bread on top of it. He sat in the kitchen, eating his eggs with the MP next to him, finished, said "Danke Fräulein" and left.
War isn't always what it looks like afterwards. Whoever claims that one side was all evil or all good is most likely pretty damn wrong.
On December 28 2011 07:52 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On December 28 2011 06:31 Sithelin123 wrote:
On December 28 2011 06:13 atwar wrote: lets talk about the winter war or how the finnish lost 70k men and the russians 323k LOL useless russians
Wow.... First of all, the Fins actually LOST the Winter war....And the war following the Winter war as well...I wasn't aware that having a lower body count allows you to have some sort of superiority attitude...There are many reasons behind their poor performance in the war against Finland.
Oh and btw, that poster is just propaganda bullshit. The Russians weren't fighting for freedom. You can argue they were fighting for survival but its definitely not for freedom.
They never stated they were fighting for freedom. The poster wasn't most likely not even made by the Soviets. It isn't even in any Soviet language and more importantly it looks too silly and comical to be propaganda. It's just anti-Soviet satire of the Soviets if anything. However, the Germans started the whole "let's wage war for our freedom" fad in the justification for the invasion of Poland. To be fair though, as Germany was, before electing the Nazis, very oppressed by a puppet government and bankers eating up everything domestically, and up to the start of WW2 was exploited by foreign nations through the post-WW1 terms, were at least actually fighting more more for their freedom than say we have in the past 60 years, and as you know, all our wars in this period have supposedly been for our "freedom and democracy". :|
However, the fact of the matter is the Soviets were fighting for their freedom. If they were defeated in the war, they would be under the rule of the Germans, thus killing their freedom. Furthermore, look who invaded who, and while that's irrelevant as war was inevitable between the two nations and the Germans picked the best timing to start the inevitable war with the USSR, it was very clear that if the Soviets lost, the nation would lose all freedom and would be completely subject to the Axis.
That depends on your perspective on freedom. Large areas of the USSR hated Stalin and the Kremlin - they had their own identities and hated the Soviet policy of stamping it out. Just like Libyan/Syrian citizens hoped for foreign intervention, many cultures within the USSR wanted to see an attack on Russia.
I assume you refer to the Baltic countries that hold parades in honor of the Nazis to this day as far as national freedom goes. But Stalin was mostly hated because he tore down the Soviet system, and made it authoritarian. This is why Lenin warned against Stalin, and why Lenin to this day is considered a superhero while Stalin, even in Russia, is meh, despite his achievements being greater than Lenin's. Character counts.. Still, we have to evaluate what's the best there could be. With Lenin with a stroke, there came the Trotsky-Stalin power struggle, so for certain we know the Soviet parliamentary/council and republican system was going to go bye bye. Between those two, Stalin is easily far more competent a leader. We can see in little more than a decade, Russia went from a highly agrarian country to a highly advanced industrial powerhouse. If that didn't happen, the Germans would have walked over the Soviet Union, and then the rest of Europe, and would have their planned conquered territory meet-up with the Japanese somewhere in central Asia. So given the circumstances, there really wasn't anything better.
That said, the Soviets could have taken the approach others before them have taken, and which we have taken, which means practically exterminating native minority cultures that are rowdy. Good thing they didn't. Also, the administration in Moscow is responsible for bringing these other Soviet countries and also the Warsaw Pact bloc into the modern era. I don't think many people realize this, but a century ago in Europe, only the big European powers like Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia (maybe one or two others) were modernized by the standards of a century ago. The rest of Europe was really, really far behind, and the Balkans and eastern Europe (excluding Russia) were in the worst state.
Germany did initially completely dominate Britain, Herman Görring controlled Britain completely, because they had military targets. But after a while, they took civilian targets. While this sound horrible, it's probably 1 of the most deciding factors in the war, because sure, USA came into the war, but fact is they weren't well trained and generally not very beneficial in winning. But this, this allowed british troops to get in the air and fight the german pilots(before they couldn't even get into their plains) Churchill is very famous for a quote on this, saying ''Never has so few, did so much for so many'' about the RAF. Without this change in tactics, Britain could have never joined the battle, because they would have been under siege.
Hitler was a very weird man. On the one hand, he brutally hated socialists, Slavs, and Jews. On the other, when it came to Americans and western Europeans, he was the most humane leader in the war. German generals sternly advised it was necessary to terrorize the British through attacks on civilian targets, even important ones (power generation, production, etc.), and the British would have most certainly surrendered. However, he furiously refused such an action, until the very last days of the BoB. Also do note that the British bombed Germany before the Battle of Britain...
Also, if the British were so pummeled and beaten they couldn't do anything, then the "change in tactics" by the Germans would not have "turned" the battle for the British, and the Germans were still almost completely concentrating on military targets, but diverting some to attacking critical strategic civilian targets as well, so it's not like they completely ignored British forces.
From the military standpoint, the Germans should have done that from the outset. Destroy every power plant, industrial zone, and other structures required for a country to function, and they would have won outright without a boot on the ground. But like on many occasions, Hitler had to fuck up.
Also, in those days, it was stupid to fight only with aircraft against aircraft AND air defenses. However, if they really had to go with attacking military targets only strategy most of the battle, then had the Axis not had most of their military on the Soviet border, they could have coupled it up with an amphibious and paratrooper assault (especially the famous Fallschirmjaeger) and Britain wouldn't have stood a chance.
My grandfather (born 1937) told me more than once about how it was regular business for the american fighter planes to shoot them on their way to school. Yes, we're talking about 6-7 year old kids. Part of this experience was the reason for him becoming a pilot later in his life. What he learned is: The height at which he was shot from when he was a kid is a height at which the pilot was 100% aware that he was shooting children, not grown men.
I'm aware of many Allied atrocities, even if practically all of them are really swept under the rug, but this is really fucked up coming from the "good guy" in the war, and I've actually never heard of it. Just goes to show how things work. I don't think there's a chance in hell I'd ever accept an order to attack beyond a critical non-military strategic targets, which will still always kill tons of civilians, but being told to outright kill civilians is monstrous, especially at the time in a war when such things are not in the least necessary for victory.
I figured I might as well save this http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hh this guy has a lot of great pod casts discussing WW2 and other events in history. He has a very good series on the Eastern front for anyone that's interested.
Wasn't Britain almost completely starved out? Wasn't the Atlantic u-boat blockade still in effect when Hitler decided to attack Russia? Im not 100% sure of all the facts but I remember reading an opinion that if Hitler actually waited a little longer before attacking Russia, Britain probably would have surrendered.
Im sure that the civilian bombings had an impact but wouldn't the bigger impact be if you didn't have the raw materials to supply the industry?
On December 28 2011 08:50 Endymion wrote: war is glamorous until you're the one holding the rifle under a hail of gunfire.
Well, yeah. I would even say that war is glamorous until you get a brain and start thinking.
Then you realize it's not glamorous at all to be reduced to pieces of meat or have your intestines out of your belly. That it's not glamorous to have your kids, brothers or husband being slaughtered because people are too dumb to realize the value of human life. The closest I get to war without feeling disgust is Starcraft.
On the Soviet vs West in scale of "winning the war" I have a little saying:
When the bear beats the wolf, you still lose.
Let's not forget that the Soviets were more than happy to invade Poland, slaughter innocents, ignore human rights, and basically be just as big a group of assholes as the Nazis were. Also, they were funded by the West. That point is almost never brought up either by people who portray the West as inconsequential to the outcome of the war. Which is a hilarious attitude considering the later assertion that the Nazi's couldn't even hope to invade Britain, much less the United States. This revisionist history of the West as a bunch of bumbling idiots who just happened to be in the right place at the right time while the Soviets were the unstoppable world powers that single-handily won the war, it's just downright insulting to everyone involved.
Could the Japanese have won the war? Depends on what you mean by "won". Do you mean "get away with Pearl Harbor"? Then no. As soon as they managed to fall all over themselves giving FDR the excuse he wanted they were as screwed as a hen in a fox house. And no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I don't think FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen. But he was looking for a way to get into that war, and was more than happy to oblige the Japanese when they came a-knocking. If they hadn't been so eager to conquer themselves, and stuck to crapping on China's day... I don't know. Maybe they could; probably not. Evil regimes like that have a way of eating themselves Soviet Union style.
The Battle you mentioned. I had never heard about that, which is surprising. So I looked it up. It wasn't exactly a "battle" (IMO), nor did it happen quite how it was described in the OP. Things were not going well for the Japanese, true, they were sorely lacking in supplies while the Soviets were doing alright in that dept. The Japanese also had less armor, and smaller weapons. They still managed to keep it at a stalemate, until the Soviets built up a much larger force with much better supplies under the man who would become the most highly decorated Soviet general in the entire war and led a surprise attack to expel the Japanese from where they had invaded. I understand the point being made here,and I kind of agree, but let's be honest with ourselves.
Let's put it this way: a lot of Russians donned German uniforms to try to destroy the Soviet Union. More people were killed by the Soviet Union than either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Keep things in context here.
On December 28 2011 08:55 Flik wrote: Wasn't Britain almost completely starved out? Wasn't the Atlantic u-boat blockade still in effect when Hitler decided to attack Russia? Im not 100% sure of all the facts but I remember reading an opinion that if Hitler actually waited a little longer before attacking Russia, Britain probably would have surrendered.
Im sure that the civilian bombings had an impact but wouldn't the bigger impact be if you didn't have the raw materials to supply the industry?
Hitler fucked up a lot of things. Germany, for all intents and purposes, under a competent leader, should have won the war.
On December 28 2011 08:55 Flik wrote: Wasn't Britain almost completely starved out? Wasn't the Atlantic u-boat blockade still in effect when Hitler decided to attack Russia? Im not 100% sure of all the facts but I remember reading an opinion that if Hitler actually waited a little longer before attacking Russia, Britain probably would have surrendered.
Im sure that the civilian bombings had an impact but wouldn't the bigger impact be if you didn't have the raw materials to supply the industry?
Hitler fucked up a lot of things. Germany, for all intents and purposes, under a competent leader, should have won the war.
we should be happy that Hitler wasn't competent then.
On December 28 2011 08:55 Flik wrote: Wasn't Britain almost completely starved out? Wasn't the Atlantic u-boat blockade still in effect when Hitler decided to attack Russia? Im not 100% sure of all the facts but I remember reading an opinion that if Hitler actually waited a little longer before attacking Russia, Britain probably would have surrendered.
Im sure that the civilian bombings had an impact but wouldn't the bigger impact be if you didn't have the raw materials to supply the industry?
Hitler fucked up a lot of things. Germany, for all intents and purposes, under a competent leader, should have won the war.
we should be happy that Hitler wasn't competent then.
Indeed.
Although it is interesting to think IF he was. Would he have broke his treaty with Italy, taking them over? Spain? If America stayed out of the war, would he have eventually tried to invade the States? Just how far would he go, I wonder?
lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
On December 28 2011 08:55 Flik wrote: Wasn't Britain almost completely starved out? Wasn't the Atlantic u-boat blockade still in effect when Hitler decided to attack Russia? Im not 100% sure of all the facts but I remember reading an opinion that if Hitler actually waited a little longer before attacking Russia, Britain probably would have surrendered.
Im sure that the civilian bombings had an impact but wouldn't the bigger impact be if you didn't have the raw materials to supply the industry?
Hitler fucked up a lot of things. Germany, for all intents and purposes, under a competent leader, should have won the war.
we should be happy that Hitler wasn't competent then.
Indeed.
Although it is interesting to think IF he was. Would he have broke his treaty with Italy, taking them over? Spain? If America stayed out of the war, would he have eventually tried to invade the States? Just how far would he go, I wonder?
There were (completely unrealistic) plans of invading the states, dont know much about Spain/Italy though. I don't like thinking of the posibilities Hitler had or how much he could've conquored and how much more suffering he could've caused. WWII was good for Germany in an economic way though. The loser of the war (Germany) managed to get up economically from nothing after the war while the winner (Great Britain) still had some struggles economically. Of course it was possible by the help/ dispence of war debts by the winners, but it still is an interesting fact...
On December 28 2011 09:21 Romantic wrote: Germany was never in a strategically viable position. Not Hitler as a leader wouldn't have helped on the magnitude necessary.
You have no idea dude.
If Hitler never invaded Russia, the Western Front would never have stood a chance. They barely broke through in D-Day/the ensuing days in France against, what was the figure again, 20% of Germany's forces and almost none of its Luftwaffe and Armor divisions? Honestly, if Germany just didn't break the treaty with Russia, we would not have stood a remote chance of defeating them. There were multiple times during the ensuing days after Normandy that higher ups were afraid of being pushed back into the sea essentially because of how many logistical and intelligence errors were made Hitler's stupidity and their completely silly chain of command is what fucked them over, not their strategic position.
Like I said on the first page, there was a huge Panzer division waiting ready to go in to Normandy at 6AM on D-Day that could have effectively stopped the invasion in its tracks, or at least make it EXTREMELY hard. Yet Hitler decided to sleep in, and only he could give such an order, and they weren't sent out until 3PM. Not to overblow that moment as a "war changing" one, but I wanted to make the point -- Germany had every opportunity to win and you'd be very ignorant to think otherwise. There are literally thousands of stories like this out there where miscommunications, messups in chain of command, etc. caused a massive failure in German war efforts. The timing was also bad, as someone said on the 2nd(?) page. Some of their most powerful weapons came at the very end of the war that could have outright won it for them if they had them from the beginning.
On December 28 2011 09:21 Romantic wrote: Germany was never in a strategically viable position. Not Hitler as a leader wouldn't have helped on the magnitude necessary.
You have no idea dude.
If Hitler never invaded Russia, the Western Front would never have stood a chance. They barely broke through in D-Day/the ensuing days in France against, what was the figure again, 20% of Germany's forces and almost none of its Luftwaffe and Armor divisions? Honestly, if Germany just didn't break the treaty with Russia, we would not have stood a remote chance of defeating them. Hitler's stupidity and their completely silly chain of command is what fucked them over, not their strategic position. The timing was also bad, as someone said on the 2nd(?) page. Some of their most powerful weapons came at the very end of the war that could have outright won it for them if they had them from the beginning.
If if if if. That's all I hear. Saying that Germany and the USSR could co-exist is naive as saying the USSR and USA could co-exist for any extended period.
Just IMO that treaty was going to be broken no matter what.
On December 28 2011 09:21 Romantic wrote: Germany was never in a strategically viable position. Not Hitler as a leader wouldn't have helped on the magnitude necessary.
You have no idea dude.
If Hitler never invaded Russia, the Western Front would never have stood a chance. They barely broke through in D-Day/the ensuing days in France against, what was the figure again, 20% of Germany's forces and almost none of its Luftwaffe and Armor divisions? Honestly, if Germany just didn't break the treaty with Russia, we would not have stood a remote chance of defeating them. Hitler's stupidity and their completely silly chain of command is what fucked them over, not their strategic position. The timing was also bad, as someone said on the 2nd(?) page. Some of their most powerful weapons came at the very end of the war that could have outright won it for them if they had them from the beginning.
If if if if. That's all I hear. Saying that Germany and the USSR could co-exist is naive as saying the USSR and USA could co-exist for any extended period.
Just IMO that treaty was going to be broken no matter what.
Who said coexist?
I said if he waited. He attacked far too soon. He should have waited until Britain was under his boot before breaking that treaty. Of course the breaking was inevitable, both sides knew such. However, it was broken far too early in Germany's disfavor.
And of course it's "if if if", that's the point of hypothetical's
Nonetheless, the Pacific Front was far more interesting than the European one in my opinion.
@JudicatorHammurabi When Germany broke the alliance with Soviet Union in 1941 and attacked them, Germans were making reports how the civilians greets their army. And the reports states, that at the begining people were very happy that they are being freed from the Soviets. This attitude was changing quickly, but it shows that, indeed, east european contries hated Stalin and Soviet Union. I would say that the attraction to Germany was caused by USSR.
Look at the bright side, with the introduction of the EU and NATO and all that -- a war like WW2 probably won't ever happen again. Now we just got to worry about Nuclear Holocaust and all that shit
On December 28 2011 07:49 SheaR619 wrote: From what I been taught and the article that I have read, the Japanese were pretty suicidal. They had no reason to start a war against the United states and should of just focus on the Russia. Or they started the war way to early and should of expanded their territory into Asia more before engaging the united states. I think the reason they decided not to attack Russia was because of the harsh climate and they would probably suffer to many losses due to the climate similar to what happen to Germany when they engaged Russia. Thus they engage the United state too early and got out macroed.
From history, we know that Germany attacking Russia was a mistake because they were not ready for the harsh winter but where else could they have attacked?Attacking GB like you said, without air or naval control would be rather impossible and was the main reason why hitler decided to focus on the eastern front. I think the failure to take GB was already the beginning of the fall for the Germans.
There are several things which troubled me when I read this post but I'll try to focus on the 2 mainreasons here.
1. They could've concentrated their forces in the west and actually everywhere else where they needed them instead of trying to conquer russia and forcing themselve to bring their men to the east 2. The main reason(and pretty much the only reason...) why hitler decided to attack the russians was no rational decission, russia was an ally of germany(Stalin didn't believe it at first when he was told that hitler decided to attack russia), the mainmotive was founded in his views on the races and a certain degree of paranoia.
A major motivator for Hitler in attacking Russia was that he was afraid that he would die before the job was done (ie. the world was at his feet). Combined with the fact that he didn't feel they were making enough progress with Britain and not perceiving them as an offensive threat.
I feel your reasons are more general in why he would ever want to attack Russia. To us, it's obvious that he would have attacked (or perhaps been attacked by) Russia at some point, due to different views on both race (slavs being some sort of subhuman) and forms of government.
On December 28 2011 09:21 Romantic wrote: Germany was never in a strategically viable position. Not Hitler as a leader wouldn't have helped on the magnitude necessary.
You have no idea dude.
If Hitler never invaded Russia, the Western Front would never have stood a chance. They barely broke through in D-Day/the ensuing days in France against, what was the figure again, 20% of Germany's forces and almost none of its Luftwaffe and Armor divisions? Honestly, if Germany just didn't break the treaty with Russia, we would not have stood a remote chance of defeating them. There were multiple times during the ensuing days after Normandy that higher ups were afraid of being pushed back into the sea essentially because of how many logistical and intelligence errors were made Hitler's stupidity and their completely silly chain of command is what fucked them over, not their strategic position.
Like I said on the first page, there was a huge Panzer division waiting ready to go in to Normandy at 6AM on D-Day that could have effectively stopped the invasion in its tracks, or at least make it EXTREMELY hard. Yet Hitler decided to sleep in, and only he could give such an order, and they weren't sent out until 3PM. Not to overblow that moment as a "war changing" one, but I wanted to make the point -- Germany had every opportunity to win and you'd be very ignorant to think otherwise. There are literally thousands of stories like this out there where miscommunications, messups in chain of command, etc. caused a massive failure in German war efforts. The timing was also bad, as someone said on the 2nd(?) page. Some of their most powerful weapons came at the very end of the war that could have outright won it for them if they had them from the beginning.
First off.. You can't forget that Normandy wasn't the only front the Allies had. By this point in war, Africa and Southern Italy were lost, and an invasion also ensued in Southern France at approximately the same time as Normandy.
The invasion of Russia was somewhat illogical, yet at the same time it was hugely successful. Rommel and other commanders of the German high command (notably Manstein) advocated for an end to the Mediterranean Front before they ensue an invasion of Russia, especially as Afrika Corps was a mere expeditionary force sent out to aid the Italians in Libya. However, Rommel was hugely successful not only in repelling the British Eighty Army, but pushed them all the way back into Egpyt, and added with success in the Balkans (capitulation of most of the Balkans after a failed Italian invasion), Russia seemed like a sweetspot (after all, that was the point of Hitler's main objective, to reconquer Eastern Europe)
One must also remember that Russia was severely weakened in reputation as well as its military hiearchy. Its struggles against Poland and Finland showed the weakness of the Red Army, and furthermore, Stalin ensued a series of executions known as the "great purge' that led to the execution not only of his political rivals,but of most of the military command. This was shown evident in the layout of the Russian army, who had positioned most of its resources and manpower at the front rather than in reserves, and the Germans took advantage. In the months leading upto the winter, Germany indeed took huge advantage, capturing hundreds of thousands of pows (at Kiev alone capturing 500 000 men), and destroying the entire Russian air force. When Ukraine (where two-thirds of Russia's production came from) was completely occupied by German forces, you could almost see it as a huge strategic victory for the Germans.
Several things changed in the course of history that ultimately ended Germany's success. The biggest was that the Americans had joined the war, and despite never sending soldiers to the Eastern Front, contributed heavily by sending chevy trucks (to which there was nothing equal in Russia at the time) and helped rebuild much of the infrastructure in the Eastern Front. Furthermore, the war had continued on to the winter time, and rather than securing their positions and preparing for a winter offensive, Hitler, against the advice of the German high command, trucked his forces across pretty much all of Russia, attempting to defeat Russia in Moscow, (center), Leningrad (north) and Stalingrad (south). This might have worked, had the Americans not entered the war and Japan decided to focus its troops (outside of China) to the Pacific than towards Russia, freeing up Zhukov and his some two million fresh reinforcements to relieve the Soviet cities and completely surround the German armies. This was worsened by German defeat at El Alamein, and further pushed back when fresh American troops landed in Africa to defeat the last of the Italian and German forces, eventually forcing Germany to open another front in Italy, who was pretty much knocked out of the war at this point.
On December 28 2011 09:21 Romantic wrote: Germany was never in a strategically viable position. Not Hitler as a leader wouldn't have helped on the magnitude necessary.
You have no idea dude.
If Hitler never invaded Russia, the Western Front would never have stood a chance. They barely broke through in D-Day/the ensuing days in France against, what was the figure again, 20% of Germany's forces and almost none of its Luftwaffe and Armor divisions? Honestly, if Germany just didn't break the treaty with Russia, we would not have stood a remote chance of defeating them. There were multiple times during the ensuing days after Normandy that higher ups were afraid of being pushed back into the sea essentially because of how many logistical and intelligence errors were made Hitler's stupidity and their completely silly chain of command is what fucked them over, not their strategic position.
Like I said on the first page, there was a huge Panzer division waiting ready to go in to Normandy at 6AM on D-Day that could have effectively stopped the invasion in its tracks, or at least make it EXTREMELY hard. Yet Hitler decided to sleep in, and only he could give such an order, and they weren't sent out until 3PM. Not to overblow that moment as a "war changing" one, but I wanted to make the point -- Germany had every opportunity to win and you'd be very ignorant to think otherwise. There are literally thousands of stories like this out there where miscommunications, messups in chain of command, etc. caused a massive failure in German war efforts. The timing was also bad, as someone said on the 2nd(?) page. Some of their most powerful weapons came at the very end of the war that could have outright won it for them if they had them from the beginning.
First off.. You can't forget that Normandy wasn't the only front the Allies had. By this point in war, Africa and Southern Italy were lost, and an invasion also ensued in Southern France at approximately the same time as Normandy.
The invasion of Russia was somewhat illogical, yet at the same time it was hugely successful. Rommel and other commanders of the German high command (notably Manstein) advocated for an end to the Mediterranean Front before they ensue an invasion of Russia, especially as Afrika Corps was a mere expeditionary force sent out to aid the Italians in Libya. However, Rommel was hugely successful not only in repelling the British Eighty Army, but pushed them all the way back into Egpyt, and added with success in the Balkans (capitulation of most of the Balkans after a failed Italian invasion), Russia seemed like a sweetspot (after all, that was the point of Hitler's main objective, to reconquer Eastern Europe)
One must also remember that Russia was severely weakened in reputation as well as its military hiearchy. Its struggles against Poland and Finland showed the weakness of the Red Army, and furthermore, Stalin ensued a series of executions known as the "great purge' that led to the execution not only of his political rivals,but of most of the military command. This was shown evident in the layout of the Russian army, who had positioned most of its resources and manpower at the front rather than in reserves, and the Germans took advantage. In the months leading upto the winter, Germany indeed took huge advantage, capturing hundreds of thousands of pows (at Kiev alone capturing 500 000 men), and destroying the entire Russian air force. When Ukraine (where two-thirds of Russia's production came from) was completely occupied by German forces, you could almost see it as a huge strategic victory for the Germans.
Several things changed in the course of history that ultimately ended Germany's success. The biggest was that the Americans had joined the war, and despite never sending soldiers to the Eastern Front, contributed heavily by sending chevy trucks (to which there was nothing equal in Russia at the time) and helped rebuild much of the infrastructure in the Eastern Front. Furthermore, the war had continued on to the winter time, and rather than securing their positions and preparing for a winter offensive, Hitler, against the advice of the German high command, trucked his forces across pretty much all of Russia, attempting to defeat Russia in Moscow, (center), Leningrad (north) and Stalingrad (south). This might have worked, had the Americans not entered the war and Japan decided to focus its troops (outside of China) to the Pacific than towards Russia, freeing up Zhukov and his some two million fresh reinforcements to relieve the Soviet cities and completely surround the German armies. This was worsened by German defeat at El Alamein, and further pushed back when fresh American troops landed in Africa to defeat the last of the Italian and German forces, eventually forcing Germany to open another front in Italy, who was pretty much knocked out of the war at this point.
This just leads me wondering what Germany could have done to keep Japan out of attacking America. Were they even informed by Japan of the plans to attack Pearl Harbor? If so, why did they not do anything to try and prevent it? If Japan merely let America keep neutral, so much would have gone in their favor. Not that I'm complaining or anything.
On December 28 2011 07:49 SheaR619 wrote: From what I been taught and the article that I have read, the Japanese were pretty suicidal. They had no reason to start a war against the United states and should of just focus on the Russia. Or they started the war way to early and should of expanded their territory into Asia more before engaging the united states. I think the reason they decided not to attack Russia was because of the harsh climate and they would probably suffer to many losses due to the climate similar to what happen to Germany when they engaged Russia. Thus they engage the United state too early and got out macroed.
From history, we know that Germany attacking Russia was a mistake because they were not ready for the harsh winter but where else could they have attacked?Attacking GB like you said, without air or naval control would be rather impossible and was the main reason why hitler decided to focus on the eastern front. I think the failure to take GB was already the beginning of the fall for the Germans.
There are several things which troubled me when I read this post but I'll try to focus on the 2 mainreasons here.
1. They could've concentrated their forces in the west and actually everywhere else where they needed them instead of trying to conquer russia and forcing themselve to bring their men to the east 2. The main reason(and pretty much the only reason...) why hitler decided to attack the russians was no rational decission, russia was an ally of germany(Stalin didn't believe it at first when he was told that hitler decided to attack russia), the mainmotive was founded in his views on the races and a certain degree of paranoia.
A major motivator for Hitler in attacking Russia was that he was afraid that he would die before the job was done (ie. the world was at his feet). Combined with the fact that he didn't feel they were making enough progress with Britain and not perceiving them as an offensive threat.
I feel your reasons are more general in why he would ever want to attack Russia. To us, it's obvious that he would have attacked (or perhaps been attacked by) Russia at some point, due to different views on both race (slavs being some sort of subhuman) and forms of government.
Actually no, Hitler's invasion of Russia was logical in his pov. His main foreign policy was to clear up Eastern Europe of "lesser" humans and repopulate the area with Germans (lebransraum),
A friend of a friend of mine studied the holocaust obsesively and he assembled a PhD around the topic. After a while of studying that he broke, completely, and now resides in a mental hospitital. WW2 is an very interesting subject but some of the darker aspects of the war can get to you, and while I'm not saying they should be avoided in studying about the war they do have negative effects.
On December 28 2011 09:21 Romantic wrote: Germany was never in a strategically viable position. Not Hitler as a leader wouldn't have helped on the magnitude necessary.
You have no idea dude.
If Hitler never invaded Russia, the Western Front would never have stood a chance. They barely broke through in D-Day/the ensuing days in France against, what was the figure again, 20% of Germany's forces and almost none of its Luftwaffe and Armor divisions? Honestly, if Germany just didn't break the treaty with Russia, we would not have stood a remote chance of defeating them. There were multiple times during the ensuing days after Normandy that higher ups were afraid of being pushed back into the sea essentially because of how many logistical and intelligence errors were made Hitler's stupidity and their completely silly chain of command is what fucked them over, not their strategic position.
Like I said on the first page, there was a huge Panzer division waiting ready to go in to Normandy at 6AM on D-Day that could have effectively stopped the invasion in its tracks, or at least make it EXTREMELY hard. Yet Hitler decided to sleep in, and only he could give such an order, and they weren't sent out until 3PM. Not to overblow that moment as a "war changing" one, but I wanted to make the point -- Germany had every opportunity to win and you'd be very ignorant to think otherwise. There are literally thousands of stories like this out there where miscommunications, messups in chain of command, etc. caused a massive failure in German war efforts. The timing was also bad, as someone said on the 2nd(?) page. Some of their most powerful weapons came at the very end of the war that could have outright won it for them if they had them from the beginning.
First off.. You can't forget that Normandy wasn't the only front the Allies had. By this point in war, Africa and Southern Italy were lost, and an invasion also ensued in Southern France at approximately the same time as Normandy.
The invasion of Russia was somewhat illogical, yet at the same time it was hugely successful. Rommel and other commanders of the German high command (notably Manstein) advocated for an end to the Mediterranean Front before they ensue an invasion of Russia, especially as Afrika Corps was a mere expeditionary force sent out to aid the Italians in Libya. However, Rommel was hugely successful not only in repelling the British Eighty Army, but pushed them all the way back into Egpyt, and added with success in the Balkans (capitulation of most of the Balkans after a failed Italian invasion), Russia seemed like a sweetspot (after all, that was the point of Hitler's main objective, to reconquer Eastern Europe)
One must also remember that Russia was severely weakened in reputation as well as its military hiearchy. Its struggles against Poland and Finland showed the weakness of the Red Army, and furthermore, Stalin ensued a series of executions known as the "great purge' that led to the execution not only of his political rivals,but of most of the military command. This was shown evident in the layout of the Russian army, who had positioned most of its resources and manpower at the front rather than in reserves, and the Germans took advantage. In the months leading upto the winter, Germany indeed took huge advantage, capturing hundreds of thousands of pows (at Kiev alone capturing 500 000 men), and destroying the entire Russian air force. When Ukraine (where two-thirds of Russia's production came from) was completely occupied by German forces, you could almost see it as a huge strategic victory for the Germans.
Several things changed in the course of history that ultimately ended Germany's success. The biggest was that the Americans had joined the war, and despite never sending soldiers to the Eastern Front, contributed heavily by sending chevy trucks (to which there was nothing equal in Russia at the time) and helped rebuild much of the infrastructure in the Eastern Front. Furthermore, the war had continued on to the winter time, and rather than securing their positions and preparing for a winter offensive, Hitler, against the advice of the German high command, trucked his forces across pretty much all of Russia, attempting to defeat Russia in Moscow, (center), Leningrad (north) and Stalingrad (south). This might have worked, had the Americans not entered the war and Japan decided to focus its troops (outside of China) to the Pacific than towards Russia, freeing up Zhukov and his some two million fresh reinforcements to relieve the Soviet cities and completely surround the German armies. This was worsened by German defeat at El Alamein, and further pushed back when fresh American troops landed in Africa to defeat the last of the Italian and German forces, eventually forcing Germany to open another front in Italy, who was pretty much knocked out of the war at this point.
This just leads me wondering what Germany could have done to keep Japan out of attacking America. Were they even informed by Japan of the plans to attack Pearl Harbor? If so, why did they not do anything to try and prevent it? If Japan merely let America keep neutral, so much would have gone in their favor. Not that I'm complaining or anything.
ironically, Germany was very happy with the decision, congratulating Japan and even declaring war on the USA (keep in mind it was Germany that declared war on the US and not vice versa). They believed that, with the destruction of the Pacific Fleet, America would be completely pre-occupied with the Pacific Front, and indeed things were lookin well, with the capture of Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, and all the western colonies leading to hundreds of thousands of pows and casualties. The Pacific Front changed, especially with the resistance of the Chinese, and the previous loss at Mongolia (Khalkin Gol), they chagned their goal to the British colonies in Burma and eventually India, Germany aiding by giving up French Indochina to the Japanese to quicken the process (the Germans believed that if they defeated the british, in India, they would be able to push the Russian front all the way to the Ural mountains, bypassing Zhukov's army and effectively destroying what was left of Russia's industrial output.
Germany and Japan had both hoped that the US, upon its losses in the Pacific, would be too terrified to engage in total war against the Axis forces; the plan backfired and instead, the US poured its heart out and using its great industrial capacity (which at this point had no rival due to the destruction of European powers) to match both Japan and the US on all fronts.
I will never understand Germany's (i don't think Hitler took decisions only based on himself) decision of invading the east front. I don't know what outcome would have been, but definitely a much more lengthy war. Neither side (western allies/soviet union) were a match for Germany's wermacht. I'm sure in such a case UK/europe would have totally fallen, but invading/beating USA is very hard, even if they would succeeded in bringing troops on american ground, it would still take them a good couple of years to do it (usa's quite big). As for invading/conquering Russia/USSR that's rather impossible, just geographically speaking (very hard climate, lots of huge and tough mountains, enormous surface) you need half a century or so to conquer it/subjugate it.
On December 28 2011 09:21 Romantic wrote: Germany was never in a strategically viable position. Not Hitler as a leader wouldn't have helped on the magnitude necessary.
You have no idea dude.
If Hitler never invaded Russia, the Western Front would never have stood a chance. They barely broke through in D-Day/the ensuing days in France against, what was the figure again, 20% of Germany's forces and almost none of its Luftwaffe and Armor divisions? Honestly, if Germany just didn't break the treaty with Russia, we would not have stood a remote chance of defeating them. There were multiple times during the ensuing days after Normandy that higher ups were afraid of being pushed back into the sea essentially because of how many logistical and intelligence errors were made Hitler's stupidity and their completely silly chain of command is what fucked them over, not their strategic position.
Like I said on the first page, there was a huge Panzer division waiting ready to go in to Normandy at 6AM on D-Day that could have effectively stopped the invasion in its tracks, or at least make it EXTREMELY hard. Yet Hitler decided to sleep in, and only he could give such an order, and they weren't sent out until 3PM. Not to overblow that moment as a "war changing" one, but I wanted to make the point -- Germany had every opportunity to win and you'd be very ignorant to think otherwise. There are literally thousands of stories like this out there where miscommunications, messups in chain of command, etc. caused a massive failure in German war efforts. The timing was also bad, as someone said on the 2nd(?) page. Some of their most powerful weapons came at the very end of the war that could have outright won it for them if they had them from the beginning.
War between Germany and the USSR was inevitable. Had he not attacked, the Soviets would have in a year or two. Two bordering superpowers with very conflicting interests and politics cannot be at peace. Germany had to break the treaty, or else within 1-2 years, the Soviet Union would have finished its re-organization and solidification and would have been impregnable to Axis aggression. Not too tough to understand, @Pikachu.
But yes, you (Fruscainte) are absolutely correct on the western front. Also, the Germans didn't even know what hit them until they saw ships approaching and aircraft above. That includes the preceding night when 18,000 iirc paratroopers dropped in to complete missions, of which the Germans had no idea was happening. Most of the high officers in France were on vacation at home, as well. They were very undermanned and under supplied, filling their ranks with POWs from Poland and the USSR, probably for doing menial tasks. Everything that could have gone wrong for the Germans on D-Day, went wrong, and in addition to what you already stated, it's actually not that significant a victory. The fact that it was barely won is just one of many things shows that the non-Soviet Allies were quite incompetent, just as the non-German Axis were. At least the US wasn't anywhere near as bad as Japan, though. Hell, the Italians couldn't even invade Greece, while the Germans swept through the Greek and British forces as fast as they could move their forces forward.
This just leads me wondering what Germany could have done to keep Japan out of attacking America. Were they even informed by Japan of the plans to attack Pearl Harbor? If so, why did they not do anything to try and prevent it? If Japan merely let America keep neutral, so much would have gone in their favor. Not that I'm complaining or anything.
Blockading oil and other resources to Japan and freezing Japanese assets in the US (which were quite significant and were building up since the mid-1800s) is going to provoke war. Like a retard, Roosevelt fired one admiral and overruled another when they deemed it necessary to move the fleet away from Pearl Harbor because it was a very vulnerable location. In the 1930s, the US military held exercises in which a naval fleet's aircraft "attacked" Pearl Harbor successfully with few "losses" when the defensive team was prepared, ready, and expecting it. Well, at least it gave us the excuse and justification to enter the war, which the govt. really, really wanted to do.
On December 28 2011 09:58 Fruscainte wrote: This just leads me wondering what Germany could have done to keep Japan out of attacking America. Were they even informed by Japan of the plans to attack Pearl Harbor? If so, why did they not do anything to try and prevent it? If Japan merely let America keep neutral, so much would have gone in their favor. Not that I'm complaining or anything.
Actually, if memory serves, Hitler declared war on America(after Japan) in the hopes that Japan would declare war on the USSR, opening up a second border for the Russians to fight. Edit: Which obviously they didn't do, they had their own problems being bogged down in China and with the embargo and all.
On December 28 2011 10:08 Pika Chu wrote: (i don't think Hitler took decisions only based on himself)
You'd be surprised how little control the General's actually had.
Equally there was a widespread policy of "working towards the Fuhrer" in which Hitler made sweeping statements of goals and policymakers attempted to enact them.
On December 28 2011 09:58 Fruscainte wrote: This just leads me wondering what Germany could have done to keep Japan out of attacking America. Were they even informed by Japan of the plans to attack Pearl Harbor? If so, why did they not do anything to try and prevent it? If Japan merely let America keep neutral, so much would have gone in their favor. Not that I'm complaining or anything.
Actually, if memory serves, Hitler declared war on America(after Japan) in the hopes that Japan would declare war on the USSR, opening up a second border for the Russians to fight.
Hitler was bad at sensing fear. The Japanese were scared shitless of the Soviets following the 1939 battles, which were terribly one-sided, and ceded for peace with no inclination to break it. I'd wager that the Japanese would have surrendered if no nukes were used once the Soviets commenced Operation August Storm and defeated the Japanese forces in China.. in 10 days. But that would mean the US would have to share Japan with the USSR, which is not something we wanted to do at all. Additionally, throughout the war, the Soviets had a substantial, fortified military force in the Far East, and given the far superior strategy, technology, and strength of the Soviets over the Japanese, any attack by the Japanese would have been suicidal. They were too fearful to try. Apparently wisdom is not the explanation, seeing as they thought they could defeat the US (or any country other than Korea/China).
On December 28 2011 09:58 Fruscainte wrote: This just leads me wondering what Germany could have done to keep Japan out of attacking America. Were they even informed by Japan of the plans to attack Pearl Harbor? If so, why did they not do anything to try and prevent it? If Japan merely let America keep neutral, so much would have gone in their favor. Not that I'm complaining or anything.
Actually, if memory serves, Hitler declared war on America(after Japan) in the hopes that Japan would declare war on the USSR, opening up a second border for the Russians to fight.
Hitler was bad at sensing fear. The Japanese were scared shitless of the Soviets following the 1939 battles, which were terribly one-sided, and ceded for peace with no inclination to break it. I'd wager that the Japanese would have surrendered if no nukes were used once the Soviets commenced Operation August Storm and defeated the Japanese forces in China.. in 10 days. But that would mean the US would have to share Japan with the USSR, which is not something we wanted to do at all. Additionally, throughout the war, the Soviets had a substantial, fortified military force in the Far East, and given the far superior strategy, technology, and strength of the Soviets over the Japanese, any attack by the Japanese would have been suicidal. They were too fearful to try. Apparently wisdom is not the answer, seeing as they thought they could defeat the US (or any country other than Korea/China).
Was Eastern Russia really that well defended? I never really put much thought into Russo-Japanese conflicts, but I always assumed that with the nature of Eastern Russia it would be, if anything, the least defended area in the country.
EDIT: The one fact about WW2 that always makes me chuckle though is the intelligence, or rather lack of it we got in France. I saw a documentary on this...eh...a year or so ago on the days directly after D-Day. Where basically, American intelligence planes thought these hedges and shit in the French countryside, as I said on the first page, were only like 5ft tall and could just be ran over by tanks and shit. Well, surprise! They were actually like 40 feet tall and what should have taken less than 24 hours, took like a week.
On December 28 2011 04:09 Sithelin123 wrote: I like World War 2 cause it resulted in Company of Heroes getting made. It is one of my favorite RTS games of all time. Also, Eastern front >>>>>>> Western front in epicness, Too bad that CoH didn't have an Eastern front version
I can't tell if you're trolling or really that heartless and juveneille. People gave their lives on both fronts, both sides. Those wo didn't die were still suffering, and that war has shaped the world today. The first thing you come up with is, "i like it cuz it reslted in vidya games liek coh and codwaw and nazi zombies." while we can enjoy games based on historical events, we shouldn't like such events that resulted in the deaths of millions.
On December 28 2011 04:09 Sithelin123 wrote: I like World War 2 cause it resulted in Company of Heroes getting made. It is one of my favorite RTS games of all time. Also, Eastern front >>>>>>> Western front in epicness, Too bad that CoH didn't have an Eastern front version
I can't tell if you're trolling or really that heartless and juveneille. People gave their lives on both fronts, both sides. Those wo didn't die were still suffering, and that war has shaped the world today. The first thing you come up with is, "i like it cuz it reslted in vidya games liek coh and codwaw and nazi zombies." while we can enjoy games based on historical events, we shouldn't like such events that resulted in the deaths of millions.
I highly recommend watching the national geographic 2008 documentary about WW2: Apocalypse The Second World War, it is considered to be one of the best of its sort.
On December 28 2011 09:58 Fruscainte wrote: This just leads me wondering what Germany could have done to keep Japan out of attacking America. Were they even informed by Japan of the plans to attack Pearl Harbor? If so, why did they not do anything to try and prevent it? If Japan merely let America keep neutral, so much would have gone in their favor. Not that I'm complaining or anything.
Actually, if memory serves, Hitler declared war on America(after Japan) in the hopes that Japan would declare war on the USSR, opening up a second border for the Russians to fight.
Hitler was bad at sensing fear. The Japanese were scared shitless of the Soviets following the 1939 battles, which were terribly one-sided, and ceded for peace with no inclination to break it. I'd wager that the Japanese would have surrendered if no nukes were used once the Soviets commenced Operation August Storm and defeated the Japanese forces in China.. in 10 days. But that would mean the US would have to share Japan with the USSR, which is not something we wanted to do at all. Additionally, throughout the war, the Soviets had a substantial, fortified military force in the Far East, and given the far superior strategy, technology, and strength of the Soviets over the Japanese, any attack by the Japanese would have been suicidal. They were too fearful to try. Apparently wisdom is not the explanation, seeing as they thought they could defeat the US (or any country other than Korea/China).
That is TOTAL bs, i think you have to learn more about Japanese history lol (and im korean, so i prolly hav the worst opinion of Japanese history at the time). The Soviets by no means were technologically or strategically superior to the Japanese, especially in the East, I have no idea where you got that idea.... First off... Russia had no "substantial fortified military force" in the Far East, in fact their presence in the East was completely null until the arrival of Zhukov's troops in Siberia. This was because they lost these bases in Manchuria in 1905, against the Japanese, who by this time was already superior in technologically than the Russians. Russia was the most backwards country prior to the war, and though Stalin's industrialization efforts speeded up the process, it was by no means in the same step as Germany or Japan, not even close. The Japanese hardly even knew about Khalkin Gol, it was executed mainly by the Manchurian forces, who though veteran, acted almost independent of Tokyo. In fact, the Japanese army acted almost in itself, as shown when the army invaded Manchuria,, without the approval of the government in Tokyo. Japan and the USSR only had small border skirmishes, and had a full-scale invasion of Siberia occured, Soviet forces would have been completely annihilated (their lack of infrastructure and any support from the air force), though zhukov might have held them off (he is pretty much the greatest commander of this era).
On December 28 2011 09:21 Romantic wrote: Germany was never in a strategically viable position. Not Hitler as a leader wouldn't have helped on the magnitude necessary.
You have no idea dude.
If Hitler never invaded Russia, the Western Front would never have stood a chance. They barely broke through in D-Day/the ensuing days in France against, what was the figure again, 20% of Germany's forces and almost none of its Luftwaffe and Armor divisions? Honestly, if Germany just didn't break the treaty with Russia, we would not have stood a remote chance of defeating them. There were multiple times during the ensuing days after Normandy that higher ups were afraid of being pushed back into the sea essentially because of how many logistical and intelligence errors were made Hitler's stupidity and their completely silly chain of command is what fucked them over, not their strategic position.
Like I said on the first page, there was a huge Panzer division waiting ready to go in to Normandy at 6AM on D-Day that could have effectively stopped the invasion in its tracks, or at least make it EXTREMELY hard. Yet Hitler decided to sleep in, and only he could give such an order, and they weren't sent out until 3PM. Not to overblow that moment as a "war changing" one, but I wanted to make the point -- Germany had every opportunity to win and you'd be very ignorant to think otherwise. There are literally thousands of stories like this out there where miscommunications, messups in chain of command, etc. caused a massive failure in German war efforts. The timing was also bad, as someone said on the 2nd(?) page. Some of their most powerful weapons came at the very end of the war that could have outright won it for them if they had them from the beginning.
War between Germany and the USSR was inevitable. Had he not attacked, the Soviets would have in a year or two. Two bordering superpowers with very conflicting interests and politics cannot be at peace. Germany had to break the treaty, or else within 1-2 years, the Soviet Union would have finished its re-organization and solidification and would have been impregnable to Axis aggression.
Pretty much this, combined with severe resource shortages. Hitler himself mentioned how easy it would be for the Red Army to invade Romania and deny Germany its largest oil source. Would have been game over almost immediately.
Britain was not going anywhere after the failure of the Battle of Britain. Any attempt to weaken the Heer in favor of the Luftwaffe\Kriegsmarine to combat Britain would invite a Soviet invasion. Even if Britain were in serious trouble, it would only hasten the USA\USSR's entry into the war. Not to mention Germany never would have won a naval race with Britain so far ahead and the USA becoming more and more willing to jump in.
The only choice left is to be the undisputed champion of the continent so that a logistically difficult Operation Overlord cannot succeed. To do that the USSR must be defeated; which was not possible.
Allies had far more GDP, natural resources, population. They had established navies prior to the war. All Germany could hope for was a weak Soviet state\bureaucracy that rolled over and died so they could have a defensive\logistical\threat of high casualties advantage to prevent (A now necessarily much larger) Operation Overlord. That dream turned out to not be a reality and so Germany was never in a winning situation.
Just a little overview of the Battle of Britian since I watched a documentary about it not too long ago. The Nazis were dominating the BoB at the beginning. British air radar was not yet used to it's full advantage which made it nearly impossible for them to scramble fighters in time to meet the luftwaffe formations in force. What turned the tables was when the luftwaffe changed their game plan from hitting RAF targets to bombing civilian targets. They did this after a small group of British bombers hit a German city and pissed Hitler off. Hitler got the idea in his head that he could make them surrender by carpet bombing London with bombers and missiles from France. This gave the RAF enough breathing room to regroup and fully incorporate air radar in to their defense which lead to the RAF putting up much better k/d ratios, turning the battle on it's head. The RAF may have been completely destroyed if the luftwaffe had kept on the pressure on the RAF for just a few more weeks. Just another stupid mistake by Hitler that cost him the war.
On December 28 2011 09:21 Romantic wrote: Germany was never in a strategically viable position. Not Hitler as a leader wouldn't have helped on the magnitude necessary.
I wtf'd and asked myself if he has read the last few pages at all. Then I noticed his name ^^.
On December 28 2011 10:46 crappyleft wrote: I highly recommend watching the national geographic 2008 documentary about WW2: Apocalypse The Second World War, it is considered to be one of the best of its sort.
On December 28 2011 04:09 Sithelin123 wrote: I like World War 2 cause it resulted in Company of Heroes getting made. It is one of my favorite RTS games of all time. Also, Eastern front >>>>>>> Western front in epicness, Too bad that CoH didn't have an Eastern front version
I can't tell if you're trolling or really that heartless and juveneille. People gave their lives on both fronts, both sides. Those wo didn't die were still suffering, and that war has shaped the world today. The first thing you come up with is, "i like it cuz it reslted in vidya games liek coh and codwaw and nazi zombies." while we can enjoy games based on historical events, we shouldn't like such events that resulted in the deaths of millions.
He may be a douche, but don't bash CoH
Dont get me wrong I love CoH, and my brother is the muthafuckingaudemed, I just didn't like his attitude towards ww2.
On December 28 2011 10:50 DoubleZee wrote: Just a little overview of the Battle of Britian since I watched a documentary about it not too long ago. The Nazis were dominating the BoB at the beginning. British air radar was not yet used to it's full advantage which made it nearly impossible for them to scramble fighters in time to meet the luftwaffe formations in force. What turned the tables was when the luftwaffe changed their game plan from hitting RAF targets to bombing civilian targets. They did this after a small group of British bombers hit a German city and pissed Hitler off. Hitler got the idea in his head that he could make them surrender by carpet bombing London with bombers and missiles from France. This gave the RAF enough breathing room to regroup and fully incorporate air radar in to their defense which lead to the RAF putting up much better k/d ratios, turning the battle on it's head. The RAF may have been completely destroyed if the luftwaffe had kept on the pressure on the RAF for just a few more weeks. Just another stupid mistake by Hitler that cost him the war.
From what i remmeber of my wwii class, I'm almost certain Hitler decided to bomb London after Britain bombed civilian cities ( i think even Berlin), enraging Hitler; not quite sure tho, took this class in the first half of the summer semester
On December 28 2011 04:09 Sithelin123 wrote: I like World War 2 cause it resulted in Company of Heroes getting made. It is one of my favorite RTS games of all time. Also, Eastern front >>>>>>> Western front in epicness, Too bad that CoH didn't have an Eastern front version
On December 28 2011 04:22 juked wrote: Nanking Massacre was a terrible thing that has had less publicity than the holocaust. I am planning to read the book "The Rape of Nanking" which I've heard is very graphic
Holy shit yea. That book is pretty damn graphic x] I read it for my IB World History IA like 4 years ago. It's really biased, but an interesting read nonetheless.
On December 28 2011 10:50 DoubleZee wrote: Just a little overview of the Battle of Britian since I watched a documentary about it not too long ago. The Nazis were dominating the BoB at the beginning. British air radar was not yet used to it's full advantage which made it nearly impossible for them to scramble fighters in time to meet the luftwaffe formations in force. What turned the tables was when the luftwaffe changed their game plan from hitting RAF targets to bombing civilian targets. They did this after a small group of British bombers hit a German city and pissed Hitler off. Hitler got the idea in his head that he could make them surrender by carpet bombing London with bombers and missiles from France. This gave the RAF enough breathing room to regroup and fully incorporate air radar in to their defense which lead to the RAF putting up much better k/d ratios, turning the battle on it's head. The RAF may have been completely destroyed if the luftwaffe had kept on the pressure on the RAF for just a few more weeks. Just another stupid mistake by Hitler that cost him the war.
From what i remmeber of my wwii class, I'm almost certain Hitler decided to bomb London after Britain bombed civilian cities ( i think even Berlin), enraging Hitler; not quite sure tho, took this class in the first half of the summer semester
On December 28 2011 10:50 DoubleZee wrote: Just a little overview of the Battle of Britian since I watched a documentary about it not too long ago. The Nazis were dominating the BoB at the beginning. British air radar was not yet used to it's full advantage which made it nearly impossible for them to scramble fighters in time to meet the luftwaffe formations in force. What turned the tables was when the luftwaffe changed their game plan from hitting RAF targets to bombing civilian targets. They did this after a small group of British bombers hit a German city and pissed Hitler off. Hitler got the idea in his head that he could make them surrender by carpet bombing London with bombers and missiles from France. This gave the RAF enough breathing room to regroup and fully incorporate air radar in to their defense which lead to the RAF putting up much better k/d ratios, turning the battle on it's head. The RAF may have been completely destroyed if the luftwaffe had kept on the pressure on the RAF for just a few more weeks. Just another stupid mistake by Hitler that cost him the war.
From what i remmeber of my wwii class, I'm almost certain Hitler decided to bomb London after Britain bombed civilian cities ( i think even Berlin), enraging Hitler; not quite sure tho, took this class in the first half of the summer semester
Yes, exactly.
oh crap sry didnt read ur whole post u already pointed it out lol
Holocaust, Nanking Massacre and Unit731 were basically the most gruesome and horrific chapters in World War 2.
Chinese and Jews were the biggest victims of modern history, totally insane to believe they have treated whole cultures like animals, but thats the way of those crazy emperors.
On December 28 2011 05:14 sermokala wrote: your prospect saying that the Japanese had 0 chance of winning is pretty silly. America was down to just the enterprise as its only carrier in the entire pacific and even then it was heavily damaged While the japan imperial navy had its 4 carriers and an abusively superior gun fleet. The japs had a god level fighter in the zero at the beginning and had every other class of air craft pegged far above the american counter parts. half-way into the war this flipped as the japs were never able to manufacture replacements or even develop new craft. The real strength of the US navy during the pacific theater was its subs who hunted and killed
And that's exactly why the Japanese had 0 chance of winning... It doesn't matter if they sunk all the pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor or if they win at Midway, the ability of the US to replace those losses was far, far greater than that of Japan.
The US managed to defeat the japanese while dedicating most of it's resources to the war on Europe, if Germany hadn't declared war on the US the Pacific theater would have lasted two years tops.
On December 28 2011 06:00 GreEny K wrote: I disagree with some of the things in this OP. I'm not supporting Nazi Germany, but they definitely could have taken control of Britain. I don't think that's up for debate.
Exactly how?
The Kriegsmarine was always very inferior to the Royal Navy, and during the Battle of Britain the British made a lot more planes and suffered fewer losses:
The germans also had an inferior program for pilot training and promotion.
So, they had an inferior navy and didn't have a chance to archieve air superiority. Let say the germans somehow manage to land a few divisions on Great Britain, that's great, but how do they supply them exactly?
On December 28 2011 09:27 Fruscainte wrote:Like I said on the first page, there was a huge Panzer division waiting ready to go in to Normandy at 6AM on D-Day that could have effectively stopped the invasion in its tracks, or at least make it EXTREMELY hard. Yet Hitler decided to sleep in, and only he could give such an order, and they weren't sent out until 3PM. Not to overblow that moment as a "war changing" one, but I wanted to make the point -- Germany had every opportunity to win and you'd be very ignorant to think otherwise. There are literally thousands of stories like this out there where miscommunications, messups in chain of command, etc. caused a massive failure in German war efforts. The timing was also bad, as someone said on the 2nd(?) page. Some of their most powerful weapons came at the very end of the war that could have outright won it for them if they had them from the beginning.
I'm sorry, but this whole idea that Germany was a massive military juggernaut that only lost because of bad leadership is simply false.
The germans lost because they where way, way over their head, faced agains three other great powers while having not one really significant ally on their side.
Allied to Axis GDP ratio was over 2.0 for most of the war, the Germans never had enough oil to fuel their army, and the best chance they had to get that oil, Baku, was too deep in the Soviet Union to be a reasonable objective. Also, the germans where great at the tactical aspect of the war, but their logistics left a lot to be desireed.
And most of their high tech weapons were a waste, the V Rockets had a very tiny effect compared to how much they cost, the Tiger I and Tiger II tanks where way, way too expensive and unreliable to be game changers, and the Me262 came to late, in too few number and without adequate fuel and pilots to make any difference.
i watch lots of WW2 docs, love the history of WW2 and all of the declassified info still coming out after 60+ years. im sure there are thing will never know, it shaped the world we live in today
On December 28 2011 11:19 GodOfWar wrote: Holocaust, Nanking Massacre and Unit731 were basically the most gruesome and horrific chapters in World War 2.
Chinese and Jews were the biggest victims of modern history, totally insane to believe they have treated whole cultures like animals, but thats the way of those crazy emperors.
To add to that list, Crossing of the Rhine and the Russians return to Prussia. The treatment of German and Russian civilians on the Eastern front is scary to think about.
On December 28 2011 11:19 GodOfWar wrote: Holocaust, Nanking Massacre and Unit731 were basically the most gruesome and horrific chapters in World War 2.
Chinese and Jews were the biggest victims of modern history, totally insane to believe they have treated whole cultures like animals, but thats the way of those crazy emperors.
And people wonder why Chinese people in general really loathe the japanese people...
The japanese people and the government has guts still visiting that yakushini shrine aka War Criminal shrine.
On December 28 2011 04:09 Sithelin123 wrote: I like World War 2 cause it resulted in Company of Heroes getting made. It is one of my favorite RTS games of all time. Also, Eastern front >>>>>>> Western front in epicness, Too bad that CoH didn't have an Eastern front version
I can't tell if you're trolling or really that heartless and juveneille. People gave their lives on both fronts, both sides. Those wo didn't die were still suffering, and that war has shaped the world today. The first thing you come up with is, "i like it cuz it reslted in vidya games liek coh and codwaw and nazi zombies." while we can enjoy games based on historical events, we shouldn't like such events that resulted in the deaths of millions.
He may be a douche, but don't bash CoH
Rommel is kind of overrated in the eyes of the west. If you asked most military commanders at the time they would have said Von manstein.
Here is my personal WW2 story. The story about my grandfathers and grandmothers. Only my grandmothers are still alive and I often asked them about this time. It seems weird, but as a german, I often asked myself the question if I would have ended up beeing a Nazi too, if I was born at this time. Its weird but you want to know why people you love that much, like your grandparents, participated in such a horrible system of fear and murder. My grandmother grew up in a small village, her father (if I remember correctly) joined the NSDAP in the late 1930s, they didnt care much about politics. She told me, they often made jokes about Hitler and they laughed at the 2-3 SA guys that were running around town cause those actually were loosers that only felt strong cause of the brown made-up uniform. She was a typical part of the system, member of the BDM (youth organisation for girls), active in church, singing songs they learned in school and decorating the village when a high nazi-official visit... She once told me that she actually noticed that one day all the jewish ppl from her village were gone, but she never questioned it at this time. My grandfather was an engineer, when he joined the german army his job was it to build up radio- and communicationstations. I've never asked him this, but I dont think he killed someone during the war. But at his last day of war, when his unit was already retreating, an italian partisan came around a corner and opened machinegun fire on the open truck where he and his friends were sitting in. He was hit by 2 bullets, one in his leg, one in his foot. He was never able to walk properly again after this and he got addicted to morphine for quite some time.
My other grandfather was not that peacefully. He actually was born in romania but in a part where german settelers migrated to hundreds of years ago. When the war started he was young and dumb, he was really athletic and believed that cause he had "german blood" he was better and that he would have to join the fight. He joined the "Waffen-SS" when he was only 17. He got in so many battles that he actually recieved the "Nahkampfspange" in silver, a decoration for beeing really successful in alot of close combats. His unit was captured and when they were about to be brought to a gulag, he and some friends manage to flee. Later he tried to emmigrate to canada, but he couldnt when his SS-tattoo was found. He died before I was born, so I was never able to ask him questions. I dont know if I could have forgiven him for what he had done. His later wife (my other grandma) was a kid when the war was over. She lived in a german region that is now poland. She and her family had to flee from the russian army. On their escape she and her sisters had to expierience horrible things. Only a few from her once big family made it. Untill today she wont tell me how her father died and I have the feeling I dont want to make her remember.
I know in this thread ppl often talk about WW2 from the strategical point of view, I hope you dont mind, that I brought a little personal family-story in this. When you talk about losses in civilians and soldiers, please dont forget that you talk about actual ppl not just numbers. The lessons this war should teach us all is not a strategical one, but the responsibility to never let something like this happen again.
On December 28 2011 05:14 sermokala wrote: your prospect saying that the Japanese had 0 chance of winning is pretty silly. America was down to just the enterprise as its only carrier in the entire pacific and even then it was heavily damaged While the japan imperial navy had its 4 carriers and an abusively superior gun fleet. The japs had a god level fighter in the zero at the beginning and had every other class of air craft pegged far above the american counter parts. half-way into the war this flipped as the japs were never able to manufacture replacements or even develop new craft. The real strength of the US navy during the pacific theater was its subs who hunted and killed
And that's exactly why the Japanese had 0 chance of winning... It doesn't matter if they sunk all the pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor or if they win at Midway, the ability of the US to replace those losses was far, far greater than that of Japan.
The US managed to defeat the japanese while dedicating most of it's resources to the war on Europe, if Germany hadn't declared war on the US the Pacific theater would have lasted two years tops.
On December 28 2011 06:00 GreEny K wrote: I disagree with some of the things in this OP. I'm not supporting Nazi Germany, but they definitely could have taken control of Britain. I don't think that's up for debate.
Exactly how?
The Kriegsmarine was always very inferior to the Royal Navy, and during the Battle of Britain the British made a lot more planes and suffered fewer losses:
The germans also had an inferior program for pilot training and promotion.
So, they had an inferior navy and didn't have a chance to archieve air superiority. Let say the germans somehow manage to land a few divisions on Great Britain, that's great, but how do they supply them exactly?
Considering they bombed London to smithereens, I think your perception of who had air control during the entire war is somewhat sketchy. Afaik Germany had periods of air control, especially early on in the war. Even if they had a superior navy it's all about intelligence. If you manage to launch a surprise attack (such as D-day) the British wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in hell. It's as far from Normany to England as it is from England to Normany so to speak, and the Germans had Normandy for quite a while. They had their focus elsewhere though.
On December 28 2011 05:14 sermokala wrote: your prospect saying that the Japanese had 0 chance of winning is pretty silly. America was down to just the enterprise as its only carrier in the entire pacific and even then it was heavily damaged While the japan imperial navy had its 4 carriers and an abusively superior gun fleet. The japs had a god level fighter in the zero at the beginning and had every other class of air craft pegged far above the american counter parts. half-way into the war this flipped as the japs were never able to manufacture replacements or even develop new craft. The real strength of the US navy during the pacific theater was its subs who hunted and killed
And that's exactly why the Japanese had 0 chance of winning... It doesn't matter if they sunk all the pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor or if they win at Midway, the ability of the US to replace those losses was far, far greater than that of Japan.
The US managed to defeat the japanese while dedicating most of it's resources to the war on Europe, if Germany hadn't declared war on the US the Pacific theater would have lasted two years tops.
On December 28 2011 06:00 GreEny K wrote: I disagree with some of the things in this OP. I'm not supporting Nazi Germany, but they definitely could have taken control of Britain. I don't think that's up for debate.
Exactly how?
The Kriegsmarine was always very inferior to the Royal Navy, and during the Battle of Britain the British made a lot more planes and suffered fewer losses:
The germans also had an inferior program for pilot training and promotion.
So, they had an inferior navy and didn't have a chance to archieve air superiority. Let say the germans somehow manage to land a few divisions on Great Britain, that's great, but how do they supply them exactly?
On December 28 2011 09:27 Fruscainte wrote:Like I said on the first page, there was a huge Panzer division waiting ready to go in to Normandy at 6AM on D-Day that could have effectively stopped the invasion in its tracks, or at least make it EXTREMELY hard. Yet Hitler decided to sleep in, and only he could give such an order, and they weren't sent out until 3PM. Not to overblow that moment as a "war changing" one, but I wanted to make the point -- Germany had every opportunity to win and you'd be very ignorant to think otherwise. There are literally thousands of stories like this out there where miscommunications, messups in chain of command, etc. caused a massive failure in German war efforts. The timing was also bad, as someone said on the 2nd(?) page. Some of their most powerful weapons came at the very end of the war that could have outright won it for them if they had them from the beginning.
I'm sorry, but this whole idea that Germany was a massive military juggernaut that only lost because of bad leadership is simply false.
The germans lost because they where way, way over their head, faced agains three other great powers while having not one really significant ally on their side.
Allied to Axis GDP ratio was over 2.0 for most of the war, the Germans never had enough oil to fuel their army, and the best chance they had to get that oil, Baku, was too deep in the Soviet Union to be a reasonable objective. Also, the germans where great at the tactical aspect of the war, but their logistics left a lot to be desireed.
And most of their high tech weapons were a waste, the V Rockets had a very tiny effect compared to how much they cost, the Tiger I and Tiger II tanks where way, way too expensive and unreliable to be game changers, and the Me262 came to late, in too few number and without adequate fuel and pilots to make any difference.
I did not mean to imply they were a "military juggernaut", I was simply making the point that their horrendous leadership and command structure compounded onto their military issues in devastating manners. Of course they were way in over their head, however, it's no secret that with an organized command structure and a competent leader --- they would have done FAR more damage.
The Luftwaffe gave preference to bomber aircraft until late in the war, so they didn't assigned their best pilot to fighters until then.
The reason why the germans had so many aces was because most of their fighter planes where rather good, and faced very little opposition from the poorly trained soviet fighters using crap planes during 1941-1942.
The western pilots fared a lot better against the Luftwaffe
I think it's silly to try and quantify who had "better" pilots, honestly. It all comes down to the individual. I personally think the Luftwaffe is extremely overrated, however, there were amazing pilots for all sides involved.
The Luftwaffe gave preference to bomber aircraft until late in the war, so they didn't assigned their best pilot to fighters until then.
The reason why the germans had so many aces was because most of their fighter planes where rather good, and faced very little opposition from the poorly trained soviet fighters using crap planes during 1941-1942.
The western pilots fared a lot better against the Luftwaffe
That sounds like one good argument for the point you want to make, but not like one which could stand alone.
Hmm just watched some WW2 in HD (history channel), then stumbled upon this thread, seems like a really well put together documentary, composed entirely of film taken during ww2, those who haven't seen it should check it out.
My other grandfather was not that peacefully. He actually was born in romania but in a part where german settelers migrated to hundreds of years ago. When the war started he was young and dumb, he was really athletic and believed that cause he had "german blood" he was better and that he would have to join the fight. He joined the "Waffen-SS" when he was only 17. He got in so many battles that he actually recieved the "Nahkampfspange" in silver, a decoration for beeing really successful in alot of close combats. His unit was captured and when they were about to be brought to a gulag, he and some friends manage to flee. Later he tried to emmigrate to canada, but he couldnt when his SS-tattoo was found. He died before I was born, so I was never able to ask him questions. I dont know if I could have forgiven him for what he had done.
I find stories like this fascinating. From what I know about the waffen-ss it was mainly used as an elite unit to fight battles and the vast majority of the waffen-ss soldiers had nothing to do with war crimes. I hope no one takes this the wrong way but I think you should be proud of your grandfather for fighting for what he believed in and being a brave soldier. Also if you have any waffen-ss memorabilia laying around it is probably worth a fortune. I know a guy who makes a living buying/selling Nazi stuff and his biggest ticket items are waffen-ss and hitler jugend stuff.
The Luftwaffe gave preference to bomber aircraft until late in the war, so they didn't assigned their best pilot to fighters until then.
The reason why the germans had so many aces was because most of their fighter planes where rather good, and faced very little opposition from the poorly trained soviet fighters using crap planes during 1941-1942.
The western pilots fared a lot better against the Luftwaffe
most of the big number aces got their "kills" in the north african fights against british spitfires actually, and while the messerschmidts where superior their is just no way in hell to get those kind of numbers without actuall skill.
most of the russian airforce was bombed or captured on the ground actually, and the link even state that the german airforce did not count such as kills, only actual air to air combat. german tanks on the other hand are overrated, while being very powerfull they where slow and needed a lot of maintence which made it hard to use them in the actuall blitzkrieg strategy. the succesfull tanks in the early stages against france etc. where actually quit small and fast and very different from the famous tiger and panther models
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
...That Russia would have been in deep shit without America's help both logistically (with weapons, repairs, jeeps, etc.) and militarily (on the Western Front). And that America/Britain/Canada would have been in deeper shit without Russia preoccupying like 70-80% of Germany's military?
That makes me brainwashed?
*confused*
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
I am not 100% sure of this, but wasn't the reason that the Pearl Harbor attack ultimately failed is because an aircraft carrier(or more then one I forgot) was supposed to be docked at Pearl Harbor but was not?allowing the US to fight back?
On December 28 2011 11:19 GodOfWar wrote: Holocaust, Nanking Massacre and Unit731 were basically the most gruesome and horrific chapters in World War 2.
Chinese and Jews were the biggest victims of modern history, totally insane to believe they have treated whole cultures like animals, but thats the way of those crazy emperors.
The most ironic part is the Ashkenazi Jew is the number one in the world in terms of income and level of education and wield an enormous amount of power for such a minority. The other ironic part is the Chinese person will overtake the number two spot in this list of education/income (possibly first with time) and will certainly be perceived as THE most powerful ethnicity very soon.
From biggest victims to some of the most influential people in the world... quite amazing. Maybe karma? (if you go for that sort of thing )
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
On December 28 2011 13:03 Kipsate wrote: I am not 100% sure of this, but wasn't the reason that the Pearl Harbor attack ultimately failed is because an aircraft carrier(or more then one I forgot) was supposed to be docked at Pearl Harbor but was not?allowing the US to fight back?
Pearl Harbor was like a reaver drop that didn't do enough damage. They got ZERO American carriers (they were not at the harbor during the fight). They didn't touch fuel tanks. They barely touched the harbor's repairing infrastructures or whatever they're called. All of this pretty much enabled US navy to mobilize and hit back pretty much right away.
On top of that, the Japanese expected Americans to be scared after the attack and we know the opposite happened.
On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote: Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
60-80k tanks produced monthly? Where do you get those insane numbers from?
There were other important parts of the Lend-Lease program (as you can read here) besides those trucks btw.
While the Soviet Union certainly did most of the "work", the influence of the Western Allies on the war was not negligible.
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote: Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
60-80k tanks produced monthly? Where do you get those insane numbers from?
There were other important parts of the Lend-Lease program (as you can read here) besides those trucks btw.
While the Soviet Union certainly did most of the "work", the influence of the Western Allies on the war was not negligible.
My numbers are correct if you check them up. They reached that number shortly after the reorganization of industries East of Moscow. I agree that the influence of the Western Allies was not negligible, but the question is was it absolutely critical. The person I was arguing against believed that the Soviet Union would have lost the war without Western help, in my opinion (which is shared by most after reading this thread) they would have won, maybe it would have taken an extra 6 months, maybe even an extra year but in the end, they would have won.
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
Seeing that they get exagerrated way too often since the end of the war maybe underplaying them for 10-20 years wouldn't be so bad :p
There's a twitter account that details WWII in real time. Started on September 1st, the soviets are currently invading the finns now, but check it out.
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
Agreeing and disagreeing at the same time, what a perfect argument.
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
Agreeing with what someone says then proceed to contradict with thine own argument, the perfect way to come out looking smart
Saying the Americans/British/Canadians contributed greatly in their own way doesn't contradict the statement that Russia did most of the backwork.
Really what is the purpose of this thread? There are volumes and volumes of literature out there about EVERYTHING on WWII.
If this thread is meant to educate about the events of WWII, then just refer to books and other resources in the internet. If this thread is meant to discuss WWII, what for? Everything has been discussed and this discussion is better brought to formal venues where facts can be discussed with more authority than what could be summoned here by internet philosophers.
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
Seeing that they get exagerrated way too often since the end of the war maybe underplaying them for 10-20 years wouldn't be so bad :p
I don't disagree. I'm about to broadbrush history and I know history buffs hate it (but I like doing it);
Britain = Decaying empire expected to diminish air and naval influence of the nazi's but was left in the wind to meet its gruesome end as a dying empire. Russia = Ruthless rising empire willing and expected to take the brunt of the land war which it paid for dearly (and was repaid dearly). USA = Late to the dance opportunist (whether forced or not is up for debate) who played the pompous financial and production overlord as the war drew on.
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
Seeing that they get exagerrated way too often since the end of the war maybe underplaying them for 10-20 years wouldn't be so bad :p
I don't disagree. I'm about to broadbrush history and I know history buffs hate it (but I like doing it);
Britain = Decaying empire expected to diminish air and naval influence of the nazi's but was left in the wind to meet its gruesome end as a dying empire. Russia = Ruthless rising empire willing and expected to take the brunt of the land war which it paid for dearly (and was repaid dearly). USA = Late to the dance opportunist (whether forced or not is up for debate) who played the pompous financial and production overlord as the war drew on.
I'm afraid that if I go to bed now and come back in a few hours this thread will have some weird RP cybersex going on.
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
Agreeing with what someone says then proceed to contradict with thine own argument, the perfect way to come out looking smart
Saying the Americans/British/Canadians contributed greatly in their own way doesn't contradict the statement that Russia did most of the backwork.
*confused*
I did not know "contributed greatly" = "would have lost without".
On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote: [quote]
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
Seeing that they get exagerrated way too often since the end of the war maybe underplaying them for 10-20 years wouldn't be so bad :p
I don't disagree. I'm about to broadbrush history and I know history buffs hate it (but I like doing it);
Britain = Decaying empire expected to diminish air and naval influence of the nazi's but was left in the wind to meet its gruesome end as a dying empire. Russia = Ruthless rising empire willing and expected to take the brunt of the land war which it paid for dearly (and was repaid dearly). USA = Late to the dance opportunist (whether forced or not is up for debate) who played the pompous financial and production overlord as the war drew on.
I'm afraid that if I go to bed now and come back in a few hours this thread will have some weird RP cybersex going on.
On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote: Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
60-80k tanks a month is a an impossible production number. There were only ~85k T-34s built in it's 18 year production run, and ~55k of them during WW2. That works out to more like 1k a month, and there's no way they were producing 79k of their other light/heavy tanks a month to make up those numbers.
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
do you mean textbooks? because im sure you could find american historians who might agree with your point of views as well. to an extent all countries are biased towards their own countries success's regardless of how small or large they are, this is not limited to the United States. True the US didn't enter the war until nearly two years after it officially began but was Russia depleted of resources? no, was Great Britain? for the most part it was incapable of truly fielding the full strength of its military and navy as it was spread across the world, while yes France was occupied and i guess 'depleted in resources' as you say this was not true for most of the rest of the allies. I do agree that textbooks need to shed more light on the Eastern front as it played a very pivotal role but in the end as others have pointed out Germany defeated herself by overextending by trying to wage simultaneous military campaigns in Western and Eastern Europe as well as Africa.
On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote: Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
60-80k tanks a month is a an impossible production number. There were only ~85k T-34s built in it's 18 year production run, and ~55k of them during WW2. That works out to more like 1k a month, and there's no way they were producing 79k of their other light/heavy tanks a month to make up those numbers.
My mistake, it was 60-80k total T-34s during the war.
On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote: Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
60-80k tanks a month is a an impossible production number. There were only ~85k T-34s built in it's 18 year production run, and ~55k of them during WW2. That works out to more like 1k a month, and there's no way they were producing 79k of their other light/heavy tanks a month to make up those numbers.
My mistake, it was 60-80k total T-34s during the war.
I was going to chew you out, but finally someone actually admits they're wrong. Well done good sir, even if i don't agree with you.
I always hear people talk about the Bismarck Battleship. But a lot of people havnt heard about the Tirpitz which was also a German battleship that was sunk. I did see something somewhere that you could buy things made from the metal of the Tirpitz battleship in Norway.
On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote: [quote]
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
Agreeing with what someone says then proceed to contradict with thine own argument, the perfect way to come out looking smart
Saying the Americans/British/Canadians contributed greatly in their own way doesn't contradict the statement that Russia did most of the backwork.
*confused*
I did not know "contributed greatly" = "would have lost without".
Actually, if you consider those two phrases synonymous [which most of the debate seems to be about], it's still not inconsistent with the statement that Russia did most of the backwork. Let's consider the contribution from the Americans [considering them solely just to settle even the most extreme of positions].
It is reasonable to say that their efforts were necessary but not sufficient [in terms of logic - necessary and sufficient conditions]. Think of it this way: all the nations efforts are beams holding up a bridge. It's valid to say that both US and Soviet beams were both vital to keeping the bridge up - that without either beam, the bridge would have collapsed. The Soviet beam can still be larger and still support more weight, but it would still collapse without the key US plank. Let's say the Soviet plank upholds 70% of the weight, the US 30%. If you remove the US and have an object that would occupy 80% of the normal weight, the Soviets would still fall.
Of course, one can take the extreme position that the Soviets would have won all on their own, but I disagree with this claim. Wars aren't won merely with tanks: the lend-lease was much more vital in supporting the soviets in a holistic sense. The Russians offered the man power and fought out the first-hand hard fight, and the Lend Lease provided much of the staples that kept them upright.
The quote about Japan not having the industry to reinforce their millitary vs the United States, which had virtually unlimited resources was really interesting up until it devolved into patriotic nationalist nonsense such as, "they awakened the sleeping giant", and "the cold methodical fury of the mighty american people" or whatever it said.
Also, I love the usual stereotypes about Americans: We are brainwashed, our history books are biased, etc. To the people making those assertions, have you ever taken a college level history course in the United States? You do realize that history is a legitimate field of study here, and that there are many respected academics and leading historians from the united states that are not "biased towards americans"? Do you even understand that we have higher education here are that there are many, many smart Americans that have a sophisticated understanding of the world and the way it works? Perhaps you have never conducted historical research in an american library on a university campus, because if you did, you would know that there are history books written by authors of various nationalities, even books written in other languages (gasp)? Maybe you would understand that historical research requires analysis of primary sources, and that we American hisorians don't get our information from a childrens' books. Just because some Americans watch Fox News doesn't mean that that is a reflection of our society. People are still capable of researching current events on their own, there are legitimate sources of news here that are not biased.
Believe it or not, historical education extends beyond highschool in the United States.
My other grandfather was not that peacefully. He actually was born in romania but in a part where german settelers migrated to hundreds of years ago. When the war started he was young and dumb, he was really athletic and believed that cause he had "german blood" he was better and that he would have to join the fight. He joined the "Waffen-SS" when he was only 17. He got in so many battles that he actually recieved the "Nahkampfspange" in silver, a decoration for beeing really successful in alot of close combats. His unit was captured and when they were about to be brought to a gulag, he and some friends manage to flee. Later he tried to emmigrate to canada, but he couldnt when his SS-tattoo was found. He died before I was born, so I was never able to ask him questions. I dont know if I could have forgiven him for what he had done.
I find stories like this fascinating. From what I know about the waffen-ss it was mainly used as an elite unit to fight battles and the vast majority of the waffen-ss soldiers had nothing to do with war crimes. I hope no one takes this the wrong way but I think you should be proud of your grandfather for fighting for what he believed in and being a brave soldier. Also if you have any waffen-ss memorabilia laying around it is probably worth a fortune. I know a guy who makes a living buying/selling Nazi stuff and his biggest ticket items are waffen-ss and hitler jugend stuff.
Not really. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#War_crimes) Wafen-SS commited quite a few war crimes and was declared a criminal organisation in Nuremberg (excluding people froced to join it after 1943).
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany.
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more"
/facepalm
No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant.
Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS"
Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you.
By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training.
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
Not all history books are bullshit, just most of the one's you read in high school. There are many, many good history books written in the United States, just as there are many produced elsewhere.
On December 28 2011 14:31 Dbars wrote: I always hear people talk about the Bismarck Battleship. But a lot of people havnt heard about the Tirpitz which was also a German battleship that was sunk. I did see something somewhere that you could buy things made from the metal of the Tirpitz battleship in Norway.
they are of the same class, Tirpitz was actually survived longer but doesnt get quite so much press as its demise was not quite as spectacular as that of the Bismarck. Very interesting to see that both of the battleships were so feared by the british that they threw everything at them to destroy them, the Tirpitz spent a fair amount of the war under repair after being constantly harassed by the british airforce and submarine forces before finally being sung by waves of bombers
great thread, have also always taken great interest in reading/ watching as much as i can about the two great wars.
I've made a lot of trips to Dunkirk amongst others to get a view on how things were for the battling sides. Verdun was WW1 ofcourse but i like to know as much as i can about both of them.
the bone ossuary was definately a very impressive and humbling site to visit, well worth any trip link for reference
Lots of good comments and references in this thread already but would like to add at least one and maybe more when i'm not at work.
The link below tells the short tale of general Sosabowski , i'm dutch myself but a few years ago there was a long documentary on television about him and i found the documentary to be heartbreaking.
A polish general who fought in several battles during WW2 , ended up in exile in Britain with his polish paratrooper brigade (polish canadians and polish).
He wanted to aid the (his) people of Warsaw during the polish uprising but was denied this by the british command mainly (supposedly ) because he had critisized Montgomory's operation Market Garden as being a suicide mission that was ill thought out. He joined in the operation after all because he otherwise would never be able to aid his people since he did not have his own transport planes and such.
They fought bravely and fierce to cover the retreat of the british 1st airborne much to their own expense, their losses were about 40 % of the total unit.
After the operation general Sosabowski was scapegoated, once again, most likely due to this nature to conflict with Montgomery. His repuatition was not " cleared " until very recently.
I'm at work so i don't really have the time to dig to find the documentary nor do i know whether it has been released in any other language than Dutch but it is well worth the watch if you happen to find it.
Just one the many, many tales from WW2 that deserve to be told in my opinion.
On December 28 2011 15:51 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Of course, one can take the extreme position that the Soviets would have won all on their own, but I disagree with this claim. Wars aren't won merely with tanks: the lend-lease was much more vital in supporting the soviets in a holistic sense. The Russians offered the man power and fought out the first-hand hard fight, and the Lend Lease provided much of the staples that kept them upright.
Alternate history is hardly an exact science, but everything I've read about this subject has lead me to believe that the Russians would have defeated the Germans even while fighting alone. It would have taken them a lot longer and costed them a whole lot more, but in the end the result would have been the same.
This is due to:
1) The germans could have never defeated the Red Army, it was too big and competent enough after 1941 to stand up to them. Most of the industrial output of Russia had been moved deep into the country, out of reach of the tactical german air force, so the only way the germans had to destroy all the russian equipment was the least effective, on the battlefield.
2) The only real chance the Germans had to defeat Russia was a massive political blow that would break Stalin's grip on power. They could have done this by a massive moral blow, like taking Moscow, bit in reality despite their best efforts they where never even close to doing this. Some recon units got close to Moscow, but to take it was a whole different matter as they would have had to sorround the city, siege it (see the siege of Leningrad to see how hard it was) while defending their overstretched line for a long time.
3) The fact that Nazi policy was so brutal towards slavs destroyed any chance of causing a civil war un Russia by acting like liberators from the Stalinist regime. It bassically forced millions of Russian to fight to the death for their family and their homeland and so they did.
Please notice that when the germans were stopped in Moscow in 1941 Land Lease was barely starting, it's impact was very small back then but the germans were stopped non the less.
This isn't some anti american rant, the US was still by far the single strongest industrial and military power during the war. But that doesn't change the fact that the russians still where more than capable on their own to beat the germans, quite simply because the germans didn't have the oil or other resources to sustain a prolongued war effort, the russians did, and so if the germans couldn't knock out Russia out of the war fast, and they couldn't, it was just a matter of time before the german's resources would be exhausted.
Read anything about Polish history during WW2, I promise You'll get surprised. I mean, our teachers don't even hide from us that the big hit did not come actually from our enemies (Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia) but from Great Britain and France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement - say hello to tragic end to WW2
On December 28 2011 15:51 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Of course, one can take the extreme position that the Soviets would have won all on their own, but I disagree with this claim. Wars aren't won merely with tanks: the lend-lease was much more vital in supporting the soviets in a holistic sense. The Russians offered the man power and fought out the first-hand hard fight, and the Lend Lease provided much of the staples that kept them upright.
Alternate history is hardly an exact science, but everything I've read about this subject has lead me to believe that the Russians would have defeated the Germans even while fighting alone. It would have taken them a lot longer and costed them a whole lot more, but in the end the result would have been the same.
This is due to:
1) The germans could have never defeated the Red Army, it was too big and competent enough after 1941 to stand up to them. Most of the industrial output of Russia had been moved deep into the country, out of reach of the tactical german air force, so the only way the germans had to destroy all the russian equipment was the least effective, on the battlefield.
2) The only real chance the Germans had to defeat Russia was a massive political blow that would break Stalin's grip on power. They could have done this by a massive moral blow, like taking Moscow, bit in reality despite their best efforts they where never even close to doing this. Some recon units got close to Moscow, but to take it was a whole different matter as they would have had to sorround the city, siege it (see the siege of Leningrad to see how hard it was) while defending their overstretched line for a long time.
3) The fact that Nazi policy was so brutal towards slavs destroyed any chance of causing a civil war un Russia by acting like liberators from the Stalinist regime. It bassically forced millions of Russian to fight to the death for their family and their homeland and so they did.
Please notice that when the germans were stopped in Moscow in 1941 Land Lease was barely starting, it's impact was very small back then but the germans were stopped non the less.
This isn't some anti american rant, the US was still by far the single strongest industrial and military power during the war. But that doesn't change the fact that the russians still where more than capable on their own to beat the germans, quite simply because the germans didn't have the oil or other resources to sustain a prolongued war effort, the russians did, and so if the germans couldn't knock out Russia out of the war fast, and they couldn't, it was just a matter of time before the german's resources would be exhausted.
I hate discussing alternate history, but I feel that there is something amiss in yours, so I have to chime in.
Even if we take all your assumptions for granted, you must realize that Germany didn't have the resources to fight the Soviet Union because the Western Allies were actually not neutral. The tank and aircraft production of Germany was actually constantly increasing throughout the war despite resource shortages and allied bombardment.
The western allies cut the supply lines of Germany while at the same time securing those of the Soviet Union, it had massive impact on the war.
I am just glad Germany lost the war, I probably wouldn't want to live in a Germany that has won it
On December 28 2011 15:51 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Of course, one can take the extreme position that the Soviets would have won all on their own, but I disagree with this claim. Wars aren't won merely with tanks: the lend-lease was much more vital in supporting the soviets in a holistic sense. The Russians offered the man power and fought out the first-hand hard fight, and the Lend Lease provided much of the staples that kept them upright.
Alternate history is hardly an exact science, but everything I've read about this subject has lead me to believe that the Russians would have defeated the Germans even while fighting alone. It would have taken them a lot longer and costed them a whole lot more, but in the end the result would have been the same.
This is due to:
1) The germans could have never defeated the Red Army, it was too big and competent enough after 1941 to stand up to them. Most of the industrial output of Russia had been moved deep into the country, out of reach of the tactical german air force, so the only way the germans had to destroy all the russian equipment was the least effective, on the battlefield.
2) The only real chance the Germans had to defeat Russia was a massive political blow that would break Stalin's grip on power. They could have done this by a massive moral blow, like taking Moscow, bit in reality despite their best efforts they where never even close to doing this. Some recon units got close to Moscow, but to take it was a whole different matter as they would have had to sorround the city, siege it (see the siege of Leningrad to see how hard it was) while defending their overstretched line for a long time.
3) The fact that Nazi policy was so brutal towards slavs destroyed any chance of causing a civil war un Russia by acting like liberators from the Stalinist regime. It bassically forced millions of Russian to fight to the death for their family and their homeland and so they did.
Please notice that when the germans were stopped in Moscow in 1941 Land Lease was barely starting, it's impact was very small back then but the germans were stopped non the less.
This isn't some anti american rant, the US was still by far the single strongest industrial and military power during the war. But that doesn't change the fact that the russians still where more than capable on their own to beat the germans, quite simply because the germans didn't have the oil or other resources to sustain a prolongued war effort, the russians did, and so if the germans couldn't knock out Russia out of the war fast, and they couldn't, it was just a matter of time before the german's resources would be exhausted.
I hate discussing alternate history, but I feel that there is something amiss in yours, so I have to chime in.
Even if we take all your assumptions for granted, you must realize that Germany didn't have the resources to fight the Soviet Union because the Western Allies were actually not neutral. The tank and aircraft production of Germany was actually constantly increasing throughout the war despite resource shortages and allied bombardment.
The western allies cut the supply lines of Germany while at the same time securing those of the Soviet Union, it had massive impact on the war.
I am just glad Germany lost the war, I probably wouldn't want to live in a Germany that has won it
I understand all arguments are essentially baseless in speculative history but you do not even attempt to link your argument to your conclusion, what you said is like me saying "The soviets are strong therefore they can take Germany on its own".
I think 1) the Soviet Union turned the war around before major help kicked in 2) the Soviet Union only grows stronger with time while Germany grows weaker 3) D-Day happened when the war was won 4) Italy and Africa forced the Germans to reallocated an insignificant portion of troops
If these 4 points are true is it possible to conclude with some certainty that the SU would have won without the West. So which of these are not true or is there a fallacy in my logic.
Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. )
WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite.
I just leave you with some quotes by ROMMEL:
Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization. On Italians, as quoted in The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart
The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier. On the plaque dedicated to the Bersaglieri that fought at Mersa Matruh and Alamein.
Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. )
WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite.
Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization. On Italians, as quoted in The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart
The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier. On the plaque dedicated to the Bersaglieri that fought at Mersa Matruh and Alamein.
Could you give a legitimate source for this (not a Rommel quote)? I haven't heard anything like this before and it doesn't seem to me that it was that way.
I think it's difficult to hold the Italian soldiers in such a high regard, given that a force of 200,000 of them were defeated by a force of 30,000 British soliders commanded by Archibald Wavell who somehow managed take half of the Italian force as prisoner.
I think a lose as staggering as that in early 1941 can't purely be a result of poor leadership of Italian generals and being less well equipped.
Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. )
WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite.
I just leave you with some quotes by ROMMEL:
Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization. On Italians, as quoted in The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart
The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier. On the plaque dedicated to the Bersaglieri that fought at Mersa Matruh and Alamein.
Could you give a legitimate source for this (not a Rommel quote)? I haven't heard anything like this before and it doesn't seem to me that it was that way.
Second battle of El Alamein. Folgore division is left alone by germans to fight the english allowing them to retreat with their tanks ( italian tanks had no gas ... who knows why...) + Show Spoiler +
I don't have a specific internet source for that because it's what my grandpa told me, so i could be wrong ^^
On December 29 2011 01:02 Isillian wrote: I think it's difficult to hold the Italian soldiers in such a high regard, given that a force of 200,000 of them were defeated by a force of 30,000 British soliders commanded by Archibald Wavell who somehow managed take half of the Italian force as prisoner.
I think a lose as staggering as that in early 1941 can't purely be a result of poor leadership of Italian generals and being less well equipped.
What are you talking about ? Where did you pull those numbers off ? It's IMPOSSIBLE that GB had so few soldier given the fact that they had a lots of colonies, just think about it. As far as i know the british doubled the axis in pretty much everything. Double the troops, double the tanks ecc, better equipment, double anti-tanks weapons, ecc.
I can't believe that there are still people who can't realize the "guts" that italians soldiers ( particulary the Folgore division) had against the english army.
At the end of the battle of El Alamein, Harry Zinder of Time magazine noted that the Italians paratroopers fought better than had been expected, and commented that: In the south, the famed Folgore parachute division fought to the last round of ammunition
On December 28 2011 15:51 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Of course, one can take the extreme position that the Soviets would have won all on their own, but I disagree with this claim. Wars aren't won merely with tanks: the lend-lease was much more vital in supporting the soviets in a holistic sense. The Russians offered the man power and fought out the first-hand hard fight, and the Lend Lease provided much of the staples that kept them upright.
Alternate history is hardly an exact science, but everything I've read about this subject has lead me to believe that the Russians would have defeated the Germans even while fighting alone. It would have taken them a lot longer and costed them a whole lot more, but in the end the result would have been the same.
This is due to:
1) The germans could have never defeated the Red Army, it was too big and competent enough after 1941 to stand up to them. Most of the industrial output of Russia had been moved deep into the country, out of reach of the tactical german air force, so the only way the germans had to destroy all the russian equipment was the least effective, on the battlefield.
2) The only real chance the Germans had to defeat Russia was a massive political blow that would break Stalin's grip on power. They could have done this by a massive moral blow, like taking Moscow, bit in reality despite their best efforts they where never even close to doing this. Some recon units got close to Moscow, but to take it was a whole different matter as they would have had to sorround the city, siege it (see the siege of Leningrad to see how hard it was) while defending their overstretched line for a long time.
3) The fact that Nazi policy was so brutal towards slavs destroyed any chance of causing a civil war un Russia by acting like liberators from the Stalinist regime. It bassically forced millions of Russian to fight to the death for their family and their homeland and so they did.
Please notice that when the germans were stopped in Moscow in 1941 Land Lease was barely starting, it's impact was very small back then but the germans were stopped non the less.
This isn't some anti american rant, the US was still by far the single strongest industrial and military power during the war. But that doesn't change the fact that the russians still where more than capable on their own to beat the germans, quite simply because the germans didn't have the oil or other resources to sustain a prolongued war effort, the russians did, and so if the germans couldn't knock out Russia out of the war fast, and they couldn't, it was just a matter of time before the german's resources would be exhausted.
I hate discussing alternate history, but I feel that there is something amiss in yours, so I have to chime in.
Even if we take all your assumptions for granted, you must realize that Germany didn't have the resources to fight the Soviet Union because the Western Allies were actually not neutral. The tank and aircraft production of Germany was actually constantly increasing throughout the war despite resource shortages and allied bombardment.
The western allies cut the supply lines of Germany while at the same time securing those of the Soviet Union, it had massive impact on the war.
I am just glad Germany lost the war, I probably wouldn't want to live in a Germany that has won it
I understand all arguments are essentially baseless in speculative history but you do not even attempt to link your argument to your conclusion, what you said is like me saying "The soviets are strong therefore they can take Germany on its own".
I think 1) the Soviet Union turned the war around before major help kicked in 2) the Soviet Union only grows stronger with time while Germany grows weaker 3) D-Day happened when the war was won 4) Italy and Africa forced the Germans to reallocated an insignificant portion of troops
If these 4 points are true is it possible to conclude with some certainty that the SU would have won without the West. So which of these are not true or is there a fallacy in my logic.
I just posted some snippets for thought because I am actually already tired of this discussion before it even started. But for you, I'll make a detailed post on the subject.
So let's look at some details: Many of the German victories were not based on the tank force, but on air superiority. Now what would have been the impact if the western allies would not have participated in the war? Say, the UK signs a peace treaty right after France surrendered, just like Hitler wanted them to.
The Battle of Britain and the invasion of Crete would never have happened, the air war in the Mediterranean and over Germany would never be fought.
Now, in reality Operation Barbarossa was started with 4,389 aircraft, of which 2,598 were combat aircraft. In this scenario you can add 3000 aircraft and experienced pilots that were lost over Britain and Crete, as well as forces that would have been tied up in other theaters of war, probably doubling the initial strength of the Luftwaffe in the East.
Aircraft production throughout the war: 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 total Germany 8,295 10,826 12,401 15,409 24,807 40,593 7,540 119,871 USSR 10,382 10,565 15,735 25,436 34,900 40,300 20,900 158,218
As you can see the numbers are quite close.
Aluminum and aviation fuel are critical resources for building and maintaining an air fleet. It's interesting to know that the Soviet Union did get more than half of those resources from the Lend-Lease Agreement throughout the war, and much of the rest was still imported (but paid for, often by Western credits). Germany on the other hand was constantly short on fuel and the aluminum production was hampered by energy shortages.
Now imagine Germany could actually buy oil, rubber and other resources on the world market and the Soviet Union wouldn't get raw materials for free, don't you think that would change the production numbers by quite a bit, as well as change the combat readiness of the air fleets? Not to mention German production would not be hampered by air raids and they wouldn't have constant aircraft losses against the more advanced fighters of the western powers.
I, for one, can't imagine the Soviets getting air superiority anytime soon without western participation in the war. German air superiority, however, could change the situation in 1942 and 1943 quite drastically.
And this is only one aspect of the war that was influenced by the western powers. Yes, the Soviet Union has shouldered the brunt of the war, but that does not mean it would have certainly won the war on its own.
Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. )
WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite.
I just leave you with some quotes by ROMMEL:
Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization. On Italians, as quoted in The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart
The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier. On the plaque dedicated to the Bersaglieri that fought at Mersa Matruh and Alamein.
Could you give a legitimate source for this (not a Rommel quote)? I haven't heard anything like this before and it doesn't seem to me that it was that way.
Second battle of El Alamein. Folgore division is left alone by germans to fight the english allowing them to retreat with their tanks ( italian tanks had no gas ... who knows why...) + Show Spoiler +
I don't have a specific internet source for that because it's what my grandpa told me, so i could be wrong ^^
On December 29 2011 01:02 Isillian wrote: I think it's difficult to hold the Italian soldiers in such a high regard, given that a force of 200,000 of them were defeated by a force of 30,000 British soliders commanded by Archibald Wavell who somehow managed take half of the Italian force as prisoner.
I think a lose as staggering as that in early 1941 can't purely be a result of poor leadership of Italian generals and being less well equipped.
What are you talking about ? Where did you pull those numbers off ? It's IMPOSSIBLE that GB had so few soldier given the fact that they had a lots of colonies, just think about it. As far as i know the british doubled the axis in pretty much everything. Double the troops, double the tanks ecc, better equipment, double anti-tanks weapons, ecc.
I can't believe that there are still people who can't realize the "guts" that italians soldiers ( particulary the Folgore division) had against the english army.
At the end of the battle of El Alamein, Harry Zinder of Time magazine noted that the Italians paratroopers fought better than had been expected, and commented that: In the south, the famed Folgore parachute division fought to the last round of ammunition
Well, unless the history textbook next to me is simply lying, then it's safe to assume that the numbers are fairly accurate. I can assure you that the British did not double the axis forces in sheer numbers, given how streched thin Britain was at the time and had no help from France by that point as they had already capitulated.
I'm not by any means questioning bravery of the Italian forces, merely that they were not paritularly succesful at that time and their failure in the region was what promoted Hitler to send General Rommel to support Italian forces in Libya.
Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. )
WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite.
I just leave you with some quotes by ROMMEL:
Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization. On Italians, as quoted in The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart
The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier. On the plaque dedicated to the Bersaglieri that fought at Mersa Matruh and Alamein.
Could you give a legitimate source for this (not a Rommel quote)? I haven't heard anything like this before and it doesn't seem to me that it was that way.
Second battle of El Alamein. Folgore division is left alone by germans to fight the english allowing them to retreat with their tanks ( italian tanks had no gas ... who knows why...) + Show Spoiler +
I don't have a specific internet source for that because it's what my grandpa told me, so i could be wrong ^^
On December 29 2011 01:02 Isillian wrote: I think it's difficult to hold the Italian soldiers in such a high regard, given that a force of 200,000 of them were defeated by a force of 30,000 British soliders commanded by Archibald Wavell who somehow managed take half of the Italian force as prisoner.
I think a lose as staggering as that in early 1941 can't purely be a result of poor leadership of Italian generals and being less well equipped.
What are you talking about ? Where did you pull those numbers off ? It's IMPOSSIBLE that GB had so few soldier given the fact that they had a lots of colonies, just think about it. As far as i know the british doubled the axis in pretty much everything. Double the troops, double the tanks ecc, better equipment, double anti-tanks weapons, ecc.
I can't believe that there are still people who can't realize the "guts" that italians soldiers ( particulary the Folgore division) had against the english army.
At the end of the battle of El Alamein, Harry Zinder of Time magazine noted that the Italians paratroopers fought better than had been expected, and commented that: In the south, the famed Folgore parachute division fought to the last round of ammunition
He didn't say that that was the entirety of the British army. He just said that 30k british beat 200k italians. The Germans were, afaik better equipped (superior weapons, as they were ready for war and the british were not), better drilled soldiers etc etc. Mind you Germany had double the population, and not as decentralized army. The British were all over the world having to guard their colonies from the slaves and locals and keeping them in check. Also the Germans took soldiers from conquered lands as well.
Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. )
WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite.
I just leave you with some quotes by ROMMEL:
Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization. On Italians, as quoted in The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart
The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier. On the plaque dedicated to the Bersaglieri that fought at Mersa Matruh and Alamein.
Could you give a legitimate source for this (not a Rommel quote)? I haven't heard anything like this before and it doesn't seem to me that it was that way.
Second battle of El Alamein. Folgore division is left alone by germans to fight the english allowing them to retreat with their tanks ( italian tanks had no gas ... who knows why...) + Show Spoiler +
I don't have a specific internet source for that because it's what my grandpa told me, so i could be wrong ^^
On December 29 2011 01:02 Isillian wrote: I think it's difficult to hold the Italian soldiers in such a high regard, given that a force of 200,000 of them were defeated by a force of 30,000 British soliders commanded by Archibald Wavell who somehow managed take half of the Italian force as prisoner.
I think a lose as staggering as that in early 1941 can't purely be a result of poor leadership of Italian generals and being less well equipped.
What are you talking about ? Where did you pull those numbers off ? It's IMPOSSIBLE that GB had so few soldier given the fact that they had a lots of colonies, just think about it. As far as i know the british doubled the axis in pretty much everything. Double the troops, double the tanks ecc, better equipment, double anti-tanks weapons, ecc.
I can't believe that there are still people who can't realize the "guts" that italians soldiers ( particulary the Folgore division) had against the english army.
At the end of the battle of El Alamein, Harry Zinder of Time magazine noted that the Italians paratroopers fought better than had been expected, and commented that: In the south, the famed Folgore parachute division fought to the last round of ammunition
Well, unless the history textbook next to me is simply lying, then it's safe to assume that the numbers are fairly accurate. I can assure you that the British did not double the axis forces in sheer numbers, given how streched thin Britain was at the time and had no help from France by that point as they had already capitulated.
I'm not by any means questioning bravery of the Italian forces, merely that they were not paritularly succesful at that time and their failure in the region was what promoted Hitler to send General Rommel to support Italian forces in Libya.
Ok, probably we are talking about different battles. I'm 100% sure that during the first and the second battle of el alamein the british had the biggest army. What battle are you talking about ? I did a little research and i wasn't able to find numbers like that.
Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. )
WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite.
I just leave you with some quotes by ROMMEL:
Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization. On Italians, as quoted in The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart
The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier. On the plaque dedicated to the Bersaglieri that fought at Mersa Matruh and Alamein.
Could you give a legitimate source for this (not a Rommel quote)? I haven't heard anything like this before and it doesn't seem to me that it was that way.
Second battle of El Alamein. Folgore division is left alone by germans to fight the english allowing them to retreat with their tanks ( italian tanks had no gas ... who knows why...) + Show Spoiler +
I don't have a specific internet source for that because it's what my grandpa told me, so i could be wrong ^^
On December 29 2011 01:02 Isillian wrote: I think it's difficult to hold the Italian soldiers in such a high regard, given that a force of 200,000 of them were defeated by a force of 30,000 British soliders commanded by Archibald Wavell who somehow managed take half of the Italian force as prisoner.
I think a lose as staggering as that in early 1941 can't purely be a result of poor leadership of Italian generals and being less well equipped.
What are you talking about ? Where did you pull those numbers off ? It's IMPOSSIBLE that GB had so few soldier given the fact that they had a lots of colonies, just think about it. As far as i know the british doubled the axis in pretty much everything. Double the troops, double the tanks ecc, better equipment, double anti-tanks weapons, ecc.
I can't believe that there are still people who can't realize the "guts" that italians soldiers ( particulary the Folgore division) had against the english army.
At the end of the battle of El Alamein, Harry Zinder of Time magazine noted that the Italians paratroopers fought better than had been expected, and commented that: In the south, the famed Folgore parachute division fought to the last round of ammunition
Well, unless the history textbook next to me is simply lying, then it's safe to assume that the numbers are fairly accurate. I can assure you that the British did not double the axis forces in sheer numbers, given how streched thin Britain was at the time and had no help from France by that point as they had already capitulated.
I'm not by any means questioning bravery of the Italian forces, merely that they were not paritularly succesful at that time and their failure in the region was what promoted Hitler to send General Rommel to support Italian forces in Libya.
Ok, probably we are talking about different battles. I'm 100% sure that during the first and the second battle of el alamein the british had the biggest army. What battle are you talking about ? I did a little research and i wasn't able to find numbers like that.
He was talking about the battles before Germany had to help the Italians where Great Britain completely decimated huge Italian armies for almost no loss. Just an FYI most of the African battles you refer to were fought by the Germans with the Italians in a support role.
Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. )
WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite.
I just leave you with some quotes by ROMMEL:
Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization. On Italians, as quoted in The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart
The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier. On the plaque dedicated to the Bersaglieri that fought at Mersa Matruh and Alamein.
Could you give a legitimate source for this (not a Rommel quote)? I haven't heard anything like this before and it doesn't seem to me that it was that way.
Second battle of El Alamein. Folgore division is left alone by germans to fight the english allowing them to retreat with their tanks ( italian tanks had no gas ... who knows why...) + Show Spoiler +
I don't have a specific internet source for that because it's what my grandpa told me, so i could be wrong ^^
On December 29 2011 01:02 Isillian wrote: I think it's difficult to hold the Italian soldiers in such a high regard, given that a force of 200,000 of them were defeated by a force of 30,000 British soliders commanded by Archibald Wavell who somehow managed take half of the Italian force as prisoner.
I think a lose as staggering as that in early 1941 can't purely be a result of poor leadership of Italian generals and being less well equipped.
What are you talking about ? Where did you pull those numbers off ? It's IMPOSSIBLE that GB had so few soldier given the fact that they had a lots of colonies, just think about it. As far as i know the british doubled the axis in pretty much everything. Double the troops, double the tanks ecc, better equipment, double anti-tanks weapons, ecc.
I can't believe that there are still people who can't realize the "guts" that italians soldiers ( particulary the Folgore division) had against the english army.
At the end of the battle of El Alamein, Harry Zinder of Time magazine noted that the Italians paratroopers fought better than had been expected, and commented that: In the south, the famed Folgore parachute division fought to the last round of ammunition
Well, unless the history textbook next to me is simply lying, then it's safe to assume that the numbers are fairly accurate. I can assure you that the British did not double the axis forces in sheer numbers, given how streched thin Britain was at the time and had no help from France by that point as they had already capitulated.
I'm not by any means questioning bravery of the Italian forces, merely that they were not paritularly succesful at that time and their failure in the region was what promoted Hitler to send General Rommel to support Italian forces in Libya.
Ok, probably we are talking about different battles. I'm 100% sure that during the first and the second battle of el alamein the british had the biggest army. What battle are you talking about ? I did a little research and i wasn't able to find numbers like that.
He was talking about the battles before Germany had to help the Italians where Great Britain completely decimated huge Italian armies for almost no loss. Just an FYI most of the African battles you refer to were fought by the Germans with the Italians in a support role.
Maybe you should listen a little less to your grandpa and more to a bit more... reliable sources. I'm sorry but there are a lot of bitter old men in this world.
On December 29 2011 01:28 Maenander wrote:Now imagine Germany could actually buy oil, rubber and other resources on the world market and the Soviet Union wouldn't get raw materials for free, don't you think that would change the production numbers by quite a bit, as well as change the combat readiness of the air fleets? Not to mention German production would not be hampered by air raids and they wouldn't have constant aircraft losses against the more advanced fighters of the western powers.
The problem is that I can't see any reasonable scenario where Germany would be able to buy significant ammounts of oil, quite simply because the largest producer by far at the time was the US, and I can't even begin to imagine why would the US, even if not in direct war with Nazi Germany, would feed it's war machine.
The most likely scenario for a Germany vs. Soviet Union only war would be that the British politicians would have gotten too scared during the Battle for Britain and Hitler would have had the common sense to accept a negotiated peace. This takes out GB and the US from the direct war, but it doesn't make them want to cooperate with Hitler either.
And while the Wehrmacht was always smaller than the Red Army, they could have still won had they had enough resources and a strong and efficient logistics system, but they had neither. It doesn't matter how many more panzer divisions and air wings the german send to Russia if they don't have the logistics to support them.
On December 29 2011 01:28 Maenander wrote:Now imagine Germany could actually buy oil, rubber and other resources on the world market and the Soviet Union wouldn't get raw materials for free, don't you think that would change the production numbers by quite a bit, as well as change the combat readiness of the air fleets? Not to mention German production would not be hampered by air raids and they wouldn't have constant aircraft losses against the more advanced fighters of the western powers.
The problem is that I can't see any reasonable scenario where Germany would be able to buy significant ammounts of oil, quite simply because the largest producer by far at the time was the US, and I can't even begin to imagine why would the US, even if not in direct war with Nazi Germany, would feed it's war machine.
The most likely scenario for a Germany vs. Soviet Union only war would be that the British politicians would have gotten too scared during the Battle for Britain and Hitler would have had the common sense to accept a negotiated peace. This takes out GB and the US from the direct war, but it doesn't make them want to cooperate with Hitler either.
And while the Wehrmacht was always smaller than the Red Army, they could have still won had they had enough resources and a strong and efficient logistics system, but they had neither. It doesn't matter how many more panzer divisions and air wings the german send to Russia if they don't have the logistics to support them.
Such "what ifs" are useless. "If the Red Army had had giant robots the outcome would've been different". Well... of course. Many of such assumptions just imagine if one side had a bigger advantage at the time.
What if France had attacked instead of waiting for a whole year? Now that's an interesting "what if" (even though its logistical inferiority wouldv'e probably led to defeat).
Edit: but to be clear, I do agree that the aformentioned scenario where Germany magically gets unlimited supplies from its very enemies is not likely.
On December 29 2011 01:28 Maenander wrote:Now imagine Germany could actually buy oil, rubber and other resources on the world market and the Soviet Union wouldn't get raw materials for free, don't you think that would change the production numbers by quite a bit, as well as change the combat readiness of the air fleets? Not to mention German production would not be hampered by air raids and they wouldn't have constant aircraft losses against the more advanced fighters of the western powers.
The problem is that I can't see any reasonable scenario where Germany would be able to buy significant ammounts of oil, quite simply because the largest producer by far at the time was the US, and I can't even begin to imagine why would the US, even if not in direct war with Nazi Germany, would feed it's war machine.
The most likely scenario for a Germany vs. Soviet Union only war would be that the British politicians would have gotten too scared during the Battle for Britain and Hitler would have had the common sense to accept a negotiated peace. This takes out GB and the US from the direct war, but it doesn't make them want to cooperate with Hitler either.
And while the Wehrmacht was always smaller than the Red Army, they could have still won had they had enough resources and a strong and efficient logistics system, but they had neither. It doesn't matter how many more panzer divisions and air wings the german send to Russia if they don't have the logistics to support them.
A major share of Germany's imports in 1938 came from South America:
USA 404.6 UK 282.7 South America 809.7 million Reichsmark
It would have made quite a difference if only the naval blockade would have been lifted. And yes, the UK was not willing to accept any peace agreement, but for the sake of the argument we must make that assumption. Hitler would have gladly accepted peace with the UK btw.
It's not my idea to set up the Soviet Union alone against Nazi Germany, so don't blame me for the implausibility of the scenario
edit: I agree with the major points from your previous posts though, Nazi Germany could never have conquered Russia permanently.
Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. )
WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite.
I just leave you with some quotes by ROMMEL:
Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization. On Italians, as quoted in The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart
The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier. On the plaque dedicated to the Bersaglieri that fought at Mersa Matruh and Alamein.
Could you give a legitimate source for this (not a Rommel quote)? I haven't heard anything like this before and it doesn't seem to me that it was that way.
Second battle of El Alamein. Folgore division is left alone by germans to fight the english allowing them to retreat with their tanks ( italian tanks had no gas ... who knows why...) + Show Spoiler +
I don't have a specific internet source for that because it's what my grandpa told me, so i could be wrong ^^
On December 29 2011 01:02 Isillian wrote: I think it's difficult to hold the Italian soldiers in such a high regard, given that a force of 200,000 of them were defeated by a force of 30,000 British soliders commanded by Archibald Wavell who somehow managed take half of the Italian force as prisoner.
I think a lose as staggering as that in early 1941 can't purely be a result of poor leadership of Italian generals and being less well equipped.
What are you talking about ? Where did you pull those numbers off ? It's IMPOSSIBLE that GB had so few soldier given the fact that they had a lots of colonies, just think about it. As far as i know the british doubled the axis in pretty much everything. Double the troops, double the tanks ecc, better equipment, double anti-tanks weapons, ecc.
I can't believe that there are still people who can't realize the "guts" that italians soldiers ( particulary the Folgore division) had against the english army.
At the end of the battle of El Alamein, Harry Zinder of Time magazine noted that the Italians paratroopers fought better than had been expected, and commented that: In the south, the famed Folgore parachute division fought to the last round of ammunition
Well, unless the history textbook next to me is simply lying, then it's safe to assume that the numbers are fairly accurate. I can assure you that the British did not double the axis forces in sheer numbers, given how streched thin Britain was at the time and had no help from France by that point as they had already capitulated.
I'm not by any means questioning bravery of the Italian forces, merely that they were not paritularly succesful at that time and their failure in the region was what promoted Hitler to send General Rommel to support Italian forces in Libya.
Ok, probably we are talking about different battles. I'm 100% sure that during the first and the second battle of el alamein the british had the biggest army. What battle are you talking about ? I did a little research and i wasn't able to find numbers like that.
He was talking about the battles before Germany had to help the Italians where Great Britain completely decimated huge Italian armies for almost no loss. Just an FYI most of the African battles you refer to were fought by the Germans with the Italians in a support role.
Maybe you should listen a little less to your grandpa and more to a bit more... reliable sources. I'm sorry but there are a lot of bitter old men in this world.
Wut are you trying to say? Also I'm a Chinese Canadian so I hardly have any nationalistic bias in this subject.
Just wanted to say some stuff after reading the posts in this thread.
1) To anyone who thought the German high command (including its nocs, officers,) were somehow incompetent, that is blatantly not true. Since the Napoleonic and Civil Wars, two countries far exceeded strategic command than the rest of the world, and that is Germany and the US. This is seen truly evident in WWI and even moreso in WWII (look at German generals... Rommel, Guderian, Gerd von Runstedt, Manstein, etc. etc for Germans and Pershing's man in the States including Omar, Patton, etc. etc.). The Germans, for the longest time in the 20th century, had the only dedicated training of cadres, officers, and NOCs and thus were more effective on the battlefield (though this would change a little bit after the end of the Great War, where Allied forces copied either German or American counterparts). Had Hitler listened to any of these people (which, halfway through Barbarossa, he completely ignored)
2) Russia had no resources to actually push or defeat the Germans in their own ground. Given this, Russia had competent 'young' commanders (Ivan Konev and Zhkuov) who matched Germany's competence of command. Regardless, Russia had suffered great defeats in Eastern Europe and though production output in the Ural mountains/caucasus were attempting to keep up with the war effort, it was only because America mechanized (one of the greatest advancements coming into WWII, other than improvements with the air force) its transports and the entire army. It is ignorant to say that Russia did all the work, any1 who says this is either a Russian or extremely unacknowledged in WWII history. It is true that the Soviet Union, with France out of the war, had to withstand and survive as the only real allied power in continental Europe, and played a huge role in the war, but they weren't the only ones.
3) As for Africa... the only reason Rommel had to intervene in Africa was because the Italians were losing against the British, which as ppl had said, were somewhat undermanned. Most people forget that India, Britain's greatest manpower source in these colonies during WWI, did not participate in the war fully (Gandhi), and the only real force for the British in these regions (though irregular Free French forces played a vital role) was the Eight Army. Not only did Italy fail to take Egypt and Greece, they were pushed out of both of these regions and pushed further back into Libya and Albania, forcing Germany to intervene and ending British/Greek dominance in these regions.
4) The majority of Germany's oil production came from Romania and Venezuela, not the states, and when they lost Romania, they built synthesized oil factories, so Germany wasn't doing that bad in resources (at least compared to the Japanese)
I think Wikipedia sources can only provide the general picture to the great wars, often the link they provide are out of date or does not exist anymore.(not all links but sometime you do see some dead ones) It give more a general idea in statistic number and the timeline of events and sometime only one point of view on an event based off only one source(depend on the source).
The situations in the war are often more complicated and detail then what we can find just through one or two books. Often if we want to crunch numbers to see which side got the real advantages at what time, we need to look at alternative resources other then Wikipedia and sometime we can even find contradiction between stories in many books. Different Historians can provide different numbers and timeline depend on what they research and what their belief.
It is very often the exact number is never know. What we can learn from the history is to understand how the events happened and what is the result of those events. In addition, what we want to get out of it is we try not to repeat the same mistakes that were made by our parents, grandparents or our ancestors. It is regrettable to say that is not always the case.
Sometime the best way to learn something is to experience it first hand which can be a very bad idea in worst case.
Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. )
WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite.
I just leave you with some quotes by ROMMEL:
Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization. On Italians, as quoted in The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart
The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier. On the plaque dedicated to the Bersaglieri that fought at Mersa Matruh and Alamein.
Could you give a legitimate source for this (not a Rommel quote)? I haven't heard anything like this before and it doesn't seem to me that it was that way.
Second battle of El Alamein. Folgore division is left alone by germans to fight the english allowing them to retreat with their tanks ( italian tanks had no gas ... who knows why...) + Show Spoiler +
I don't have a specific internet source for that because it's what my grandpa told me, so i could be wrong ^^
On December 29 2011 01:02 Isillian wrote: I think it's difficult to hold the Italian soldiers in such a high regard, given that a force of 200,000 of them were defeated by a force of 30,000 British soliders commanded by Archibald Wavell who somehow managed take half of the Italian force as prisoner.
I think a lose as staggering as that in early 1941 can't purely be a result of poor leadership of Italian generals and being less well equipped.
What are you talking about ? Where did you pull those numbers off ? It's IMPOSSIBLE that GB had so few soldier given the fact that they had a lots of colonies, just think about it. As far as i know the british doubled the axis in pretty much everything. Double the troops, double the tanks ecc, better equipment, double anti-tanks weapons, ecc.
I can't believe that there are still people who can't realize the "guts" that italians soldiers ( particulary the Folgore division) had against the english army.
At the end of the battle of El Alamein, Harry Zinder of Time magazine noted that the Italians paratroopers fought better than had been expected, and commented that: In the south, the famed Folgore parachute division fought to the last round of ammunition
Well, unless the history textbook next to me is simply lying, then it's safe to assume that the numbers are fairly accurate. I can assure you that the British did not double the axis forces in sheer numbers, given how streched thin Britain was at the time and had no help from France by that point as they had already capitulated.
I'm not by any means questioning bravery of the Italian forces, merely that they were not paritularly succesful at that time and their failure in the region was what promoted Hitler to send General Rommel to support Italian forces in Libya.
Ok, probably we are talking about different battles. I'm 100% sure that during the first and the second battle of el alamein the british had the biggest army. What battle are you talking about ? I did a little research and i wasn't able to find numbers like that.
He was talking about the battles before Germany had to help the Italians where Great Britain completely decimated huge Italian armies for almost no loss. Just an FYI most of the African battles you refer to were fought by the Germans with the Italians in a support role.
Maybe you should listen a little less to your grandpa and more to a bit more... reliable sources. I'm sorry but there are a lot of bitter old men in this world.
Wut are you trying to say? Also I'm a Chinese Canadian so I hardly have any nationalistic bias in this subject.
I was obviously talking to the guy you quoted... I think you never mentioned your gramps during these quotes or did you? Well he did. Read the post again and give one reason except the position of the post why I could've ment you, try seeing the actual content of the post. (If you ask yourself why I quoted you with him instead of just him then that's because your post helped to bring about my point)
On December 29 2011 03:20 Jebusrocks wrote: Just wanted to say some stuff after reading the posts in this thread.
1) To anyone who thought the German high command (including its nocs, officers,) were somehow incompetent, that is blatantly not true. Since the Napoleonic and Civil Wars, two countries far exceeded strategic command than the rest of the world, and that is Germany and the US. This is seen truly evident in WWI and even moreso in WWII (look at German generals... Rommel, Guderian, Gerd von Runstedt, Manstein, etc. etc for Germans and Pershing's man in the States including Omar, Patton, etc. etc.). The Germans, for the longest time in the 20th century, had the only dedicated training of cadres, officers, and NOCs and thus were more effective on the battlefield (though this would change a little bit after the end of the Great War, where Allied forces copied either German or American counterparts). Had Hitler listened to any of these people (which, halfway through Barbarossa, he completely ignored)
2) Russia had no resources to actually push or defeat the Germans in their own ground. Given this, Russia had competent 'young' commanders (Ivan Konev and Zhkuov) who matched Germany's competence of command. Regardless, Russia had suffered great defeats in Eastern Europe and though production output in the Ural mountains/caucasus were attempting to keep up with the war effort, it was only because America mechanized (one of the greatest advancements coming into WWII, other than improvements with the air force) its transports and the entire army. It is ignorant to say that Russia did all the work, any1 who says this is either a Russian or extremely unacknowledged in WWII history. It is true that the Soviet Union, with France out of the war, had to withstand and survive as the only real allied power in continental Europe, and played a huge role in the war, but they weren't the only ones.
3) As for Africa... the only reason Rommel had to intervene in Africa was because the Italians were losing against the British, which as ppl had said, were somewhat undermanned. Most people forget that India, Britain's greatest manpower source in these colonies during WWI, did not participate in the war fully (Gandhi), and the only real force for the British in these regions (though irregular Free French forces played a vital role) was the Eight Army. Not only did Italy fail to take Egypt and Greece, they were pushed out of both of these regions and pushed further back into Libya and Albania, forcing Germany to intervene and ending British/Greek dominance in these regions.
4) The majority of Germany's oil production came from Romania and Venezuela, not the states, and when they lost Romania, they built synthesized oil factories, so Germany wasn't doing that bad in resources (at least compared to the Japanese)
So.. Just to go wildly off topic for a second: wern't Americans considered having worthless command during ww1, when they stormed through the trenches through machine gun crossfire? That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
1.) Japan's biggest mistake was giving FDR the excuse he needed to enter the war. Had Japan focused more on controling SE Asia (conscripting soldiers and building infastructure) with the primary goal after having a strong footing in Vietnam and Cambodia to take the Indian coastline and the natural resource abundant regions of the Himalayas. From there Japan would have a strong hold over most of Asia.
2.) Italy needed control the entire mediteranian by invading France with Germany marching around the southern end of the Maginot line, and once France was completely controlled by the Axis they would be in a supreme position to pressure Spain into controling the strategic point of Gibraltar.
3.) Germany needed to keep good relations with Russia until the area's of Turkey, India, Iraq, Iran, Egypt could be taken via invasions from Germany via Persia, and Italy via Libia. With Gibralta controlled the only way for England to defend her colonies would be to a. Counter attack and invade France/Germany, or B. Go all the way around Africa and come in through the Suez canal. With the Suez canal controled by the axis they would have had the Russians surrounded on all sides. With all of the major water ways controlled for resuppling.
4.) Had the Axis powers been able to control the mainland of Europe, Africa, and the parts of Asia that were not controlled by the Soviets, before trying to go and bring Russia and America into the war there's a good chance we'd all be living in a facist world today.
On December 29 2011 03:20 Jebusrocks wrote: Just wanted to say some stuff after reading the posts in this thread.
1) To anyone who thought the German high command (including its nocs, officers,) were somehow incompetent, that is blatantly not true. Since the Napoleonic and Civil Wars, two countries far exceeded strategic command than the rest of the world, and that is Germany and the US. This is seen truly evident in WWI and even moreso in WWII (look at German generals... Rommel, Guderian, Gerd von Runstedt, Manstein, etc. etc for Germans and Pershing's man in the States including Omar, Patton, etc. etc.). The Germans, for the longest time in the 20th century, had the only dedicated training of cadres, officers, and NOCs and thus were more effective on the battlefield (though this would change a little bit after the end of the Great War, where Allied forces copied either German or American counterparts). Had Hitler listened to any of these people (which, halfway through Barbarossa, he completely ignored)
2) Russia had no resources to actually push or defeat the Germans in their own ground. Given this, Russia had competent 'young' commanders (Ivan Konev and Zhkuov) who matched Germany's competence of command. Regardless, Russia had suffered great defeats in Eastern Europe and though production output in the Ural mountains/caucasus were attempting to keep up with the war effort, it was only because America mechanized (one of the greatest advancements coming into WWII, other than improvements with the air force) its transports and the entire army. It is ignorant to say that Russia did all the work, any1 who says this is either a Russian or extremely unacknowledged in WWII history. It is true that the Soviet Union, with France out of the war, had to withstand and survive as the only real allied power in continental Europe, and played a huge role in the war, but they weren't the only ones.
3) As for Africa... the only reason Rommel had to intervene in Africa was because the Italians were losing against the British, which as ppl had said, were somewhat undermanned. Most people forget that India, Britain's greatest manpower source in these colonies during WWI, did not participate in the war fully (Gandhi), and the only real force for the British in these regions (though irregular Free French forces played a vital role) was the Eight Army. Not only did Italy fail to take Egypt and Greece, they were pushed out of both of these regions and pushed further back into Libya and Albania, forcing Germany to intervene and ending British/Greek dominance in these regions.
4) The majority of Germany's oil production came from Romania and Venezuela, not the states, and when they lost Romania, they built synthesized oil factories, so Germany wasn't doing that bad in resources (at least compared to the Japanese)
So.. Just to go wildly off topic for a second: wern't Americans considered having worthless command during ww1, when they stormed through the trenches through machine gun crossfire? That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
What about the U.S civil war? It was way before WW1. Cavalry and swords weren't effective then either.
One thing that always bothered me was that nobody ever mentions the expulsion of German civilians during the last year and beyond. Was pretty much a death march through Europe with 500k to 2 million casualties, yet is never mentioned alongside the Holocaust or other atrocities, I suppose because the ones who did it won the war :/
On December 29 2011 05:11 Piy wrote: One thing that always bothered me was that nobody ever mentions the expulsion of German civilians during the last year and beyond. Was pretty much a death march through Europe with 500k to 2 million casualties, yet is never mentioned alongside the Holocaust or other atrocities, I suppose because the ones who did it won the war :/
On December 29 2011 05:11 Piy wrote: One thing that always bothered me was that nobody ever mentions the expulsion of German civilians during the last year and beyond. Was pretty much a death march through Europe with 500k to 2 million casualties, yet is never mentioned alongside the Holocaust or other atrocities, I suppose because the ones who did it won the war :/
Had Germany succeeded in world domination do you think there would be any mention of the holocaust? The winners hold the pens and write the history. This is they way it has always been.
On December 29 2011 04:57 Sabin010 wrote: 1.) Japan's biggest mistake was giving FDR the excuse he needed to enter the war. Had Japan focused more on controling SE Asia (conscripting soldiers and building infastructure) with the primary goal after having a strong footing in Vietnam and Cambodia to take the Indian coastline and the natural resource abundant regions of the Himalayas. From there Japan would have a strong hold over most of Asia.
2.) Italy needed control the entire mediteranian by invading France with Germany marching around the southern end of the Maginot line, and once France was completely controlled by the Axis they would be in a supreme position to pressure Spain into controling the strategic point of Gibraltar.
3.) Germany needed to keep good relations with Russia until the area's of Turkey, India, Iraq, Iran, Egypt could be taken via invasions from Germany via Persia, and Italy via Libia. With Gibralta controlled the only way for England to defend her colonies would be to a. Counter attack and invade France/Germany, or B. Go all the way around Africa and come in through the Suez canal. With the Suez canal controled by the axis they would have had the Russians surrounded on all sides. With all of the major water ways controlled for resuppling.
4.) Had the Axis powers been able to control the mainland of Europe, Africa, and the parts of Asia that were not controlled by the Soviets, before trying to go and bring Russia and America into the war there's a good chance we'd all be living in a facist world today.
They wouldnt have really had to pressure Spain would they? Despite the fact they stayed neutral, iirc Francisco Franco or whatever (the fascist leader) had Germany help them in the Civil War before WW2? So they were on somewhat good terms werent they?
While it is true they were on good terms. Gibraltar never left British hands, allowing them to comfortably traverse from India to England via the Suez canal.
On December 28 2011 05:27 Elegy wrote: WW2 history "debates" are terrible affairs unless done by professionals in the field...amateur attempts at counterfactual historiography are quite laughable overall, and tend to assume a continuity of thought and achievement that far exceeds realistic expectations.
Best quote in the thread so far (by page 3). It is exemplified by
On December 28 2011 06:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On December 28 2011 06:13 atwar wrote: lets talk about the winter war or how the finnish lost 70k men and the russians 323k LOL useless russians
Bigotry and support of close Nazi allies in the same post. Smart. I'd be thanking all my Norse gods that after almost single-handedly beating the Germans, they didn't come back around and destroy Finland, because they very well could have, especially through total war and saturation bombing to nullify the heavy advantage of guerilla warfare of the Winter War. Just saying. It is good the Soviets were not too particularly vengeful against the Germans and German allies (like Finland, although Finland's wasn't so involved in the offensives against the USSR since they didn't have much of a military to speak of) who deliberately committed genocide against them.
JudicatorHammurabi, I don't know about other German allies, but Russia was EXTREMELY vengeful against Romania for being a German ally in the beginning of WW2. They took a huge chunk of territory out of Romania and annexed it to the USSR, which they haven't returned when the USSR collapsed (country of Moldova today).
Also, 50 years of communist occupation, no freedom, you lost all your property and you go to prison/die if you say anything against the regime. Particularly vengeful, I'd say.
On December 28 2011 05:27 Elegy wrote: WW2 history "debates" are terrible affairs unless done by professionals in the field...amateur attempts at counterfactual historiography are quite laughable overall, and tend to assume a continuity of thought and achievement that far exceeds realistic expectations.
Best quote in the thread so far (by page 3). It is exemplified by
On December 28 2011 06:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On December 28 2011 06:13 atwar wrote: lets talk about the winter war or how the finnish lost 70k men and the russians 323k LOL useless russians
Bigotry and support of close Nazi allies in the same post. Smart. I'd be thanking all my Norse gods that after almost single-handedly beating the Germans, they didn't come back around and destroy Finland, because they very well could have, especially through total war and saturation bombing to nullify the heavy advantage of guerilla warfare of the Winter War. Just saying. It is good the Soviets were not too particularly vengeful against the Germans and German allies (like Finland, although Finland's wasn't so involved in the offensives against the USSR since they didn't have much of a military to speak of) who deliberately committed genocide against them.
JudicatorHammurabi, I don't know about other German allies, but Russia was EXTREMELY vengeful against Romania for being a German ally in the beginning of WW2. They took a huge chunk of territory out of Romania and annexed it to the USSR, which they haven't returned when the USSR collapsed (country of Moldova today).
Also, 50 years of communist occupation, no freedom, you lost all your property and you go to prison/die if you say anything against the regime. Particularly vengeful, I'd say.
Well I think most of us are in it for the fun. WW2 is a fun topic to discuss as it's a world war based in Europe and has tonnes and tonnes of research around it that is easely accessible. Who cares if some - or even if all of us have an extremely flawed view of it. We're here to enjoy ourselves after all.
I don't really understand your example about the northern strip of Romania being incorporated with the USSR either. All of East Germany was too, so that should be an even better example of showing how vengeful the Russians were. After all Hitler ordered massive amounts of russians killed and put in concentration camps, and when they invaded Germany they repayed the favour to the German civil population that was left basically.
The OP does seem a tad opinionated and ethnocentric, but it's good to see people interested in history. I'm all for this thread, though I'm not sure of its exact purpose. There are legions of books and docs. on WW2 and all the inherent arguing that happens in threads over pretty much choice of words could seriously detract from any educational purpose this thread could serve.
On December 29 2011 04:57 Sabin010 wrote: 1.) Japan's biggest mistake was giving FDR the excuse he needed to enter the war. Had Japan focused more on controling SE Asia (conscripting soldiers and building infastructure) with the primary goal after having a strong footing in Vietnam and Cambodia to take the Indian coastline and the natural resource abundant regions of the Himalayas. From there Japan would have a strong hold over most of Asia.
2.) Italy needed control the entire mediteranian by invading France with Germany marching around the southern end of the Maginot line, and once France was completely controlled by the Axis they would be in a supreme position to pressure Spain into controling the strategic point of Gibraltar.
3.) Germany needed to keep good relations with Russia until the area's of Turkey, India, Iraq, Iran, Egypt could be taken via invasions from Germany via Persia, and Italy via Libia. With Gibralta controlled the only way for England to defend her colonies would be to a. Counter attack and invade France/Germany, or B. Go all the way around Africa and come in through the Suez canal. With the Suez canal controled by the axis they would have had the Russians surrounded on all sides. With all of the major water ways controlled for resuppling.
4.) Had the Axis powers been able to control the mainland of Europe, Africa, and the parts of Asia that were not controlled by the Soviets, before trying to go and bring Russia and America into the war there's a good chance we'd all be living in a facist world today.
They wouldnt have really had to pressure Spain would they? Despite the fact they stayed neutral, iirc Francisco Franco or whatever (the fascist leader) had Germany help them in the Civil War before WW2? So they were on somewhat good terms werent they?
Both Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships at the time. They weren't allies of Germany, but they never stood in their way either.
Never have I read so much bullshit collected in one thread.
Lets just take an example:
Both Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships at the time. They weren't allies of Germany, but they never stood in their way either.
To call both Francoist Spain and Estado Novo fascist dictatorships, show that this guy doesn't know at least five different things; i)What a fascist dictatorship is. ii) What the composition of the Nationalist side was during the Spanish Civil War and thus the winning side and how the country was run after the end of the war. iii) What the Estado Novo was. iV) Who the oldest English ally is and what that means. v) What Lajes Field is.
Most of the posts in this thread show similar mis-conceptions, lack of understanding or down right lies.
Both Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships at the time. They weren't allies of Germany, but they never stood in their way either.
To call both Francoist Spain and Estado Novo fascist dictatorships, show that this guy doesn't know at least five different things; i)What a fascist dictatorship is. ii) What the composition of the Nationalist side was during the Spanish Civil War and thus the winning side and how the country was run after the end of the war. iii) What the Estado Novo was. iV) Who the oldest English ally is and what that means. v) What Lajes Field is.
Most of the posts in this thread show similar mis-conceptions, lack of understanding or down right lies.
This thread is a travesty.
Franco and Mussolini are to fascism what Hitler is to nazism. Spain was clearly fascist. Portugal was ruled by a fascist dictator, but remained neutral and in good political standing with England.
Both Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships at the time. They weren't allies of Germany, but they never stood in their way either.
To call both Francoist Spain and Estado Novo fascist dictatorships, show that this guy doesn't know at least five different things; i)What a fascist dictatorship is. ii) What the composition of the Nationalist side was during the Spanish Civil War and thus the winning side and how the country was run after the end of the war. iii) What the Estado Novo was. iV) Who the oldest English ally is and what that means. v) What Lajes Field is.
Most of the posts in this thread show similar mis-conceptions, lack of understanding or down right lies.
This thread is a travesty.
Then explain, instead of acting all haughty on your high-horse, after all, that's the whole point of this history thread.
On December 29 2011 03:20 Jebusrocks wrote: Just wanted to say some stuff after reading the posts in this thread.
1) To anyone who thought the German high command (including its nocs, officers,) were somehow incompetent, that is blatantly not true. Since the Napoleonic and Civil Wars, two countries far exceeded strategic command than the rest of the world, and that is Germany and the US. This is seen truly evident in WWI and even moreso in WWII (look at German generals... Rommel, Guderian, Gerd von Runstedt, Manstein, etc. etc for Germans and Pershing's man in the States including Omar, Patton, etc. etc.). The Germans, for the longest time in the 20th century, had the only dedicated training of cadres, officers, and NOCs and thus were more effective on the battlefield (though this would change a little bit after the end of the Great War, where Allied forces copied either German or American counterparts). Had Hitler listened to any of these people (which, halfway through Barbarossa, he completely ignored)
2) Russia had no resources to actually push or defeat the Germans in their own ground. Given this, Russia had competent 'young' commanders (Ivan Konev and Zhkuov) who matched Germany's competence of command. Regardless, Russia had suffered great defeats in Eastern Europe and though production output in the Ural mountains/caucasus were attempting to keep up with the war effort, it was only because America mechanized (one of the greatest advancements coming into WWII, other than improvements with the air force) its transports and the entire army. It is ignorant to say that Russia did all the work, any1 who says this is either a Russian or extremely unacknowledged in WWII history. It is true that the Soviet Union, with France out of the war, had to withstand and survive as the only real allied power in continental Europe, and played a huge role in the war, but they weren't the only ones.
3) As for Africa... the only reason Rommel had to intervene in Africa was because the Italians were losing against the British, which as ppl had said, were somewhat undermanned. Most people forget that India, Britain's greatest manpower source in these colonies during WWI, did not participate in the war fully (Gandhi), and the only real force for the British in these regions (though irregular Free French forces played a vital role) was the Eight Army. Not only did Italy fail to take Egypt and Greece, they were pushed out of both of these regions and pushed further back into Libya and Albania, forcing Germany to intervene and ending British/Greek dominance in these regions.
4) The majority of Germany's oil production came from Romania and Venezuela, not the states, and when they lost Romania, they built synthesized oil factories, so Germany wasn't doing that bad in resources (at least compared to the Japanese)
So.. Just to go wildly off topic for a second: wern't Americans considered having worthless command during ww1, when they stormed through the trenches through machine gun crossfire? That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
By quality command, the poster seems to be commenting on the organizational strength of the office corps - ie that there was a dedicated training system for providing an organized and consistent source of officers, not necessarily the organizational culture that dominated their outlook on military tactics.
On December 28 2011 05:27 Elegy wrote: WW2 history "debates" are terrible affairs unless done by professionals in the field...amateur attempts at counterfactual historiography are quite laughable overall, and tend to assume a continuity of thought and achievement that far exceeds realistic expectations.
Best quote in the thread so far (by page 3). It is exemplified by
I agree with this. We can talk about WW2, but actually debating it proves to be a Wikipedia fest of random facts randomly thrown at random directions.
Ok, I'm going to start by saying I am not by any means a history buff.
That being said, I am very interested in the allied bombing campaigns during WW2...for some reason. I've read a couple books on various aspects of it, and just posting here to see if anyone has any good book recommendations about it. Anything well written about them would suffice, but if you are looking for specifics, I'm interested in 3 specific things the most.
1. The making of the atomic bombs. (really easy to find books on it, but some advice on which ones are good would be appreciated.) 2. The fire-bombing of Dresden. (So damn hard to find books on it that aren't in German. ) 3. Memoirs of people that were on the ground during the bombings and what they went through. (Also hard to find in English.)
On December 28 2011 05:27 Elegy wrote: WW2 history "debates" are terrible affairs unless done by professionals in the field...amateur attempts at counterfactual historiography are quite laughable overall, and tend to assume a continuity of thought and achievement that far exceeds realistic expectations.
Best quote in the thread so far (by page 3). It is exemplified by
I agree with this. We can talk about WW2, but actually debating it proves to be a Wikipedia fest of random facts randomly thrown at random directions.
1) If you talk about the alternate history discussions, of course they are senseless, but all in good fun. No one is taking them seriously. It is an interesting lesson about how the future is unpredictable, even if you know the outcome for slightly different preconditions.
2) This thread is meant to keep this topic out of other threads, and WW2 discussions did indeed derail some threads lately. It might achieve that.
3) There were some nice personal accounts in between, surely worth a read. And some facts, of course easily accessible, but still often neglected.
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
On December 29 2011 07:01 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Then explain, instead of acting all haughty on your high-horse, after all, that's the whole point of this history thread.
Spain and Portugal shared some similarities with Mussolini's regime ( Dictatorship, strong nationalism ) but many historians think that they were not stricly facist countries.
Salazar and Franco have a completly different social and ideological background. They were educated, profoundly catholic and conservative and that's why the Church also played a way more important role in Portugal and Spain than in Italy or Germany. Mussolini on the other hand was influenced by the anarchist ideologies before WW1. His conception of the State was also different since he pretty much created the concept of totalitarism whereas Salazar was ideologically opposed to this idea.
[...]we must put aside the inclination to form what might be called a totalitarian state. The state which in its laws, ethics, politics, and economy subordinates everything without exception to national or racial interests would appear to be an omnipotent being, the principle and end in itself, to which all individual or collective activities would be subject; it might even bring about an absolutism. Worse than that which preceded the liberal regimes, because the former, at any rate, did not sever itself from human destiny. Such a state would be essentially pagan, incompatible by its nature with the character of our Christian civilisation, and leading, sooner or later, to revolutions like those which infected the old historical systems of government, and, who knows, perhaps to new religious wars more terrible than those of old.[...]
On December 29 2011 07:24 Lemonwalrus wrote: Ok, I'm going to start by saying I am not by any means a history buff.
That being said, I am very interested in the allied bombing campaigns during WW2...for some reason. I've read a couple books on various aspects of it, and just posting here to see if anyone has any good book recommendations about it. Anything well written about them would suffice, but if you are looking for specifics, I'm interested in 3 specific things the most.
1. The making of the atomic bombs. (really easy to find books on it, but some advice on which ones are good would be appreciated.) 2. The fire-bombing of Dresden. (So damn hard to find books on it that aren't in German. ) 3. Memoirs of people that were on the ground during the bombings and what they went through. (Also hard to find in English.)
Now that I think about it, you are probably looking for something more along the lines of Der Brand I read only half of it though, so take my recommendation with a grain of salt.
On December 29 2011 07:24 Lemonwalrus wrote: 1. The making of the atomic bombs. (really easy to find books on it, but some advice on which ones are good would be appreciated.) 2. The fire-bombing of Dresden. (So damn hard to find books on it that aren't in German. ) 3. Memoirs of people that were on the ground during the bombings and what they went through. (Also hard to find in English.)
1) The FBI will knock on your door soon. 2) No idea. 3) There is a museum in London dedicated to civilian life during the war.
Other than that, what I meant with random facts is that why considering a question, the balance will randomly tip to one side or the other depending on what anecdotical facts we know. We don't have the big picture. Plus, there rarely is any research beyond checking numbers on Wikipedia. But what do these numbers mean? For example, did anyone here sincerely tried to imagine what 6 million dead Jews meant, or what 14 millions of dead Soviet soldiers represented? How we could conclude of such numbers? I doubt so.
On December 28 2011 06:00 GreEny K wrote: I disagree with some of the things in this OP. I'm not supporting Nazi Germany, but they definitely could have taken control of Britain. I don't think that's up for debate.
The German plan was to land one regiment from each of nine divisions on three seperate beaches seperated by miles from one and other with the invasion fleet leaving Bolougne, Calais and, Ostend / Antwerp. The initial wave was to take approxmately 96 hours to completely cross and another 72 to get ashore. That equates to ONE WEEK just to land the first wave! This puts the equivalent of just one weak infantry division ashore on each beach. The one available parachute division was to land behind one of the beaches over a period of about 2 days (the Luftwaffe could only lift about half the division at a time). With no opposition the Germans could realistically expect to lose 30 to 50% of the landing barges just through beaching them. The invasion force had little more than a motely collection of motor minesweepers, armed trawlers, and small gunboats for escort with virtually nothing bigger than a 3.7cm AA gun for armament. Many of the barges would have mounted 2 or 3.7cm AA guns. The majority of the crews operating the barges had little or no sailing experiance.
The Royal Navy had 36 destroyers, and about 400 small craft committed to immediately countering an invasion crossing. There were 26 1/2 divisions in England of which about 13 were fully equipped and manned. One was a fully equipped armored division. There were also 6 tank brigades and a number of independent infantry brigades and battalions in existance. The Home Guard numbered about 250,000 men and most had at least basic small arms and a bit of training.
The air situation was that both sides were roughly even in strength and capacity. The British early warning system (eg., radar like CH, CHL, CD and other sets) would have given plenty of warning of the approaching invasion among other systems. Surprise was going to be virtually impossible for the Germans to achieve.
The Germans had nothing beyond a vague plan to return the invasion ships back to France, reload them, and send a second wave across about 10 days after the first wave landed. Of the ports the first wave was obstensively to capture none was capable of supporting much more than a division or two in size.
Basically, from these very bare facts one can see the absurdity of the German plan. They would have tried and it would have been a catastrophic disaster. Germany was in no position to conduct Sea-Lion.
They had no history of amphibious warfare (unlike the British who had been conducting amphibious/coastal landings for well over a century), they had no specialist landing craft, nor the ability or skills needed to even design them. They also had poor recce of the British coast and a lack of suitable maps or any intel. They also had no available Fallschirmjager having worn both them and the transport fleet out during Weserbung and Fall Gelb.
The Luftwaffe was in no position to dominate the RAF, and would never be. The Kriegsmarine could not challenge the RN in the English Channel and any attempt to cross in converted barges would have been at grave danger from the weather, let alone the RN.
Then, if they did land, you have a force, unable to be re-supplied, fighting a force far larger on it home territory.
I would suggest you look at the Sandhurst wargame in the 1970's that played out Operation Sea-Lion. It ended in a complete defeat for the Germans. Indeed any serious effort at wargaming the operation has ended in the Germans losing badly.
Simply put, the reason Hitler aborted the operation is that he knew it would never succeed given the lack of skills, equipment and doctrine in the German forces with regards to amphibious warfare and faced with a strong RAF & RN.
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
On December 29 2011 07:24 Lemonwalrus wrote: 1. The making of the atomic bombs. (really easy to find books on it, but some advice on which ones are good would be appreciated.) 2. The fire-bombing of Dresden. (So damn hard to find books on it that aren't in German. ) 3. Memoirs of people that were on the ground during the bombings and what they went through. (Also hard to find in English.)
1) The FBI will knock on your door soon.
Not HOW to make them, something more along the lines of a narrative of the scientists working towards it.
On December 29 2011 07:24 Lemonwalrus wrote: 1. The making of the atomic bombs. (really easy to find books on it, but some advice on which ones are good would be appreciated.) 2. The fire-bombing of Dresden. (So damn hard to find books on it that aren't in German. ) 3. Memoirs of people that were on the ground during the bombings and what they went through. (Also hard to find in English.)
1) The FBI will knock on your door soon.
Not HOW to make them, something more along the lines of a narrative of the scientists working towards it.
On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote: That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
The American's invented trench warfare and modern war in the Civil War (War Between the States).
On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote: That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
The American's invented trench warfare and modern war in the Civil War (War Between the States).
So your claim seems shaky to me...
I'd really like a source on that. Because I don't remember much trench warfare in the style of the first orld war in the american civil war.
^^^^ Trench warfare was happening during the end of the American Civil War. Battle of Petersburg Battle of the Crater Battle of the Crater is an interesting event during the Siege of Petersburg.
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Assuming Fruscainte's point, a competent German leader could have easily vanquished or at least crippled Russia by 1942, maybe early 1943. We didn't have the bomb till the 1945s. And Germany was working on their own "atomic" bombs well by the time we were.
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote: That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
The American's invented trench warfare and modern war in the Civil War (War Between the States).
The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Not really, true, American troops were first used at the very end stages of the June Offensive to absorb the last of the German attacks and then made local counterattacks against weakened German lines. But it was more because of French and British disbelief in American ability to fight rather than an actual lack of American ability to fight.
Pershing complained to Wilson that the British and French were hogging all the glory in the Hundred Days Offensive and using American soldiers to hold the line where the French and British weren't attacking, so Wilson got Foch to agree to the St. Mihiel offensive, which pretty much went nowhere thanks to lack of adequate transportation, but we Americans had shown we could fight so they brought us along for the Meuse-Argonnne offensive.
Also, the French and Germans were very impressed at the combat skill of the Marines (particularly at Belleau Wood, and the British were of course never impressed with anything), the American Army, not so much.
Assuming Fruscainte's point, a competent German leader could have easily vanquished or at least crippled Russia by 1942, maybe early 1943. We didn't have the bomb till the 1945s. And Germany was working on their own "atomic" bombs well by the time we were.
Germany never had a serious atomic bomb program. It was never given high priority in the first place and resources were repeatedly reassigned from it to other projects until very late in the war, when it didn't matter anyway.
If Hitler hadn't ordered Army Group Center to siphon off men and supplies to Army Group North (and then changed his mind and switched them back, losing 4-6 weeks where the main German thrust was at Leningrad instead of the capital), Moscow might have fallen in October or November 1941, but the Russian counterattack was coming anyway and likely would have re-taken it. The Germans were already just beyond the capability of their supply lines and the Russians had supplies built up behind Moscow and their snowshoe advantage.
The likely result of Hitler not being a military retard would have been a Russia unable to occupy Eastern Europe after the war, but not much else different. Of course that would be a big difference.
Watching QI I was reminded of the pykrete part of Project Habakkuk for the Brits. It was an idea of using pykrete (a mix of wood pulp and ice) to build ships since steel was in short supply. It never really got off of the ground but such a cool idea.
After Marines were repeatedly urged to turn back by retreating French forces, Marine Captain Lloyd W. Williams of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines uttered the now-famous retort "Retreat? Hell, we just got here.
Pretty badass.
On December 30 2011 12:27 Gyro_SC2 wrote: can someone explain me why germany declared war on USA ?
Because their ally Japan had already done so and because he knew the US would be coming for them anyway so he wanted to declare war on them before they could on Germany and also because it gave him a great opportunity for a ridiculous propaganda speech.
I remember reading the myth that carrots help you see better was created by the British during World War II. The idea was to help conceal from the Germans the British's advanced radar systems, and instead claim that British spotters just had better vision than the average person, and thus were able to see the German planes from long distances.
On December 29 2011 07:24 Lemonwalrus wrote: 1. The making of the atomic bombs. (really easy to find books on it, but some advice on which ones are good would be appreciated.) 2. The fire-bombing of Dresden. (So damn hard to find books on it that aren't in German. ) 3. Memoirs of people that were on the ground during the bombings and what they went through. (Also hard to find in English.)
1) The FBI will knock on your door soon.
Not HOW to make them, something more along the lines of a narrative of the scientists working towards it.
On December 30 2011 11:54 Sofestafont wrote: ^^^^ Trench warfare was happening during the end of the American Civil War. Battle of Petersburg Battle of the Crater Battle of the Crater is an interesting event during the Siege of Petersburg.
Ahh now I even remember a few games where I played in them, but wouldn't you agree that the differences between that kind of trench warfare and the one in WW1 was relatively big(and they weren't as present)?
On December 30 2011 05:42 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote: That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
The American's invented trench warfare and modern war in the Civil War (War Between the States).
So your claim seems shaky to me...
You have no idea what you're talking about.
This guy seems to be on my site, and even though I don't like his tone and his post didn't really contribute anything I'd like to hear more from him(informationwise).
The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Not really, true, American troops were first used at the very end stages of the June Offensive to absorb the last of the German attacks and then made local counterattacks against weakened German lines. But it was more because of French and British disbelief in American ability to fight rather than an actual lack of American ability to fight.
Pershing complained to Wilson that the British and French were hogging all the glory in the Hundred Days Offensive and using American soldiers to hold the line where the French and British weren't attacking, so Wilson got Foch to agree to the St. Mihiel offensive, which pretty much went nowhere thanks to lack of adequate transportation, but we Americans had shown we could fight so they brought us along for the Meuse-Argonnne offensive.
Also, the French and Germans were very impressed at the combat skill of the Marines (particularly at Belleau Wood, and the British were of course never impressed with anything), the American Army, not so much.
Assuming Fruscainte's point, a competent German leader could have easily vanquished or at least crippled Russia by 1942, maybe early 1943. We didn't have the bomb till the 1945s. And Germany was working on their own "atomic" bombs well by the time we were.
Germany never had a serious atomic bomb program. It was never given high priority in the first place and resources were repeatedly reassigned from it to other projects until very late in the war, when it didn't matter anyway.
If Hitler hadn't ordered Army Group Center to siphon off men and supplies to Army Group North (and then changed his mind and switched them back, losing 4-6 weeks where the main German thrust was at Leningrad instead of the capital), Moscow might have fallen in October or November 1941, but the Russian counterattack was coming anyway and likely would have re-taken it. The Germans were already just beyond the capability of their supply lines and the Russians had supplies built up behind Moscow and their snowshoe advantage.
The likely result of Hitler not being a military retard would have been a Russia unable to occupy Eastern Europe after the war, but not much else different. Of course that would be a big difference.
I watched a documentary not that long ago which basically showed that hitler's scientists were pretty damn close to a working atomic bomb already 0.o They basically found a top secret underground testing area which the american army found too, but they immedeatly closed it and destroyed many of their own documents about it. Maybe somebody else saw it too and could say what the name of the documentary or the testing complex was :/
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote: That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
The American's invented trench warfare and modern war in the Civil War (War Between the States).
So your claim seems shaky to me...
This is false.
Although the Civil War was a modern war in many aspects (weaponry, rifles, dimension), most of its aspects remained those of a classical conflict. The strategy was mainly made to kill the opponent and still lacked the flexibility of modern warfare tactics (small attacks to cripple the enemy for example). Artillery only caused 5% of casualties. There was no "front". Usage of trenches occurred late in the war and its few appearances did not generate any sort of new military strategy. Even in WW1, both participants thought they could rush into battle and end the war in a few months.
Cavalry was used extensively until the appearance of new long-range rifles, swordfights were still very common before that. So yes, Americans were not very experienced with the defensive tactics that took over when rifles and artillery became that much more effective.
Edit: also, stating that Germany could've won the war and backing it up with ONE thing, whether it's an airplane, the magical end of the blockade or the UK suddenly disappearing of the map is nonsensical, at best.
Usage of trenches occurred late in the war and its few appearances did not generate any sort of new military strategy.
Use of trenches in the Civil War dates to at least the battle of Fredericksburg in 1862.
The strategy was mainly made to kill the opponent and still lacked the flexibility of modern warfare tactics (small attacks to cripple the enemy for example).
I don't see how anyone who has studied Lee's and Jackson's campaigns could believe this. They regularly split their forces before Jackson died and before Gettysburg to cut off lines of retreat, draw away or freeze enemy formations, or for flanking and envelopment tactics. Lee continued to do it into 1864 as a pure distraction tactic until Sheridan devastated the Shenandoah valley.
Also there was a hell of a lot of bushwhacking and cavalry raids against transportation hubs and routes and depots, there were lots of precursors to modern small-unit and combined-arms tactics.
On December 30 2011 11:54 Sofestafont wrote: ^^^^ Trench warfare was happening during the end of the American Civil War. Battle of Petersburg Battle of the Crater Battle of the Crater is an interesting event during the Siege of Petersburg.
Ahh now I even remember a few games where I played in them, but wouldn't you agree that the differences between that kind of trench warfare and the one in WW1 was relatively big(and they weren't as present)?
On December 30 2011 05:42 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote: That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
The American's invented trench warfare and modern war in the Civil War (War Between the States).
So your claim seems shaky to me...
You have no idea what you're talking about.
This guy seems to be on my site, and even though I don't like his tone and his post didn't really contribute anything I'd like to hear more from him(informationwise).
The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Not really, true, American troops were first used at the very end stages of the June Offensive to absorb the last of the German attacks and then made local counterattacks against weakened German lines. But it was more because of French and British disbelief in American ability to fight rather than an actual lack of American ability to fight.
Pershing complained to Wilson that the British and French were hogging all the glory in the Hundred Days Offensive and using American soldiers to hold the line where the French and British weren't attacking, so Wilson got Foch to agree to the St. Mihiel offensive, which pretty much went nowhere thanks to lack of adequate transportation, but we Americans had shown we could fight so they brought us along for the Meuse-Argonnne offensive.
Also, the French and Germans were very impressed at the combat skill of the Marines (particularly at Belleau Wood, and the British were of course never impressed with anything), the American Army, not so much.
Assuming Fruscainte's point, a competent German leader could have easily vanquished or at least crippled Russia by 1942, maybe early 1943. We didn't have the bomb till the 1945s. And Germany was working on their own "atomic" bombs well by the time we were.
Germany never had a serious atomic bomb program. It was never given high priority in the first place and resources were repeatedly reassigned from it to other projects until very late in the war, when it didn't matter anyway.
If Hitler hadn't ordered Army Group Center to siphon off men and supplies to Army Group North (and then changed his mind and switched them back, losing 4-6 weeks where the main German thrust was at Leningrad instead of the capital), Moscow might have fallen in October or November 1941, but the Russian counterattack was coming anyway and likely would have re-taken it. The Germans were already just beyond the capability of their supply lines and the Russians had supplies built up behind Moscow and their snowshoe advantage.
The likely result of Hitler not being a military retard would have been a Russia unable to occupy Eastern Europe after the war, but not much else different. Of course that would be a big difference.
I watched a documentary not that long ago which basically showed that hitler's scientists were pretty damn close to a working atomic bomb already 0.o They basically found a top secret underground testing area which the american army found too, but they immedeatly closed it and destroyed many of their own documents about it. Maybe somebody else saw it too and could say what the name of the documentary or the testing complex was :/
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
Don't you think that saying that they had no chance is a bit exagerrated?
On your piece about the stealth fighter. Even if they had 1000 stealth fighters what are they going to do? There are only so many bombs, yet so many troops on the ground, aircraft in the sky, ships in the ocean. They simply couldn't hit it all hell, give them 10000 stealth bombers in the end man power alone would be able to occupy so much space that whenever one of them landed it would be taken by the allies would it not?
The strategy was mainly made to kill the opponent and still lacked the flexibility of modern warfare tactics (small attacks to cripple the enemy for example).
I don't see how anyone who has studied Lee's and Jackson's campaigns could believe this. They regularly split their forces before Jackson died and before Gettysburg to cut off lines of retreat, draw away or freeze enemy formations, or for flanking and envelopment tactics. Lee continued to do it into 1864 as a pure distraction tactic until Sheridan devastated the Shenandoah valley.
Also there was a hell of a lot of bushwhacking and cavalry raids against transportation hubs and routes and depots, there were lots of precursors to modern small-unit and combined-arms tactics.
This kind of flexibility you speak of dates back to Napoleonian wars. And as you say, they were precursors of modern tactics, not modern tactis. At all. Guerilla also happened during Napoleonian wars. Trenches were rare, nonetheless.
On December 30 2011 11:54 Sofestafont wrote: ^^^^ Trench warfare was happening during the end of the American Civil War. Battle of Petersburg Battle of the Crater Battle of the Crater is an interesting event during the Siege of Petersburg.
Ahh now I even remember a few games where I played in them, but wouldn't you agree that the differences between that kind of trench warfare and the one in WW1 was relatively big(and they weren't as present)?
EDIT:
On December 30 2011 12:22 kaisen wrote:
On December 30 2011 05:42 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote: That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
The American's invented trench warfare and modern war in the Civil War (War Between the States).
So your claim seems shaky to me...
You have no idea what you're talking about.
This guy seems to be on my site, and even though I don't like his tone and his post didn't really contribute anything I'd like to hear more from him(informationwise).
EDIT2:
On December 30 2011 12:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Not really, true, American troops were first used at the very end stages of the June Offensive to absorb the last of the German attacks and then made local counterattacks against weakened German lines. But it was more because of French and British disbelief in American ability to fight rather than an actual lack of American ability to fight.
Pershing complained to Wilson that the British and French were hogging all the glory in the Hundred Days Offensive and using American soldiers to hold the line where the French and British weren't attacking, so Wilson got Foch to agree to the St. Mihiel offensive, which pretty much went nowhere thanks to lack of adequate transportation, but we Americans had shown we could fight so they brought us along for the Meuse-Argonnne offensive.
Also, the French and Germans were very impressed at the combat skill of the Marines (particularly at Belleau Wood, and the British were of course never impressed with anything), the American Army, not so much.
Assuming Fruscainte's point, a competent German leader could have easily vanquished or at least crippled Russia by 1942, maybe early 1943. We didn't have the bomb till the 1945s. And Germany was working on their own "atomic" bombs well by the time we were.
Germany never had a serious atomic bomb program. It was never given high priority in the first place and resources were repeatedly reassigned from it to other projects until very late in the war, when it didn't matter anyway.
If Hitler hadn't ordered Army Group Center to siphon off men and supplies to Army Group North (and then changed his mind and switched them back, losing 4-6 weeks where the main German thrust was at Leningrad instead of the capital), Moscow might have fallen in October or November 1941, but the Russian counterattack was coming anyway and likely would have re-taken it. The Germans were already just beyond the capability of their supply lines and the Russians had supplies built up behind Moscow and their snowshoe advantage.
The likely result of Hitler not being a military retard would have been a Russia unable to occupy Eastern Europe after the war, but not much else different. Of course that would be a big difference.
I watched a documentary not that long ago which basically showed that hitler's scientists were pretty damn close to a working atomic bomb already 0.o They basically found a top secret underground testing area which the american army found too, but they immedeatly closed it and destroyed many of their own documents about it. Maybe somebody else saw it too and could say what the name of the documentary or the testing complex was :/
EDIT3: Sorry, but I'm surethis is the last one
On December 30 2011 12:16 jello_biafra wrote:
On December 30 2011 12:14 Feartheguru wrote:
On December 30 2011 02:14 RvB wrote:
On December 29 2011 07:46 FecalFrown wrote:
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
Don't you think that saying that they had no chance is a bit exagerrated?
On your piece about the stealth fighter. Even if they had 1000 stealth fighters what are they going to do? There are only so many bombs, yet so many troops on the ground, aircraft in the sky, ships in the ocean. They simply couldn't hit it all hell, give them 10000 stealth bombers in the end man power alone would be able to occupy so much space that whenever one of them landed it would be taken by the allies would it not?
no And the awnser will stay like that as long as you insist on your opinion that they had NO chance, many mistakes were made, what if Hitler wouldn't have let the 340thousand brits flee from one battlefield during his Blitzkrieg agsint France, because he still hoped to befriend the Britons? What if Hitler would've given his Generals more power to act on their own? What if the Americans wouldn't have been pulled into the war and stayed allegedly neutral? What if the stealth-bomber would've been ready before the war was pretty much over already?
On December 30 2011 11:54 Sofestafont wrote: ^^^^ Trench warfare was happening during the end of the American Civil War. Battle of Petersburg Battle of the Crater Battle of the Crater is an interesting event during the Siege of Petersburg.
Ahh now I even remember a few games where I played in them, but wouldn't you agree that the differences between that kind of trench warfare and the one in WW1 was relatively big(and they weren't as present)?
EDIT:
On December 30 2011 12:22 kaisen wrote:
On December 30 2011 05:42 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote: That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
The American's invented trench warfare and modern war in the Civil War (War Between the States).
So your claim seems shaky to me...
You have no idea what you're talking about.
This guy seems to be on my site, and even though I don't like his tone and his post didn't really contribute anything I'd like to hear more from him(informationwise).
EDIT2:
On December 30 2011 12:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Not really, true, American troops were first used at the very end stages of the June Offensive to absorb the last of the German attacks and then made local counterattacks against weakened German lines. But it was more because of French and British disbelief in American ability to fight rather than an actual lack of American ability to fight.
Pershing complained to Wilson that the British and French were hogging all the glory in the Hundred Days Offensive and using American soldiers to hold the line where the French and British weren't attacking, so Wilson got Foch to agree to the St. Mihiel offensive, which pretty much went nowhere thanks to lack of adequate transportation, but we Americans had shown we could fight so they brought us along for the Meuse-Argonnne offensive.
Also, the French and Germans were very impressed at the combat skill of the Marines (particularly at Belleau Wood, and the British were of course never impressed with anything), the American Army, not so much.
Assuming Fruscainte's point, a competent German leader could have easily vanquished or at least crippled Russia by 1942, maybe early 1943. We didn't have the bomb till the 1945s. And Germany was working on their own "atomic" bombs well by the time we were.
Germany never had a serious atomic bomb program. It was never given high priority in the first place and resources were repeatedly reassigned from it to other projects until very late in the war, when it didn't matter anyway.
If Hitler hadn't ordered Army Group Center to siphon off men and supplies to Army Group North (and then changed his mind and switched them back, losing 4-6 weeks where the main German thrust was at Leningrad instead of the capital), Moscow might have fallen in October or November 1941, but the Russian counterattack was coming anyway and likely would have re-taken it. The Germans were already just beyond the capability of their supply lines and the Russians had supplies built up behind Moscow and their snowshoe advantage.
The likely result of Hitler not being a military retard would have been a Russia unable to occupy Eastern Europe after the war, but not much else different. Of course that would be a big difference.
I watched a documentary not that long ago which basically showed that hitler's scientists were pretty damn close to a working atomic bomb already 0.o They basically found a top secret underground testing area which the american army found too, but they immedeatly closed it and destroyed many of their own documents about it. Maybe somebody else saw it too and could say what the name of the documentary or the testing complex was :/
EDIT3: Sorry, but I'm surethis is the last one
On December 30 2011 12:16 jello_biafra wrote:
On December 30 2011 12:14 Feartheguru wrote:
On December 30 2011 02:14 RvB wrote:
On December 29 2011 07:46 FecalFrown wrote:
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
Don't you think that saying that they had no chance is a bit exagerrated?
On your piece about the stealth fighter. Even if they had 1000 stealth fighters what are they going to do? There are only so many bombs, yet so many troops on the ground, aircraft in the sky, ships in the ocean. They simply couldn't hit it all hell, give them 10000 stealth bombers in the end man power alone would be able to occupy so much space that whenever one of them landed it would be taken by the allies would it not?
no And the awnser will stay like that as long as you insist on your opinion that they had NO chance, many mistakes were made, what if Hitler wouldn't have let the 340thousand brits flee from one battlefield during his Blitzkrieg agsint France, because he still hoped to befriend the Britons? What if Hitler would've given his Generals more power to act on their own? What if the Americans wouldn't have been pulled into the war and stayed allegedly neutral? What if the stealth-bomber would've been ready before the war was pretty much over already?
What if Hitler had died in WW1? Oh, extrapolating is so fun.
On December 30 2011 11:54 Sofestafont wrote: ^^^^ Trench warfare was happening during the end of the American Civil War. Battle of Petersburg Battle of the Crater Battle of the Crater is an interesting event during the Siege of Petersburg.
Ahh now I even remember a few games where I played in them, but wouldn't you agree that the differences between that kind of trench warfare and the one in WW1 was relatively big(and they weren't as present)?
EDIT:
On December 30 2011 12:22 kaisen wrote:
On December 30 2011 05:42 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote: That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
The American's invented trench warfare and modern war in the Civil War (War Between the States).
So your claim seems shaky to me...
You have no idea what you're talking about.
This guy seems to be on my site, and even though I don't like his tone and his post didn't really contribute anything I'd like to hear more from him(informationwise).
EDIT2:
On December 30 2011 12:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Not really, true, American troops were first used at the very end stages of the June Offensive to absorb the last of the German attacks and then made local counterattacks against weakened German lines. But it was more because of French and British disbelief in American ability to fight rather than an actual lack of American ability to fight.
Pershing complained to Wilson that the British and French were hogging all the glory in the Hundred Days Offensive and using American soldiers to hold the line where the French and British weren't attacking, so Wilson got Foch to agree to the St. Mihiel offensive, which pretty much went nowhere thanks to lack of adequate transportation, but we Americans had shown we could fight so they brought us along for the Meuse-Argonnne offensive.
Also, the French and Germans were very impressed at the combat skill of the Marines (particularly at Belleau Wood, and the British were of course never impressed with anything), the American Army, not so much.
Assuming Fruscainte's point, a competent German leader could have easily vanquished or at least crippled Russia by 1942, maybe early 1943. We didn't have the bomb till the 1945s. And Germany was working on their own "atomic" bombs well by the time we were.
Germany never had a serious atomic bomb program. It was never given high priority in the first place and resources were repeatedly reassigned from it to other projects until very late in the war, when it didn't matter anyway.
If Hitler hadn't ordered Army Group Center to siphon off men and supplies to Army Group North (and then changed his mind and switched them back, losing 4-6 weeks where the main German thrust was at Leningrad instead of the capital), Moscow might have fallen in October or November 1941, but the Russian counterattack was coming anyway and likely would have re-taken it. The Germans were already just beyond the capability of their supply lines and the Russians had supplies built up behind Moscow and their snowshoe advantage.
The likely result of Hitler not being a military retard would have been a Russia unable to occupy Eastern Europe after the war, but not much else different. Of course that would be a big difference.
I watched a documentary not that long ago which basically showed that hitler's scientists were pretty damn close to a working atomic bomb already 0.o They basically found a top secret underground testing area which the american army found too, but they immedeatly closed it and destroyed many of their own documents about it. Maybe somebody else saw it too and could say what the name of the documentary or the testing complex was :/
EDIT3: Sorry, but I'm surethis is the last one
On December 30 2011 12:16 jello_biafra wrote:
On December 30 2011 12:14 Feartheguru wrote:
On December 30 2011 02:14 RvB wrote:
On December 29 2011 07:46 FecalFrown wrote:
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
Don't you think that saying that they had no chance is a bit exagerrated?
On your piece about the stealth fighter. Even if they had 1000 stealth fighters what are they going to do? There are only so many bombs, yet so many troops on the ground, aircraft in the sky, ships in the ocean. They simply couldn't hit it all hell, give them 10000 stealth bombers in the end man power alone would be able to occupy so much space that whenever one of them landed it would be taken by the allies would it not?
no And the awnser will stay like that as long as you insist on your opinion that they had NO chance, many mistakes were made, what if Hitler wouldn't have let the 340thousand brits flee from one battlefield during his Blitzkrieg agsint France, because he still hoped to befriend the Britons? What if Hitler would've given his Generals more power to act on their own? What if the Americans wouldn't have been pulled into the war and stayed allegedly neutral? What if the stealth-bomber would've been ready before the war was pretty much over already?
What if Hitler had died in WW1? Oh, extrapolating is so fun.
You said they had no chance, well if everything goes the way it went then of course they had no chance because we know how it ended, but if you see it like that don't talk about chances, talk about facts in the real world. Of course nobody will argue with you here if you say that germany lost the second world war, but if we only state facts here this thread is useless and shouldn't exist. And your second sentence hurt my feelings...
On December 30 2011 12:27 Gyro_SC2 wrote: can someone explain me why germany declared war on USA ?
Because their ally Japan had already done so and because he knew the US would be coming for them anyway so he wanted to declare war on them before they could on Germany and also because it gave him a great opportunity for a ridiculous propaganda speech. [/QUOTE] Also, don't forget that the whole point behind the Germany-Japan alliance was to, at some point in the future, gang up on Russia. If Japan gets either defeated or weakened in a war with the US, that plan falls apart. Germany needed to help Japan as much as possible so that they would still have an ally against Russia.
On December 31 2011 04:06 SilentchiLL wrote: You said they had no chance, well if everything goes the way it went then of course they had no chance because we know how it ended, but if you see it like that don't talk about chances, talk about facts in the real world. Of course nobody will argue with you here if you say that germany lost the second world war, but if we only state facts here this thread is useless and shouldn't exist. And your second sentence hurt my feelings...
- I never said such a thing, not about the "what ifs" anyway. - This kind of idea has little interest since all it does is imagine that one side gets a huge advantage and wins. There is a neverending list of scenarios that would change the outcome of the war. What is interesting is exploring what truly happened. Extrapolating is just like a bunch of teenage kids trying to find out who would win between a Tokugawa samurai and a Frank knight.
Its not Russia its the Soviet Union, thats a huge difference a huge amount of their troops, resources and officers came from the other nations in the union like Stalin himself but they never get any credit.
Hitler if he had any choice underestimated the red army their air force and navy werent too great but on the ground they had very good equipment in insane numbers and their soldiers knew only harsh living conditions since birth for the most part.
On the topic if the Axis could have won the war I can only say that we dont know if decisions were made because there was no other viable option or if they were simply mistakes. In hindsight and without having all the information that was or wasnt available at the time its easy to judge but its unrealistic to assume that making no mistakes in a total war lasting 6 years is at all possible but thats exactly what would have been needed for the Axis to win the war imo.
On December 29 2011 06:37 kobrakai wrote: Never have I read so much bullshit collected in one thread.
Lets just take an example:
Both Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships at the time. They weren't allies of Germany, but they never stood in their way either.
To call both Francoist Spain and Estado Novo fascist dictatorships, show that this guy doesn't know at least five different things; i)What a fascist dictatorship is. ii) What the composition of the Nationalist side was during the Spanish Civil War and thus the winning side and how the country was run after the end of the war. iii) What the Estado Novo was. iV) Who the oldest English ally is and what that means. v) What Lajes Field is.
Most of the posts in this thread show similar mis-conceptions, lack of understanding or down right lies.
This thread is a travesty.
Then explain, instead of acting all haughty on your high-horse, after all, that's the whole point of this history thread.
It would take at least a week to accurately describe all the inner workings of the nationalist side during the civil war. There were many different factions, two most important the Falange and the Carlists. Carlists hated anything to do with socialism as they were traditionalists with strong links to the Roman Catholic Church. Carlists distrusted both Hitler and Mussolini. This should help the common view that
Franco and Mussolini are to fascism what Hitler is to nazism. Spain was clearly fascist.
The Falange members (a fascist party) never really held important offices during the Francoist era.
Franco certainly had a lot of control over Spain but there was no totalitarian control over the religious/social/cultural aspects of life. Franco also never had the degree of control over the economy categorized by Fascism.
Franco had no set politically agenda he was a pragmatist and Francoist... it is a word and the era of spain is called Francoist Spain.
I mean really, people can quite easily find this information on the net, or shock, horror they could pick up a book and read up on the subject.
Salazar in Portugal (Estado Novo) was an authoritarian regime with elements of corporatism and integralism. Integrlaism is the main defining factor here between fascism and Salazars regime. Again this info is even on wiki! A cursory glance would of been enough to tell anyone that Salazar was not a fascist, but then I guess people can't be bothered to read and just type what ever they were taught in school or saw on same computer game.....
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them.
The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered.
This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart.
And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight.
Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here.
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them.
The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered.
This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart.
And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight.
Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here.
And its not like most of the green nations really fought or helped. Some turkish grandpas told me how they used to smuggle food and weapons to german regiments near the border and so on. The arab nations were mostly nazi friendly and even an indian regiment fought for germany. There are surely alot of examples that I cant even think of but just consider how all the nazis fled to argentine, a nation hostile to germany on your picture. The only real enemies in my opinion were France, Britain, Canada, Australia, Russia and the US. Its not like germany had to invade every country in the world to get peace. A stalemate with the US would have been enough, if all continental main enemies had been defeated. The main problem would have been partisan warfare in conquered areas.
On December 31 2011 04:06 SilentchiLL wrote: You said they had no chance, well if everything goes the way it went then of course they had no chance because we know how it ended, but if you see it like that don't talk about chances, talk about facts in the real world. Of course nobody will argue with you here if you say that germany lost the second world war, but if we only state facts here this thread is useless and shouldn't exist. And your second sentence hurt my feelings...
- I never said such a thing, not about the "what ifs" anyway. - This kind of idea has little interest since all it does is imagine that one side gets a huge advantage and wins. There is a neverending list of scenarios that would change the outcome of the war. What is interesting is exploring what truly happened. Extrapolating is just like a bunch of teenage kids trying to find out who would win between a Tokugawa samurai and a Frank knight.
Ahh it wasn't you who said that, but if extrapolating is useless why are you even here in this thread? If you really want to discuss history google could show you a few better places in less than 10 seconds and it's not about a "huge advantage" it's just about the huge advantage if you talk about it in redicilous proportions. So go ahead and keep on making useless halfsentences or single sentences in discussions others got going, but I don't think I'll reply to such a useless post from you ever again.
What if Hitler had died in WW1? Oh, extrapolating is so fun.
Zero contribution to the thread or the discussion and I can't even thank you for trying because you didn't even try to contribute to it, you just mock others in a less than pleasant tone.
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them.
The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered.
This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart.
And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight.
Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here.
And its not like most of the green nations really fought or helped. Some turkish grandpas told me how they used to smuggle food and weapons to german regiments near the border and so on. The arab nations were mostly nazi friendly and even an indian regiment fought for germany. There are surely alot of examples that I cant even think of but just consider how all the nazis fled to argentine, a nation hostile to germany on your picture. The only real enemies in my opinion were France, Britain, Canada, Australia, Russia and the US. Its not like germany had to invade every country in the world to get peace. A stalemate with the US would have been enough, if all continental main enemies had been defeated. The main problem would have been partisan warfare in conquered areas.
which are filled with what-ifs with your posts, which of those do you think contributed more to the thread and the discussion?
I think that Wikipedia is the biggest contributor in this discussion. Did I learn anything here? Well the OP was interesting, stating some facts that one could think and learn about. Other than that, you're better off actually reading a book or Wikipedia articles.
Believing that people can discuss history using Wikipedia as a solid base is just an insult to the work all historians do on archives and testimonies. This is my contribution to the thread: don't get fooled, you probably have no idea what you're talking about. I know I personally don't. Keep this in mind while crafting "weird what if" scenarios.
On December 31 2011 06:12 Kukaracha wrote: I think that Wikipedia is the biggest contributor in this discussion. Did I learn anything here? Well the OP was interesting, stating some facts that one could think and learn about. Other than that, you're better off actually reading a book or Wikipedia articles.
Believing that people can discuss history using Wikipedia as a solid base is just an insult to the work all historians do on archives and testimonies. This is my contribution to the thread: don't get fooled, you probably have no idea what you're talking about. I know I personally don't. Keep this in mind while crafting "weird what if" scenarios.
Your assumption that everybody just uses wikipedia here is quite insulting and I think you already made your point on what-if scenarios in several posts clear, no need to keep going at it.
PS: I do think what-if scenarios have their use, as long as nobody redicules the topic by pulling them in gigantic proportions they can show what little difference could've changed, and therefore how important certain things which are often forgotten were.
On December 31 2011 07:03 Lifan wrote: hope this does not offend anyone but I find this hilarious.
Nice one.
Anybody has read Lost Victories by Von Manstein(from my point of view, the top general of the german army with guderian). Im thinking about getting it but not sure if its good or not.
I read Rommel's papers in high school and i was mind blown by how good it was. However Rommel's paper are generally seen as the cream of the crop in terms of writing by high ranking military personel.
Is history written by victors? Because imo Nazi Germany indirectly liberated many third world countries from colonialism by weakening many European nations. Nazi Germany sure was bad for invading their neighbors but imo allied nations such as Britain, France, Netherlands etc weren't any better for colonizing other third world coutnries as well
On January 02 2012 11:17 ppshchik wrote: Is history written by victors? Because imo Nazi Germany indirectly liberated many third world countries from colonialism by weakening many European nations. Nazi Germany sure was bad for invading their neighbors but imo allied nations such as Britain, France, Netherlands etc weren't any better for colonizing other third world coutnries as well
The difference is that when Allied nations were colonizing countries, they weren't shipping all the "undesirables" to special camps where they could be worked to death or just murdered outright.
There are tons of different topics concerning WWII the best read I think is about the Foreign Legion, and how Legion fought Legion:
The digging paid off; General Erwin Rommel first sent in Italian armor. In less than an hour, 33 tanks were blown up in the minefields, blasted almost point blank by Legion gunners (one of the German Legionnaires alone took out seven tanks) or put out of action by Legionnaires shoving grenades through their visors. The stunned Italian commander said after his capture, "We were told we could crush you in 15 minutes." Rommel outnumbered the Free French by over 10-to-1, but it took him almost 15 days to occupy Bir Hacheim. Amilakvari was always in the thick of it with kepi and cape, as the fighting grew as fierce as the 120-degree heat.
Rommel threw in armor, infantry and combined assaults. The Legionnaires in return "opened fire again with undiminished violence," Rommel wrote, then countercharged on foot and in open Bren gun carriers. Messmer destroyed 15 German tanks. Lieutenant Jean Deve, a World War I veteran and former railway man, threw himself at German armor to the very end. On the final day he was last seen with his nearly severed head dangling over the side of his carrier. One philosophic Legionnaire who had been his comrade at Narvik said, "We're the men whose bootprints fill with shells." German artillery kept on shelling Bir Hacheim. Dive bombers flew 1,400 sorties, unloading 1,500 tons of explosives. The defenses the Legionnaires had helped to build were good ones. Only 14 Legionnaires were killed and 17 wounded during the heavy siege. For the Legion, though, Bir Hacheim was a continuation of its private civil war. One of the Afrika Korps units most remorselessly assaulting Bir Hacheim was the 361st Infantry Regiment, composed of German ex-Legionnaires repatriated, many of them willingly, under the 1940 armistice that Adolf Hitler had forced on Pétain.
On January 02 2012 11:17 ppshchik wrote: Is history written by victors? Because imo Nazi Germany indirectly liberated many third world countries from colonialism by weakening many European nations. Nazi Germany sure was bad for invading their neighbors but imo allied nations such as Britain, France, Netherlands etc weren't any better for colonizing other third world coutnries as well
The difference is that when Allied nations were colonizing countries, they weren't shipping all the "undesirables" to special camps where they could be worked to death or just murdered outright.
On January 02 2012 11:17 ppshchik wrote: Is history written by victors? Because imo Nazi Germany indirectly liberated many third world countries from colonialism by weakening many European nations. Nazi Germany sure was bad for invading their neighbors but imo allied nations such as Britain, France, Netherlands etc weren't any better for colonizing other third world coutnries as well
The difference is that when Allied nations were colonizing countries, they weren't shipping all the "undesirables" to special camps where they could be worked to death or just murdered outright.
You do know that the British invented the concept of concentration camps by shipping Boer guerillas and their families to "special camps" you mentioned during the Boer War in South Africa?
Didn't the U.S. abolish slavery fifty years or more before World War 2? And didn't the British abolish it about 60 years before the U.S. did? Not saying that our colonial history was clean, it certainly was not (see: Native Americans), but at that point the first world countries had abandoned slavery, had they not?
Not to mention the public outcry against the concentration camps in the Boer Wars, where was the public outcry against the extermination of Jews in Germany? I understand that you're trying to show that Germany is not alone in war crimes and concentration camps, but how can you even compare the two situations?
A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death. # of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote: A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death. # of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
This, a million times over. What the Germans did was unthinkable, but the Japanese did the same thing with much more ferocity and much less discrimination. They enslaved women to be used by soldiers as sex slaves, forced fathers to rape their own daughters, and murdered anybody who showed an ounce of resistance.The rape of Nanking in itself is one of the most disturbing events in human history, and there were many other incidents just like it all over the Pacific.
As for the atomic bomb dropping, the calculations made by the U.S. military estimated that deaths from the planned "Operation Downfall" might run into the millions, and that's just Allied deaths, the Japanese numbers surely would have been much higher, as there were many more Japanese soldiers killed than surrendered during the course of the war.
EDIT: couldn't find the statistic i had seen to support my figure.
While the Japanese atrocities were pretty horrid, I was under the impression that the Holocaust was quite simply larger.
On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote: A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death. # of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote: A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death. # of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote: A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death. # of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
We dropped two atomic bombs, you know.
He never said we didn't drop two.
By that I mean you have to justify both bombs. If I'm not mistaken, I thought Japan was willing to surrender after the first one, but they were still trying to figure out what the hell happened to their city.
On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote: A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death. # of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
We dropped two atomic bombs, you know.
He never said we didn't drop two.
By that I mean you have to justify both bombs. If I'm not mistaken, I thought Japan was willing to surrender after the first one, but they were still trying to figure out what the hell happened to their city.
Actually it is quite likely that Japan would have surrendered even without the use of atomic bombs rather quickly. One of the big reasons for Japan surrendering was apart from atomic bombs the fact that Soviet Union ended their non-aggression pact and entered the war against Japan quickly conquering their holdings in Manchuria and Korea. But anyway I do not see much reason to justify the usage of the bombs. Carpet bombing of cities was common occurance anyway so there was no pretending that targets were of only military nature for a long time before atomic bombs were dropped. Their usage changed nothing, except the number of bombs required to achieve the same goal. And of course long-term effect, but those were still quite unknown at that point in time.
On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote: A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death. # of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
We dropped two atomic bombs, you know.
He never said we didn't drop two.
By that I mean you have to justify both bombs. If I'm not mistaken, I thought Japan was willing to surrender after the first one, but they were still trying to figure out what the hell happened to their city.
no. senior japanese military officers were preparing to instate martial law to PREVENT surrender, and were getting ready for a campaign vs the soviets who had declared war after the bomb was dropped.
the emperor and his cabinet were considering surrender granted 4 conditions: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Japanese_realization_of_the_bombing)
if there was an invasion of japan and they fought to the tooth as was done in germany, there is no doubt that the number of casualties would have been far higher.
the fire bombing actually resulted in more casualties than the atomic bombs if you want to talk of scale of destruction. when the emperor finally gained assurance that the kokutai wouldn't be removed as per agreements, he agreed to the surrender terms.
Actually the use of both bombs is entirely justified since it is known that the Japanese government didn't so much as blink an eye after the first one. The U.S. dropped the second one several days after the first to give the illusion that they basically had an unlimited supply of the a-bomb event though it was their last. Even after the Japanese emperor, NOT the Japanese government, came out and told the Japanese people they were surrendering several members of the government tried to stage a coup in an attempt to prolong the war further. So yea, it took the fear of these bombs to end the war. If an invasion had taken place the U.S. had estimates of well over half a million U.S. casualties alone, not to mention a much higher estimate of Japanese military and civilians.
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them.
The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered.
This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart.
And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight.
Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here.
Most of what you wrote is actually incorrect. France lost because they were militarily defeated, not because they "lost the will to fight" , whatever that cliche means. Blitzkrieg worked in Poland and France, but could never have worked in the same vein in Russia just simply because of scales involved. There was no way for Germans to win in the East at all, no matter what decisions of Hitler's you change. There was no way to fix the biggest problem of logistics and industrial power. It is no accident that Germans ended their push where they did, they were at the farthest possible distance they could actually fight the war logistically with any reasonable efficiency. It is actually more likely that Germans did much better than they should, oftentimes thanks to problems on the Soviet side. So no, Germans on the Eastern front did not underperfom much, much more likely they actually overperformed compared to reasonable expectations. Only completely unexplained surrender by Soviet leadership could have changed that, but Soviets were never really too close to even thinking about that.
As for the "human factor" you try to employ, no, in case of such economic disparity as was the case here, long total war is always decided purely by industrial might and no other factors matter in determining who wins. And this was a total war for all major parties concerned.
On January 02 2012 12:46 whatever292 wrote: Actually the use of both bombs is entirely justified since it is known that the Japanese government didn't so much as blink an eye after the first one. The U.S. dropped the second one several days after the first to give the illusion that they basically had an unlimited supply of the a-bomb event though it was their last. Even after the Japanese emperor, NOT the Japanese government, came out and told the Japanese people they were surrendering several members of the government tried to stage a coup in an attempt to prolong the war further. So yea, it took the fear of these bombs to end the war. If an invasion had taken place the U.S. had estimates of well over half a million U.S. casualties alone, not to mention a much higher estimate of Japanese military and civilians.
the role of the russians launching an invasion played a similarly if not larger role in their surrender, as the best case scenario at that time would be a more peaceful end due to russian intervention.
granted, if the russians did not invade, the use of the bombs would probably be justified for the argument that they were the sole and main cause for a japanese surrender (if they did surrender).
history tends not to be black and white as such. either way, the worst case scenario for all parties was a full scale land invasion and probable annihilation of japanese infrastructure to a degree far worse than what did happen.
On January 02 2012 12:46 whatever292 wrote: Actually the use of both bombs is entirely justified since it is known that the Japanese government didn't so much as blink an eye after the first one. The U.S. dropped the second one several days after the first to give the illusion that they basically had an unlimited supply of the a-bomb event though it was their last. Even after the Japanese emperor, NOT the Japanese government, came out and told the Japanese people they were surrendering several members of the government tried to stage a coup in an attempt to prolong the war further. So yea, it took the fear of these bombs to end the war. If an invasion had taken place the U.S. had estimates of well over half a million U.S. casualties alone, not to mention a much higher estimate of Japanese military and civilians.
the role of the russians launching an invasion played a similarly if not larger role in their surrender, as the best case scenario at that time would be a more peaceful end due to russian intervention.
granted, if the russians did not invade, the use of the bombs would probably be justified for the argument that they were the sole and main cause for a japanese surrender.
history tends not to be black and white as such. either way, the worst case scenario for all parties was a full scale land invasion and probable annihilation of japanese infrastructure to a degree far worse than what did happen.
Not to be disrespectful but I am glad that they surrendered then because if not we wouldn't get any animes
The atomic bombing of Japan is hardly morally discernible from any other military action that would result in large scale civilian casualties, and even if there is a significant moral difference between the use of atomic weapons and terribly inaccurate carpet bombing of industrial centers that killed civilians, that difference is irrelevant because the end result is still the same: dead civilians. The outrage is more emotional than logical
The atom bombings are not quite so simple it's true.
There are two motives not mentioned that I think played a role as well.
The first was our desire to test the weapons on military targets. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively unscathed by the carpet bombing that was done against most other Japanese military targets. This was so that the Americans could get an accurate picture of the damage that the weapons would cause.
The second was to demonstrate this power. The message was pointed: We possess the most awesome weapon in the history of warfare, and we are willing to use it. Though the usage may have been justified militarily, there was no secret to whom this message was being set: the Soviet Union.
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them.
The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered.
This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart.
And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight.
Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here.
Most of what you wrote is actually incorrect. France lost because they were militarily defeated, not because they "lost the will to fight" , whatever that cliche means. Blitzkrieg worked in Poland and France, but could never have worked in the same vein in Russia just simply because of scales involved. There was no way for Germans to win in the East at all, no matter what decisions of Hitler's you change. There was no way to fix the biggest problem of logistics and industrial power. It is no accident that Germans ended their push where they did, they were at the farthest possible distance they could actually fight the war logistically with any reasonable efficiency. It is actually more likely that Germans did much better than they should, oftentimes thanks to problems on the Soviet side. So no, Germans on the Eastern front did not underperfom much, much more likely they actually overperformed compared to reasonable expectations. Only completely unexplained surrender by Soviet leadership could have changed that, but Soviets were never really too close to even thinking about that.
As for the "human factor" you try to employ, no, in case of such economic disparity as was the case here, long total war is always decided purely by industrial might and no other factors matter in determining who wins. And this was a total war for all major parties concerned.
I'd argue that Germans could have taken the East if they held off Operation Barbarossa until the Spring of 1942 or even 1943--once they had secured oil from the Middle East as well as rare mineral/rubber resources from central/southern Africa. There was no indication that the USSR would have broken the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
If you are really interested about Europe and WW2 you should watch a Norwegian movie called "Max Manus". In this movie it's not about the wars where they fight on the beach etc (save private ryan f.ex). This movie is more about the secret groups that developted to stop the germans from taking Norway(Kompani Linge), sinking ships, burning safehouses and bombing archives. His group was also the group that sinked Ms Donau.
On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote: A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death. # of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
This, a million times over. What the Germans did was unthinkable, but the Japanese did the same thing with much more ferocity and much less discrimination. They enslaved women to be used by soldiers as sex slaves, forced fathers to rape their own daughters, and murdered anybody who showed an ounce of resistance.The rape of Nanking in itself is one of the most disturbing events in human history, and there were many other incidents just like it all over the Pacific.
As for the atomic bomb dropping, the calculations made by the U.S. military estimated that deaths from the planned "Operation Downfall" might run into the millions, and that's just Allied deaths, the Japanese numbers surely would have been much higher, as there were many more Japanese soldiers killed than surrendered during the course of the war.
EDIT: couldn't find the statistic i had seen to support my figure.
Well, you can pretty much use the number of Purple Hearts prepared for that possible invasion (of which stocks only ran out a few years ago) to gauge how much casualties they were expecting for the two initial invasions alone.
On January 02 2012 12:17 DoubleReed wrote: While the Japanese atrocities were pretty horrid, I was under the impression that the Holocaust was quite simply larger.
On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote: A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death. # of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
We dropped two atomic bombs, you know.
The Holocaust wasn't "quite simply larger". Chinese civilian casualties in WWII alone were far greater than Holocaust casualties.
Its cool, but BBC's the World at War is probably the greatest documentary ever on WW2 but 26 episodes at total running time over 22 hours not including the bonus extra episodes on Auschwitz, Hilter's Germany etc. with the DVDs is killer. and I have it all on my computer... 9.1 GBs haha
On January 02 2012 12:21 DoubleReed wrote: By that I mean you have to justify both bombs. If I'm not mistaken, I thought Japan was willing to surrender after the first one, but they were still trying to figure out what the hell happened to their city.
I think, with the red army entering the japanese war, the americans were pressed for a quick surrender in order to limit the soviet union's post-war influence in the region. By this time the military outcome of the war was pretty much decided. The political outcome, however, was not.
On January 02 2012 19:44 dmnum wrote: I don't know if this has been posted yet but I would recommend to anyone interested in WWII to watch this documentary:
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them.
The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered.
This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart.
And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight.
Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here.
Most of what you wrote is actually incorrect. France lost because they were militarily defeated, not because they "lost the will to fight" , whatever that cliche means. Blitzkrieg worked in Poland and France, but could never have worked in the same vein in Russia just simply because of scales involved. There was no way for Germans to win in the East at all, no matter what decisions of Hitler's you change. There was no way to fix the biggest problem of logistics and industrial power. It is no accident that Germans ended their push where they did, they were at the farthest possible distance they could actually fight the war logistically with any reasonable efficiency. It is actually more likely that Germans did much better than they should, oftentimes thanks to problems on the Soviet side. So no, Germans on the Eastern front did not underperfom much, much more likely they actually overperformed compared to reasonable expectations. Only completely unexplained surrender by Soviet leadership could have changed that, but Soviets were never really too close to even thinking about that.
As for the "human factor" you try to employ, no, in case of such economic disparity as was the case here, long total war is always decided purely by industrial might and no other factors matter in determining who wins. And this was a total war for all major parties concerned.
I'd argue that Germans could have taken the East if they held off Operation Barbarossa until the Spring of 1942 or even 1943--once they had secured oil from the Middle East as well as rare mineral/rubber resources from central/southern Africa. There was no indication that the USSR would have broken the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Something has been playing a bit too much Hearts of Iron....
How were the Germans going to occupy Iran where the bulk of the British Oil was? They could barely support an armored corps in Africa. Even if they take the Suez they still have to cross Syria, Jordan and Iraq to get to the oil resources while the British control the ocean.
one of my favorite WW2 movies is Downfall or (Der Untergang in german). probably on of the best actors to portray Hitler and was great. Its told through his secretary and follows Hitlers last 10 days in the bunker before suicide (spoiler!) lol definetly would recommend
On January 02 2012 19:53 Mvrio wrote: Its cool, but BBC's the World at War is probably the greatest documentary ever on WW2 but 26 episodes at total running time over 22 hours not including the bonus extra episodes on Auschwitz, Hilter's Germany etc. with the DVDs is killer. and I have it all on my computer... 9.1 GBs haha
Yeah, it's definitely not meant for people who are just mildly interested in WWII. However if you really like it you won't notice time passing while watching this series.
By that I mean you have to justify both bombs. If I'm not mistaken, I thought Japan was willing to surrender after the first one, but they were still trying to figure out what the hell happened to their city.
No, the Japanese Cabinet actually thought that the reports that Hiroshima had been destroyed by a single plane were completely false, and were deadset on continuing the war. Kind of silly since their very own investigator told them straight-up that all witnesses who survived said there was very clearly only a single plane, and then a gigantic, blinding flash of light, but that's what their aides recorded in the meeting transcriptions as them denying : /
Also most regrettably the second bomb was necessary. They were only willing to surrender after the Soviets invaded Manchuria if four conditions were met: retention of the emperor, they were in charge of their own disarming, Japanese control of any war-crimes trials, and no Allied occupation of Japan. Even then, the entire Cabinet aside from Foreign Minister Togo was perfectly willing to continue the war if these were rejected.
The second bomb gave them the impression that we actually had a half-dozen or so and were going to drop one every three days. That was the final nail in the coffin for them, at which point they accepted unconditional surrender (even then, the army nearly pulled off another coup to continue -_-).
On January 02 2012 12:11 FuzzyLord wrote: Rule of War: Don't attack Russia. Ever. You'll Lose.
No. Don't attack Russia on winter, Ever... unless you are well prepared.
and yet all have failed, first Napoleon then Hitler
And why was that? Oh yeah, because they weren't prepared and geared well enough!
Anytime anyone loses it because they weren't prepared or geared enough...
"You know, Andorra could have totally beat the USA in a war... if only they had more of everything. You can totally do better in wars by having more of everything."
On January 02 2012 12:17 DoubleReed wrote: While the Japanese atrocities were pretty horrid, I was under the impression that the Holocaust was quite simply larger.
The holocaust was probably larger in terms of scale because hitler's goal was to systematically exterminate the jewish race while japan wasn't necessarily out to massacre all the chinese and korean people because china and korea served as fuel for their war against the US.
Why japan is a lot worse than germany is because the things they did were so unimaginably horrifying. Just search "japanese war crimes" on google and prepare to throw up because you'll get into things like biological experiments on humans, cannibalism, mass rape, etc etc. It's disgusting, really. Some other examples:
1. Japan turned korea's royal palace into a public zoo (really? how immature can you be?) 2. Japan forced thousands of koreans and chinese for labor in japan and japanese colonies (note many of these people died from american fire bombings and later the a-bombs) 3. Japan systematically distorted korean artifacts, historical records, and archaeological sites to delete the koreans historical exploitations of japan, koreans' historical military victories over japan, and koreans' records of "primitive" and "uncultured" japan.
The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
On January 03 2012 00:05 Reggiegigas wrote: I think russia was a pretty cool guy, eh sacrificed more lives for freedom than any other country ever and didn't afraid of anything.
russia <3
I guess shelling their own guys and blaming it that Finland did it. Still cool?
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
It's not that the people of Japan themselves should feel sorry about it (apart from the ones who were alive and took part in the atrocities), it's the fact that the Japanese government has never officially apologized for it like Germany did and the fact that they neglect to teach it in schools.
On January 02 2012 19:44 dmnum wrote: I don't know if this has been posted yet but I would recommend to anyone interested in WWII to watch this documentary:
It's IMO the best WWII Documentary by far, incredibly detailed.
Indeed I did !
On December 28 2011 05:28 Tufas wrote: if you have time at your hand and did not previously research anything on the II World war and you want to know the basics and more, watch the BBC series "The World at War" from the 60/70. Excellent production.
But it is so awesome, as many people as possible should mention it anyway. And I think the BBC series are still a lot of basics and dates, there is much more to know. I can only recommend Ian Kershaw. Really good writing and stylistic in case you are worried if it is just going to be boring dates and facts.
small fun-fact : In austria, our school books show that the II world war began in 1938, and not in 1939. Why ? Because everyone knows that austria was forcefully added to germany and was completely innocent.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
They don't feel sorry about it. That's the whole point....
On January 03 2012 00:46 secretary bird wrote: Russia lost in WW1, they lost against Poland and they lost against Japan, the Crimean War too.
They are hardly undefeated in recent history but taking over all of that territory might be impossible, the Soviet Union was different though.
They didn't really lose in WW1, they just had the nasty business of a revolution to deal with so decided they didn't want to take part in that war anymore.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
They don't feel sorry about it. That's the whole point....
-_-
And they shouldnt feel sorry - that's his point (and I agree). The only thing which I can agree with the post is "in fact a lot of japanese people dont even know what they did back in WWII" - that should change (if it's true and they dont learn something like that in school). Learn history - so you dont repeat the mistakes yourself. But this applies to all people - I doubt the majority of the world population knows what Japan did in WWII (i.e. it wasnt part of my curriculum).
On January 03 2012 00:46 secretary bird wrote: Russia lost in WW1, they lost against Poland and they lost against Japan, the Crimean War too.
They are hardly undefeated in recent history but taking over all of that territory might be impossible, the Soviet Union was different though.
They didn't really lose in WW1, they just had the nasty business of a revolution to deal with so decided they didn't want to take part in that war anymore.
They gave up a ton of territory and money for peace so thats losing to me.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
It's not that the people of Japan themselves should feel sorry about it (apart from the ones who were alive and took part in the atrocities), it's the fact that the Japanese government has never officially apologized for it like Germany did and the fact that they neglect to teach it in schools.
Well try to remember winners justice. Two atomic bombs to japanese cities and harsh peace treaty terms. I guess today its too late to officially apologize it.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
They don't feel sorry about it. That's the whole point....
-_-
And they shouldnt feel sorry - that's his point (and I agree). The only thing which I can agree with the post is "in fact a lot of japanese people dont even know what they did back in WWII" - that should change (if it's true and they dont learn something like that in school). Learn history - so you dont repeat the mistakes yourself. But this applies to all people - I doubt the majority of the world population knows what Japan did in WWII (i.e. it wasnt part of my curriculum).
And visiting yakushini shrine that is dedicated to fallen war criminals during the imperial japan? What do you say about that?
The japanese people are aware of what they did. But they don't know the full extension of it. The government knows what they did but they also have pride so they don't bow down to countries they raped.
There never will be peace in East Asia because of WWII history. And because of what japanese government is doing to avoid revealing truth to their own citizens.
You Germans would freak out (and the rest of other western nations) if some of your people in German government actually built a church or grieving site for the fallen Nazi war criminals.
Well, that is exactly what japanese government is doing as of right now. No shit they are not sorry for what they did during WWII.
On December 28 2011 10:26 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On December 28 2011 10:23 MadMushroom wrote:
On December 28 2011 09:58 Fruscainte wrote: This just leads me wondering what Germany could have done to keep Japan out of attacking America. Were they even informed by Japan of the plans to attack Pearl Harbor? If so, why did they not do anything to try and prevent it? If Japan merely let America keep neutral, so much would have gone in their favor. Not that I'm complaining or anything.
Actually, if memory serves, Hitler declared war on America(after Japan) in the hopes that Japan would declare war on the USSR, opening up a second border for the Russians to fight.
Hitler was bad at sensing fear. The Japanese were scared shitless of the Soviets following the 1939 battles, which were terribly one-sided, and ceded for peace with no inclination to break it. I'd wager that the Japanese would have surrendered if no nukes were used once the Soviets commenced Operation August Storm and defeated the Japanese forces in China.. in 10 days. But that would mean the US would have to share Japan with the USSR, which is not something we wanted to do at all. Additionally, throughout the war, the Soviets had a substantial, fortified military force in the Far East, and given the far superior strategy, technology, and strength of the Soviets over the Japanese, any attack by the Japanese would have been suicidal. They were too fearful to try. Apparently wisdom is not the answer, seeing as they thought they could defeat the US (or any country other than Korea/China).
Was Eastern Russia really that well defended? I never really put much thought into Russo-Japanese conflicts, but I always assumed that with the nature of Eastern Russia it would be, if anything, the least defended area in the country.
EDIT: The one fact about WW2 that always makes me chuckle though is the intelligence, or rather lack of it we got in France. I saw a documentary on this...eh...a year or so ago on the days directly after D-Day. Where basically, American intelligence planes thought these hedges and shit in the French countryside, as I said on the first page, were only like 5ft tall and could just be ran over by tanks and shit. Well, surprise! They were actually like 40 feet tall and what should have taken less than 24 hours, took like a week.
Russia had a lot of troops on the border with china, Stalin was convinced that Japan would declare war, one of the big reasons that Soviets were able to win the battle of Moscow are those fresh reinforcements that were finally moved.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
It's not that the people of Japan themselves should feel sorry about it (apart from the ones who were alive and took part in the atrocities), it's the fact that the Japanese government has never officially apologized for it like Germany did and the fact that they neglect to teach it in schools.
Well try to remember winners justice. Two atomic bombs to japanese cities and harsh peace treaty terms. I guess today its too late to officially apologize it.
Germany suffered a much more crushing and total defeat than Japan yet still apologized and taught its citizens the horrors of its past. Perhaps it is too late for an official apology but they could at least teach their citizens about the terrible things that happened.
On December 28 2011 10:26 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On December 28 2011 10:23 MadMushroom wrote:
On December 28 2011 09:58 Fruscainte wrote: This just leads me wondering what Germany could have done to keep Japan out of attacking America. Were they even informed by Japan of the plans to attack Pearl Harbor? If so, why did they not do anything to try and prevent it? If Japan merely let America keep neutral, so much would have gone in their favor. Not that I'm complaining or anything.
Actually, if memory serves, Hitler declared war on America(after Japan) in the hopes that Japan would declare war on the USSR, opening up a second border for the Russians to fight.
Hitler was bad at sensing fear. The Japanese were scared shitless of the Soviets following the 1939 battles, which were terribly one-sided, and ceded for peace with no inclination to break it. I'd wager that the Japanese would have surrendered if no nukes were used once the Soviets commenced Operation August Storm and defeated the Japanese forces in China.. in 10 days. But that would mean the US would have to share Japan with the USSR, which is not something we wanted to do at all. Additionally, throughout the war, the Soviets had a substantial, fortified military force in the Far East, and given the far superior strategy, technology, and strength of the Soviets over the Japanese, any attack by the Japanese would have been suicidal. They were too fearful to try. Apparently wisdom is not the answer, seeing as they thought they could defeat the US (or any country other than Korea/China).
Was Eastern Russia really that well defended? I never really put much thought into Russo-Japanese conflicts, but I always assumed that with the nature of Eastern Russia it would be, if anything, the least defended area in the country.
EDIT: The one fact about WW2 that always makes me chuckle though is the intelligence, or rather lack of it we got in France. I saw a documentary on this...eh...a year or so ago on the days directly after D-Day. Where basically, American intelligence planes thought these hedges and shit in the French countryside, as I said on the first page, were only like 5ft tall and could just be ran over by tanks and shit. Well, surprise! They were actually like 40 feet tall and what should have taken less than 24 hours, took like a week.
Russia had a lot of troops on the border with china, Stalin was convinced that Japan would declare war, one of the big reasons that Soviets were able to win the battle of Moscow are those fresh reinforcements that were finally moved.
Actually, there already was many border skirmishes with japan before WWII. Notably Battles of Khalkhin Gol, where japanese army was literally pounded by the Soviets and japan never bothered to venture deep into Mongolian territories after that.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
They don't feel sorry about it. That's the whole point....
-_-
And they shouldnt feel sorry - that's his point (and I agree). The only thing which I can agree with the post is "in fact a lot of japanese people dont even know what they did back in WWII" - that should change (if it's true and they dont learn something like that in school). Learn history - so you dont repeat the mistakes yourself. But this applies to all people - I doubt the majority of the world population knows what Japan did in WWII (i.e. it wasnt part of my curriculum).
And visiting yakushini shrine that is dedicated to fallen war criminals during the imperial japan? What do you say about that?
The japanese people are aware of what they did. But they don't know the full extension of it. The government knows what they did but they also have pride so they don't bow down to countries they raped.
There never will be peace in East Asia because of WWII history. And because of what japanese government is doing to avoid revealing truth to their own citizens.
You Germans would freak out (and the rest of other western nations) if some of your people in German government actually built a church or grieving site for the fallen Nazi war criminals.
Well, that is exactly what japanese government is doing as of right now. No shit they are not sorry for what they did during WWII.
You have to remember that huge majority of people of that shrine are normal soldiers.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
It's not that the people of Japan themselves should feel sorry about it (apart from the ones who were alive and took part in the atrocities), it's the fact that the Japanese government has never officially apologized for it like Germany did and the fact that they neglect to teach it in schools.
Well try to remember winners justice. Two atomic bombs to japanese cities and harsh peace treaty terms. I guess today its too late to officially apologize it.
Germany suffered a much more crushing and total defeat than Japan yet still apologized and taught its citizens the horrors of its past. Perhaps it is too late for an official apology but they could at least teach their citizens about the terrible things that happened.
Why? If they want to know what happened @ WWII they can easily do that. I did same thing for Finnish Civil War and other major conflicts. Though you have to remember winners history.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
They don't feel sorry about it. That's the whole point....
-_-
And they shouldnt feel sorry - that's his point (and I agree). The only thing which I can agree with the post is "in fact a lot of japanese people dont even know what they did back in WWII" - that should change (if it's true and they dont learn something like that in school). Learn history - so you dont repeat the mistakes yourself. But this applies to all people - I doubt the majority of the world population knows what Japan did in WWII (i.e. it wasnt part of my curriculum).
And visiting yakushini shrine that is dedicated to fallen war criminals during the imperial japan? What do you say about that?
The japanese people are aware of what they did. But they don't know the full extension of it. The government knows what they did but they also have pride so they don't bow down to countries they raped.
There never will be peace in East Asia because of WWII history. And because of what japanese government is doing to avoid revealing truth to their own citizens.
You Germans would freak out (and the rest of other western nations) if some of your people in German government actually built a church or grieving site for the fallen Nazi war criminals.
Well, that is exactly what japanese government is doing as of right now. No shit they are not sorry for what they did during WWII.
You have to remember that huge majority of people of that shrine are normal soldiers.
But war criminals like Hideki Tojo and masterminds behind Unit 731 are buried among them. And people pay respect to these gravesites whether they are just normal soldiers or war criminals. That is where the problem lies.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
They don't feel sorry about it. That's the whole point....
-_-
And they shouldnt feel sorry - that's his point (and I agree). The only thing which I can agree with the post is "in fact a lot of japanese people dont even know what they did back in WWII" - that should change (if it's true and they dont learn something like that in school). Learn history - so you dont repeat the mistakes yourself. But this applies to all people - I doubt the majority of the world population knows what Japan did in WWII (i.e. it wasnt part of my curriculum).
And visiting yakushini shrine that is dedicated to fallen war criminals during the imperial japan? What do you say about that?
The japanese people are aware of what they did. But they don't know the full extension of it. The government knows what they did but they also have pride so they don't bow down to countries they raped.
There never will be peace in East Asia because of WWII history. And because of what japanese government is doing to avoid revealing truth to their own citizens.
You Germans would freak out (and the rest of other western nations) if some of your people in German government actually built a church or grieving site for the fallen Nazi war criminals.
Well, that is exactly what japanese government is doing as of right now. No shit they are not sorry for what they did during WWII.
You have to remember that huge majority of people of that shrine are normal soldiers.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
It's not that the people of Japan themselves should feel sorry about it (apart from the ones who were alive and took part in the atrocities), it's the fact that the Japanese government has never officially apologized for it like Germany did and the fact that they neglect to teach it in schools.
Well try to remember winners justice. Two atomic bombs to japanese cities and harsh peace treaty terms. I guess today its too late to officially apologize it.
Germany suffered a much more crushing and total defeat than Japan yet still apologized and taught its citizens the horrors of its past. Perhaps it is too late for an official apology but they could at least teach their citizens about the terrible things that happened.
Why? If they want to know what happened @ WWII they can easily do that. I did same thing for Finnish Civil War and other major conflicts. Though you have to remember winners history.
I know they can find out if they want to but the point is that they should be taught in school exactly what happened in the East Asia/Pacific theatre, particularly about things like Unit 731 and the things that happened in Japanese POW camps.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
They don't feel sorry about it. That's the whole point....
-_-
And they shouldnt feel sorry - that's his point (and I agree). The only thing which I can agree with the post is "in fact a lot of japanese people dont even know what they did back in WWII" - that should change (if it's true and they dont learn something like that in school). Learn history - so you dont repeat the mistakes yourself. But this applies to all people - I doubt the majority of the world population knows what Japan did in WWII (i.e. it wasnt part of my curriculum).
And visiting yakushini shrine that is dedicated to fallen war criminals during the imperial japan? What do you say about that?
The japanese people are aware of what they did. But they don't know the full extension of it. The government knows what they did but they also have pride so they don't bow down to countries they raped.
There never will be peace in East Asia because of WWII history. And because of what japanese government is doing to avoid revealing truth to their own citizens.
You Germans would freak out (and the rest of other western nations) if some of your people in German government actually built a church or grieving site for the fallen Nazi war criminals.
Well, that is exactly what japanese government is doing as of right now. No shit they are not sorry for what they did during WWII.
You have to remember that huge majority of people of that shrine are normal soldiers.
On January 03 2012 01:03 jello_biafra wrote:
On January 03 2012 00:58 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
On January 03 2012 00:28 jello_biafra wrote:
On January 03 2012 00:25 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
It's not that the people of Japan themselves should feel sorry about it (apart from the ones who were alive and took part in the atrocities), it's the fact that the Japanese government has never officially apologized for it like Germany did and the fact that they neglect to teach it in schools.
Well try to remember winners justice. Two atomic bombs to japanese cities and harsh peace treaty terms. I guess today its too late to officially apologize it.
Germany suffered a much more crushing and total defeat than Japan yet still apologized and taught its citizens the horrors of its past. Perhaps it is too late for an official apology but they could at least teach their citizens about the terrible things that happened.
Why? If they want to know what happened @ WWII they can easily do that. I did same thing for Finnish Civil War and other major conflicts. Though you have to remember winners history.
I know they can find out if they want to but the point is that they should be taught in school exactly what happened in the East Asia/Pacific theatre in schools, particularly about things like Unit 731 and the things that happened in Japanese POW camps.
I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why?
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
They don't feel sorry about it. That's the whole point....
-_-
And they shouldnt feel sorry - that's his point (and I agree). The only thing which I can agree with the post is "in fact a lot of japanese people dont even know what they did back in WWII" - that should change (if it's true and they dont learn something like that in school). Learn history - so you dont repeat the mistakes yourself. But this applies to all people - I doubt the majority of the world population knows what Japan did in WWII (i.e. it wasnt part of my curriculum).
And visiting yakushini shrine that is dedicated to fallen war criminals during the imperial japan? What do you say about that?
The japanese people are aware of what they did. But they don't know the full extension of it. The government knows what they did but they also have pride so they don't bow down to countries they raped.
There never will be peace in East Asia because of WWII history. And because of what japanese government is doing to avoid revealing truth to their own citizens.
You Germans would freak out (and the rest of other western nations) if some of your people in German government actually built a church or grieving site for the fallen Nazi war criminals.
Well, that is exactly what japanese government is doing as of right now. No shit they are not sorry for what they did during WWII.
You have to remember that huge majority of people of that shrine are normal soldiers.
On January 03 2012 01:03 jello_biafra wrote:
On January 03 2012 00:58 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
On January 03 2012 00:28 jello_biafra wrote:
On January 03 2012 00:25 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
It's not that the people of Japan themselves should feel sorry about it (apart from the ones who were alive and took part in the atrocities), it's the fact that the Japanese government has never officially apologized for it like Germany did and the fact that they neglect to teach it in schools.
Well try to remember winners justice. Two atomic bombs to japanese cities and harsh peace treaty terms. I guess today its too late to officially apologize it.
Germany suffered a much more crushing and total defeat than Japan yet still apologized and taught its citizens the horrors of its past. Perhaps it is too late for an official apology but they could at least teach their citizens about the terrible things that happened.
Why? If they want to know what happened @ WWII they can easily do that. I did same thing for Finnish Civil War and other major conflicts. Though you have to remember winners history.
I know they can find out if they want to but the point is that they should be taught in school exactly what happened in the East Asia/Pacific theatre in schools, particularly about things like Unit 731 and the things that happened in Japanese POW camps.
I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why?
I just think it's something that should be acknowledged and remembered, it's part of their recent history and hopefully a reminder to not let anything like that happen again, not something to be swept under the carpet and conveniently forgotten about.
And as for what you're saying about the winners of the war continuing to fight wars, someone has to take responsibility and stand up for what's right in this world.
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
They don't feel sorry about it. That's the whole point....
-_-
And they shouldnt feel sorry - that's his point (and I agree). The only thing which I can agree with the post is "in fact a lot of japanese people dont even know what they did back in WWII" - that should change (if it's true and they dont learn something like that in school). Learn history - so you dont repeat the mistakes yourself. But this applies to all people - I doubt the majority of the world population knows what Japan did in WWII (i.e. it wasnt part of my curriculum).
And visiting yakushini shrine that is dedicated to fallen war criminals during the imperial japan? What do you say about that?
The japanese people are aware of what they did. But they don't know the full extension of it. The government knows what they did but they also have pride so they don't bow down to countries they raped.
There never will be peace in East Asia because of WWII history. And because of what japanese government is doing to avoid revealing truth to their own citizens.
You Germans would freak out (and the rest of other western nations) if some of your people in German government actually built a church or grieving site for the fallen Nazi war criminals.
Well, that is exactly what japanese government is doing as of right now. No shit they are not sorry for what they did during WWII.
You have to remember that huge majority of people of that shrine are normal soldiers.
On January 03 2012 01:03 jello_biafra wrote:
On January 03 2012 00:58 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
On January 03 2012 00:28 jello_biafra wrote:
On January 03 2012 00:25 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
On January 02 2012 23:07 white_horse wrote: The really sad thing is that japan today aren't even sorry for what they did. In fact a lot of japanese people don't even know what they did back in WWII. Germany makes the usage of the swastika illegal and they are totally apologetic about it so they get my respect. I think its unfair to blame the current generation of japanese people because it isn't their fault but I can totally understand if koreans or chinese never forgive japan even if the japanese government today suddenly made a full blown apology on the scale that germany did. They did too many bad things.
How long does losing side needs to feel sorry about it?
It's not that the people of Japan themselves should feel sorry about it (apart from the ones who were alive and took part in the atrocities), it's the fact that the Japanese government has never officially apologized for it like Germany did and the fact that they neglect to teach it in schools.
Well try to remember winners justice. Two atomic bombs to japanese cities and harsh peace treaty terms. I guess today its too late to officially apologize it.
Germany suffered a much more crushing and total defeat than Japan yet still apologized and taught its citizens the horrors of its past. Perhaps it is too late for an official apology but they could at least teach their citizens about the terrible things that happened.
Why? If they want to know what happened @ WWII they can easily do that. I did same thing for Finnish Civil War and other major conflicts. Though you have to remember winners history.
I know they can find out if they want to but the point is that they should be taught in school exactly what happened in the East Asia/Pacific theatre in schools, particularly about things like Unit 731 and the things that happened in Japanese POW camps.
I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why?
I just think it's something that should be acknowledged and remembered, it's part of their recent history and hopefully a reminder to not let anything like that happen again, not something to be swept under the carpet and conveniently forgotten about.
And as for what you're saying about the winners of the war continuing to fight wars, someone has to take responsibility and stand up for what's right in this world.
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day.
Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK.
Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them.
The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered.
This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart.
And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight.
Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here.
Most of what you wrote is actually incorrect. France lost because they were militarily defeated, not because they "lost the will to fight" , whatever that cliche means. Blitzkrieg worked in Poland and France, but could never have worked in the same vein in Russia just simply because of scales involved. There was no way for Germans to win in the East at all, no matter what decisions of Hitler's you change. There was no way to fix the biggest problem of logistics and industrial power. It is no accident that Germans ended their push where they did, they were at the farthest possible distance they could actually fight the war logistically with any reasonable efficiency. It is actually more likely that Germans did much better than they should, oftentimes thanks to problems on the Soviet side. So no, Germans on the Eastern front did not underperfom much, much more likely they actually overperformed compared to reasonable expectations. Only completely unexplained surrender by Soviet leadership could have changed that, but Soviets were never really too close to even thinking about that.
As for the "human factor" you try to employ, no, in case of such economic disparity as was the case here, long total war is always decided purely by industrial might and no other factors matter in determining who wins. And this was a total war for all major parties concerned.
I'd argue that Germans could have taken the East if they held off Operation Barbarossa until the Spring of 1942 or even 1943--once they had secured oil from the Middle East as well as rare mineral/rubber resources from central/southern Africa. There was no indication that the USSR would have broken the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Postponing Barbarossa would end up only making sure Germans would not advance even half of what they did. Red army was in process of recuperating after Stalin's purges and was gaining strength extremely quickly as they actually suspected that the war will come. Spring 1942 might not have made that much difference, but probably would. 1943 would be completely disastrous for Germans as by that time officer ranks in Red Army should be replenished with more competent officers and T-34 would be in fullscale deployment and fullscale production and being much better tank than what Germans had would have much bigger impact than in 1941. People often underestimate the impact Stalin's purges had on Red Army. Just a sidenote, before the first purges Red army was at the front of tactical innovations and combined arms operations, far ahaed even of Germans.
As for Germans securing Middle East, their victory there seems as far-fetched as the one in the East, how actually would they achieve it ? They suffered the similar problems there as in Russia. Their problem was not even as much lack of resources at that point but logistics. How are they going to supply bigger army in Africa if they had problem supplying small Rommel's force as it is.
On January 03 2012 02:19 Too_MuchZerg wrote: I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why?
Meh, to remember is the very purpose of history. If you don't think a nation should remember that their army used Chinese peasants as guinea pigs, treating them like kettle (washing the unconscious bodies with cold water and a hard brush on an aluminium table), then you simply don't belong to this thread (which is about history, after all).
Should I add that relatives of those who suffered those crimes are alive and want Japan to stop denying the facts? Their will alone is a good reason.
Not long ago, a Japanese history teacher received death threats after lecturing his students about war crimes in Japan. If you think this is normal...
On January 03 2012 03:17 mcc wrote: People often underestimate the impact Stalin's purges had on Red Army. Just a sidenote, before the first purges Red army was at the front of tactical innovations and combined arms operations, far ahaed even of Germans.
Actually, people assume they had a strong negative impact, but some historians actually believe that while it did hinder the Red Army's strenght on the short term, it allowed new, dynamic, completely loyal and modern officers to take over, reinforcing the entire body on a longer period.
Old officers unaware of novelties often were the cause of painful, confusing defeats (1870 French-Prussian war, 1914 massacres, 1940 French-German conflict).
Has USA apologised to japan for dropping the two A-bombs? History is told by the winners point of view yo. Brazil has never apologised to paraguay for what we did to them during the paraguayan war, and if you think what the japanese did was bad, you should look this war up. Brazil killed 80% of the paraguayan population, a lot was due to disease but you want to know something that is fucked up? Before the war Dom Pedro was very criticized. So even after Dom pedro knew the war was over, he continued to kill paraguayans, because having a common enemy united the population under his banner. Do I feel sorry about it? Not a little bit. I can simpathize with paraguayans, but I don't feel like I have to apologize, because I never killed anyone.
On January 03 2012 02:19 Too_MuchZerg wrote: I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why?
Meh, to remember is the very purpose of history. If you don't think a nation should remember that their army used Chinese peasants as guinea pigs, treating them like kettle (washing the unconscious bodies with cold water and a hard brush on an aluminium table), then you simply don't belong to this thread (which is about history, after all).
Should I add that relatives of those who suffered those crimes are alive and want Japan to stop denying the facts? Their will alone is a good reason.
Not long ago, a Japanese history teacher received death threats after lecturing his students about war crimes in Japan. If you think this is normal...
When talking about History and teaching history to students its different. These war crimes are usually shown on TV documents which they belong. But does ordinary student really need to know all the killing methods and experiments? No. Usually World War II is taught certain order (at least my time it was). 1. Why and how it started. 2. Which countries were involved. 3. Key battles / turning points. 4. End of war and cost of it (deaths and such).
Of course losing and winning side has "different" history about the war. We might talk about Finnish war heroes while Russians talk theirs and say that our heroes are war criminals. Just remember history is taught differently each country and you cant change it. Perhaps you should take some lessons from losing side schools/teachers to get idea why its different.
This is a guess but I bet France teaches World War II more France point of view. More teaching about resistance fighters and brutality of Germans? What we are told about here at Finland? Only small details like German occupied France and then they fight it back with help of British / USA soldiers (and others smaller countries). Is it really necessary to know how Germans killed resistance fighters (executed or tortured etc) or how resistance fighters killed German soldiers. War is never clean, its dirty.
When my teacher said that there was war crimes involved each side its not his/her thing to go through these things, its up to you.
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
On January 03 2012 03:17 mcc wrote: People often underestimate the impact Stalin's purges had on Red Army. Just a sidenote, before the first purges Red army was at the front of tactical innovations and combined arms operations, far ahaed even of Germans.
Actually, people assume they had a strong negative impact, but some historians actually believe that while it did hinder the Red Army's strenght on the short term, it allowed new, dynamic, completely loyal and modern officers to take over, reinforcing the entire body on a longer period.
Old officers unaware of novelties often were the cause of painful, confusing defeats (1870 French-Prussian war, 1914 massacres, 1940 French-German conflict).
If you actually read the rest of my post I was saying they had short term negative impact, but that short term impact was still in effect in 1941, so how is it in any way against what I wrote ? Short term negative impact can be strong and detrimental if that short period coincides with the war you are waging, which is the case here.
As for the second part of your objection it is only partially true, in case of Red Army they already had new, dynamic and modern officers that were developing new doctrines that I was talking about and they were removed in the purges, not only the old officers.
USSR's victory can at least partially be contributed to Western aid. But OP is right: the Western Front was basically meh.
EDIT: I am not sure if anyone brought this up yet, but another thing that fucked Hitler up was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Hitler originally wanted simultaneous invasion of USSR with Japan, but Japan wanted dominance of the Pacifics and had very little remaining interests in Asia. It is known that after the German invasion, one of Stalin's top agenda was to make sure there were no simultaneous attacks from the Eastern side - there weren't, and Stalin was able to move the Soviet industries to the far east, safe from the German bombers.
There were many reasons for the cold relationships between Japan and Germany at the time. One of the main reasons was that Germany between the two World Wars was a strong ally of Republic of China. In fact, one of the reasons Japan met stronger-than-expected resistance in Nanking was precisely because of the German-trained elite Chinese troops there. The German-Japanese relationship only warmed up after the Chinese were in essence defeated.
The cool thing about this thread is that it's on an international forum where you get to see the war from a German angle with some of the contributions of posters in this thread. Even hearing about stories from posters about their relatives as POWs, be they Russian, French etc. is pretty interesting as well.
Definitely brings a new light to the topic considering most of us have always been taught about WWII from an Allied perspective and lens.
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Ive been ignoring this thread for some time. Finally took the time to read it, and glad i did it. There is so much I didnt know about WW2. Im thankful for this thread
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
On January 03 2012 02:19 Too_MuchZerg wrote: I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why?
Meh, to remember is the very purpose of history. If you don't think a nation should remember that their army used Chinese peasants as guinea pigs, treating them like kettle (washing the unconscious bodies with cold water and a hard brush on an aluminium table), then you simply don't belong to this thread (which is about history, after all).
Should I add that relatives of those who suffered those crimes are alive and want Japan to stop denying the facts? Their will alone is a good reason.
Not long ago, a Japanese history teacher received death threats after lecturing his students about war crimes in Japan. If you think this is normal...
When talking about History and teaching history to students its different. These war crimes are usually shown on TV documents which they belong. But does ordinary student really need to know all the killing methods and experiments? No. Usually World War II is taught certain order (at least my time it was). 1. Why and how it started. 2. Which countries were involved. 3. Key battles / turning points. 4. End of war and cost of it (deaths and such).
Of course losing and winning side has "different" history about the war. We might talk about Finnish war heroes while Russians talk theirs and say that our heroes are war criminals. Just remember history is taught differently each country and you cant change it. Perhaps you should take some lessons from losing side schools/teachers to get idea why its different.
This is a guess but I bet France teaches World War II more France point of view. More teaching about resistance fighters and brutality of Germans? What we are told about here at Finland? Only small details like German occupied France and then they fight it back with help of British / USA soldiers (and others smaller countries). Is it really necessary to know how Germans killed resistance fighters (executed or tortured etc) or how resistance fighters killed German soldiers. War is never clean, its dirty.
When my teacher said that there was war crimes involved each side its not his/her thing to go through these things, its up to you.
Nothing was ever censored to us in school about the Nazis and what they did in the concentration camps. Why should the Japanese be treated any different? And why would it be good to censor what happened? Afraid the students are going to have nightmares and get scarred for life?
On January 03 2012 20:07 MHT wrote: Nothing was ever censored to us in school about the Nazis and what they did in the concentration camps. Why should the Japanese be treated any different? And why would it be good to censor what happened? Afraid the students are going to have nightmares and get scarred for life?
I agree. Such things need to be taught if only to teach that such things should never be allowed to happen again. Japan's government to date has apologized for civilian deaths, but has never apologized for particular incidents which still needs to happen. /end opinion
Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel popularly known as the Desert Fox, was a German Field Marshal of World War II. He won the respect of both his own troops and the enemies he fought. As one of the few generals who consistently fought the Western Allies (he was never assigned to the Eastern Front), Rommel is regarded as having been a humane and professional officer. His Afrikakorps was never accused of war crimes. Soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely. Furthermore, he ignored orders to kill captured commandos, Jewish soldiers and civilians in all theaters of his command.
During the summer of 1941, 300 young American men and women secretly trained in the jungles of Southeast Asia, preparing to face the Japanese Air Force in combat over the skies of China. Within weeks of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the daring exploits of the American Volunteer Group (AVG) captured the imagination of the world. The Chinese called them Fei Hu, for the shark's teeth painted on their planes. The world knew them as the legendary Flying Tigers. The Tigers' shark-faced fighters remain among the most recognizable of any individual combat aircraft of World War II, and they demonstrated innovative tactical victories when the news in the U.S. was filled with little more than stories of defeat at the hands of the Japanese forces. They downed over 200 Japanese aircraft. Even using the lower figure of Japanese aircraft downed, the AVG's kill ratio was superior to that of contemporary Allied air groups in Malaya, the Philippines, and elsewhere. The AVG's success is all the more remarkable since they were outnumbered by Japanese fighters in almost all their engagements.
The 442nd Regimental Combat Team (Japanese: 第442連隊戦闘団) of the United States Army, was composed of Japanese-American enlisted men and mostly Caucasian officers. They fought primarily in Europe during World War II, beginning in 1944. The families of many of its soldiers were subject to internment. The 442nd was a self-sufficient force, and fought with uncommon distinction in Italy, southern France, and Germany. The unit became the most highly–decorated regiment in the history of the United States armed forces, including 21 Medal of Honor recipients. One of them being Daniel Inouye, still currently sitting as a United States Senator, who lost his arm in Italy.
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration.
The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied.
OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation.
If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
On January 03 2012 02:19 Too_MuchZerg wrote: I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why?
Meh, to remember is the very purpose of history. If you don't think a nation should remember that their army used Chinese peasants as guinea pigs, treating them like kettle (washing the unconscious bodies with cold water and a hard brush on an aluminium table), then you simply don't belong to this thread (which is about history, after all).
Should I add that relatives of those who suffered those crimes are alive and want Japan to stop denying the facts? Their will alone is a good reason.
Not long ago, a Japanese history teacher received death threats after lecturing his students about war crimes in Japan. If you think this is normal...
When talking about History and teaching history to students its different. These war crimes are usually shown on TV documents which they belong. But does ordinary student really need to know all the killing methods and experiments? No. Usually World War II is taught certain order (at least my time it was). 1. Why and how it started. 2. Which countries were involved. 3. Key battles / turning points. 4. End of war and cost of it (deaths and such).
Of course losing and winning side has "different" history about the war. We might talk about Finnish war heroes while Russians talk theirs and say that our heroes are war criminals. Just remember history is taught differently each country and you cant change it. Perhaps you should take some lessons from losing side schools/teachers to get idea why its different.
This is a guess but I bet France teaches World War II more France point of view. More teaching about resistance fighters and brutality of Germans? What we are told about here at Finland? Only small details like German occupied France and then they fight it back with help of British / USA soldiers (and others smaller countries). Is it really necessary to know how Germans killed resistance fighters (executed or tortured etc) or how resistance fighters killed German soldiers. War is never clean, its dirty.
When my teacher said that there was war crimes involved each side its not his/her thing to go through these things, its up to you.
No, there's actually a big chunk about France's collaboration with Germany, and atrocities committed by French people. We even learn - without going into detail, true - that the war of Algeria was a dirty war with a widespread use of torture.
Apologies aren't true apologies, as they're mentioned by a state, not a person; however, it's the symbol of acceptation. It's an addition to history, by simply saying "yes, we did it". History does repeat itself, but we can temper tragedies in advance by educating the population.
And it's important to educate the population with at least a glance of an enemy's point of view, and not indulge in a self-loving blind patriotism, which is something the japanese have been know to do since the Edo period. It's important to let a history teachers tell his fellow citizens about past crimes committed by their ancesters. It's important to ensure that he won't receive death threats if he does so.
Or maybe do you disagree and agree with those who wished him publicly hanged for his "lies and treason"?
Edit: however, I will agree that it's never perfect. An example would be the image given to Germany and especially to the German soldiers. The difference bewteen the Einsatzgruppen and the regular Wehrmacht is never underlined, and soldiers are never shown as regular people.
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration.
The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied.
OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation.
If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
Why would England and France ever let Germany take out USSR? Not declaring war because Germany takes Poland is one thing but letting Germany take out the USSR is just dumb.
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration.
The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied.
OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation.
If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
Your scenario is basically : If magic then something happens, because you cannot satisfy your starting assumptions by any other way than magic. There was no way for things to go that way no matter what decision Hitler made. Your scenario is not "what-if with benefit of the hindsight" it is "what-if magic made it so" as there is no way to achieve it by just changing decisions on part of Germany. Also your assumption about sure early victories in the east are far from clear as Wehrmacht was not ready to attack USSR in 1939/40 even more so than Red army was weaker in 1939 compared to 1941.
On January 03 2012 02:19 Too_MuchZerg wrote: I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why?
Meh, to remember is the very purpose of history. If you don't think a nation should remember that their army used Chinese peasants as guinea pigs, treating them like kettle (washing the unconscious bodies with cold water and a hard brush on an aluminium table), then you simply don't belong to this thread (which is about history, after all).
Should I add that relatives of those who suffered those crimes are alive and want Japan to stop denying the facts? Their will alone is a good reason.
Not long ago, a Japanese history teacher received death threats after lecturing his students about war crimes in Japan. If you think this is normal...
When talking about History and teaching history to students its different. These war crimes are usually shown on TV documents which they belong. But does ordinary student really need to know all the killing methods and experiments? No. Usually World War II is taught certain order (at least my time it was). 1. Why and how it started. 2. Which countries were involved. 3. Key battles / turning points. 4. End of war and cost of it (deaths and such).
Of course losing and winning side has "different" history about the war. We might talk about Finnish war heroes while Russians talk theirs and say that our heroes are war criminals. Just remember history is taught differently each country and you cant change it. Perhaps you should take some lessons from losing side schools/teachers to get idea why its different.
This is a guess but I bet France teaches World War II more France point of view. More teaching about resistance fighters and brutality of Germans? What we are told about here at Finland? Only small details like German occupied France and then they fight it back with help of British / USA soldiers (and others smaller countries). Is it really necessary to know how Germans killed resistance fighters (executed or tortured etc) or how resistance fighters killed German soldiers. War is never clean, its dirty.
When my teacher said that there was war crimes involved each side its not his/her thing to go through these things, its up to you.
Nothing was ever censored to us in school about the Nazis and what they did in the concentration camps. Why should the Japanese be treated any different? And why would it be good to censor what happened? Afraid the students are going to have nightmares and get scarred for life?
I didn't talk about censorship (but main reason is time limit on each subject at school) as students can get all information anyways. But its up to each country how they teach history. Most likely I was taught same way World War II history as you did. Some of the war crimes (holocaust and such) was described/written in my school book but most of I learned from getting information out of Internet (low amount that day though) and watching WWII documents (provided detailed information, killing methods and such).
Problem is that when you go too detail then some people might start hating other people what they did (some of my friends don't like Germans and others don't like Russians). If they would have not known these crimes that exactly perhaps they would not have negative imagine about them. Most people living right now has nothing to do with these crimes (over 60 years later of war)!
Perhaps Japan is waiting that all people who were involved World War II dies before starting to teach war crimes? They might have different family values and respect towards soldiers that time. Not everyone did horrible things.
On January 03 2012 22:08 Kukaracha wrote: No, there's actually a big chunk about France's collaboration with Germany, and atrocities committed by French people. We even learn - without going into detail, true - that the war of Algeria was a dirty war with a widespread use of torture.
Apologies aren't true apologies, as they're mentioned by a state, not a person; however, it's the symbol of acceptation. It's an addition to history, by simply saying "yes, we did it". History does repeat itself, but we can temper tragedies in advance by educating the population.
And it's important to educate the population with at least a glance of an enemy's point of view, and not indulge in a self-loving blind patriotism, which is something the japanese have been know to do since the Edo period. It's important to let a history teachers tell his fellow citizens about past crimes committed by their ancesters. It's important to ensure that he won't receive death threats if he does so.
Or maybe do you disagree and agree with those who wished him publicly hanged for his "lies and treason"?
Edit: however, I will agree that it's never perfect. An example would be the image given to Germany and especially to the German soldiers. The difference bewteen the Einsatzgruppen and the regular Wehrmacht is never underlined, and soldiers are never shown as regular people.
I haven't read details about teacher getting death threats, but obviously its not correct way to handle it. Japan needs more time as I mentioned above reply.
On January 03 2012 02:19 Too_MuchZerg wrote: I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why?
Meh, to remember is the very purpose of history. If you don't think a nation should remember that their army used Chinese peasants as guinea pigs, treating them like kettle (washing the unconscious bodies with cold water and a hard brush on an aluminium table), then you simply don't belong to this thread (which is about history, after all).
Should I add that relatives of those who suffered those crimes are alive and want Japan to stop denying the facts? Their will alone is a good reason.
Not long ago, a Japanese history teacher received death threats after lecturing his students about war crimes in Japan. If you think this is normal...
When talking about History and teaching history to students its different. These war crimes are usually shown on TV documents which they belong. But does ordinary student really need to know all the killing methods and experiments? No. Usually World War II is taught certain order (at least my time it was). 1. Why and how it started. 2. Which countries were involved. 3. Key battles / turning points. 4. End of war and cost of it (deaths and such).
Of course losing and winning side has "different" history about the war. We might talk about Finnish war heroes while Russians talk theirs and say that our heroes are war criminals. Just remember history is taught differently each country and you cant change it. Perhaps you should take some lessons from losing side schools/teachers to get idea why its different.
This is a guess but I bet France teaches World War II more France point of view. More teaching about resistance fighters and brutality of Germans? What we are told about here at Finland? Only small details like German occupied France and then they fight it back with help of British / USA soldiers (and others smaller countries). Is it really necessary to know how Germans killed resistance fighters (executed or tortured etc) or how resistance fighters killed German soldiers. War is never clean, its dirty.
When my teacher said that there was war crimes involved each side its not his/her thing to go through these things, its up to you.
Nothing was ever censored to us in school about the Nazis and what they did in the concentration camps. Why should the Japanese be treated any different? And why would it be good to censor what happened? Afraid the students are going to have nightmares and get scarred for life?
I didn't talk about censorship (but main reason is time limit on each subject at school) as students can get all information anyways. But its up to each country how they teach history. Most likely I was taught same way World War II history as you did. Some of the war crimes (holocaust and such) was described/written in my school book but most of I learned from getting information out of Internet (low amount that day though) and watching WWII documents (provided detailed information, killing methods and such).
Problem is that when you go too detail then some people might start hating other people what they did (some of my friends don't like Germans and others don't like Russians). If they would have not known these crimes that exactly perhaps they would not have negative imagine about them. Most people living right now has nothing to do with these crimes (over 60 years later of war)!
Perhaps Japan is waiting that all people who were involved World War II dies before starting to teach war crimes? They might different family values and respect towards soldiers that time. Not everyone did horrible things.
There is difference between the crimes committed by different countries. If Finland or Estonia distort history somewhat because of nationalistic reasons, not much bad can happen. When you are denying or putting under the carpet crimes such as Japan did in WW2 you have recipe for the possibility of the same crimes being repeated again sooner than if you take approach that Germany did. Japan just presents facade that they are actually sorry, but in actual actions shows total lack of anything learned from their past. Reasons are plenty, pride, "honor", nationalism, "image",... This approach just leads to a higher possibility of bad things happening in near future, because no lesson was learned, because young generations are taught silently that they did nothing wrong. Quite similar situation to Germany after WW1 and we all know how that ended up. Of course thankfully in case of Japan it won't probably lead there, because they are just not powerful enough and rich people do not like total wars and Japan is rich. But that does not change the fact that it is not healthy approach.
EDIT:As for more time, the time is already gone. The changes need to be institutionalized by the first hand participants like in Germany, not after 100 years. If you wait, the only thing you get is dry facts learned at school that mean nothing for the actual change that should be brought to lessen the chances of history repeating itself.
I think the focus is not just on the war itself but on the genocide and other crimes against humanity that were committed during wartime. In that regard, it should not be "up to each country how they teach history."
On January 04 2012 10:05 SilentchiLL wrote: I don't think that the situation in Germany after WW1 and the one in Japan after WW2 are comparable in that aspect mcc.
Well they share a lot of common aspects, why do you think they are not even comparable ? I am aware of the differences, but there are also similarities.
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration.
The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied.
OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation.
If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
Why would England and France ever let Germany take out USSR? Not declaring war because Germany takes Poland is one thing but letting Germany take out the USSR is just dumb.
Well, France was woefully unprepared for war (as was Britan - but less so) both would have relished a few years respite to build an adequate military. And, for this reason, the declaration of war made after the invasion of Poland was a surprise to both Hitler and the German High Command. Britain and France both had treaties with Poland and had publicly warned Germany of their intentions to declare if Poland was molested, which created a domestic credability gap if war was not declared. There was no such treaty or public warning concerning the USSR. Britain had already fought one war against communist Russia (in 1919) and lost; so there were no historical ties that bound Britain to defend the USSR, quite the opposite in fact.
Now, there has been discussion on this thread that speculated about whether or not Germany could have ever defeated the USSR. Reasoning has been put for both cases, but my point is that nazi dogma ensured that no matter when or how nazi Germany chose to attack the USSR it was doomed to fail. Because, even regardless of their military superiority, the campaign would never be fought as a purely military matter that ended in a surrender, political accord and consequently livable occupation, as happened in France and elsewhere.
Nazi ideology required the extermination of the 'racially impure' Slavs and a subsequent German settlement of their empty lands. This, to my mind, ensured Germany's eventual defeat in a war against the USSR. Because it brought every living Slav into the fight against the German army.
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration.
The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied.
OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation.
If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
Your scenario is basically : If magic then something happens, because you cannot satisfy your starting assumptions by any other way than magic. There was no way for things to go that way no matter what decision Hitler made. Your scenario is not "what-if with benefit of the hindsight" it is "what-if magic made it so" as there is no way to achieve it by just changing decisions on part of Germany. Also your assumption about sure early victories in the east are far from clear as Wehrmacht was not ready to attack USSR in 1939/40 even more so than Red army was weaker in 1939 compared to 1941.
The scenario is one that allows nazi Germany to attack the USSR earlier without the losses incurred in taking the west and leaving an occupying force behind. It is a best case scenario that you can replace with any other that suits you.
My assumptions about early vicories are in accord with Stalin's own assesment. He agreed to a secure border and non-aggression pact with Hitler because of his valid fears concerning German military superiority. And that was the situation in 1939.
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration.
The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied.
OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation.
If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
Your scenario is basically : If magic then something happens, because you cannot satisfy your starting assumptions by any other way than magic. There was no way for things to go that way no matter what decision Hitler made. Your scenario is not "what-if with benefit of the hindsight" it is "what-if magic made it so" as there is no way to achieve it by just changing decisions on part of Germany. Also your assumption about sure early victories in the east are far from clear as Wehrmacht was not ready to attack USSR in 1939/40 even more so than Red army was weaker in 1939 compared to 1941.
The scenario is one that allows nazi Germany to attack the USSR earlier without the losses incurred in taking the west and leaving an occupying force behind. It is a best case scenario that you can replace with any other that suits you.
My assumptions about early vicories are in accord with Stalin's own assesment. He agreed to a secure border and non-aggression pact with Hitler because of his valid fears concerning German military superiority. And that was the situation in 1939.
Stalin's assessment was wrong in the sense that though Red army was not adequately prepared to fight Germany so was Germany not ready to fight Soviet Union, and fears do not equal reality, he overestimated Germany's ability. In 1939 Germany encountered quite severe logistical problems in their war against Poland with massive losses of equipment, the same logistical problems and lack of equipment were present in invasion of France, how do you think they would fare in Russia with its vast distances and climate. They had no ability to attack Soviet Union in 1939, that it the fact of life. In all campaigns in 1939-1940 Germany was walking very close to maximum abilities of their armies.
On the other hand losses incurred in taking the west were more than outweighed by material and equipment captured in the West (and in Poland) and more importantly between 1939-1941 Germany was finally able to produce enough to think about attacking Soviet Union. Earlier attack was simply not feasible. Not even mentioning that in real-life Hitler would actually have to leave more troops at the western border in your scenario than it took to occupy the west. There was no way he could be sure the allies would not attack when he was in the war with USSR. As someone mentioned it seems you play too much Hearts of Iron to think your plan was even feasible in real life
But that is actually beside the point as my main point of contention was that Poland would not cede the corridor without war in any conceivable scenario other than magic hand-waving. That is why I am saying even your scenario's starting point is not achievable. So how do you as Germany force Poland to cede the corridor. You know that Germany tried to gain it diplomatically and failed and that is what lead to attack on Poland, right ?
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration.
The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied.
OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation.
If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
Your scenario is basically : If magic then something happens, because you cannot satisfy your starting assumptions by any other way than magic. There was no way for things to go that way no matter what decision Hitler made. Your scenario is not "what-if with benefit of the hindsight" it is "what-if magic made it so" as there is no way to achieve it by just changing decisions on part of Germany. Also your assumption about sure early victories in the east are far from clear as Wehrmacht was not ready to attack USSR in 1939/40 even more so than Red army was weaker in 1939 compared to 1941.
The scenario is one that allows nazi Germany to attack the USSR earlier without the losses incurred in taking the west and leaving an occupying force behind. It is a best case scenario that you can replace with any other that suits you.
My assumptions about early vicories are in accord with Stalin's own assesment. He agreed to a secure border and non-aggression pact with Hitler because of his valid fears concerning German military superiority. And that was the situation in 1939.
Stalin's assessment was wrong in the sense that though Red army was not adequately prepared to fight Germany so was Germany not ready to fight Soviet Union, and fears do not equal reality, he overestimated Germany's ability. In 1939 Germany encountered quite severe logistical problems in their war against Poland with massive losses of equipment, the same logistical problems and lack of equipment were present in invasion of France, how do you think they would fare in Russia with its vast distances and climate. They had no ability to attack Soviet Union in 1939, that it the fact of life. In all campaigns in 1939-1940 Germany was walking very close to maximum abilities of their armies.
On the other hand losses incurred in taking the west were more than outweighed by material and equipment captured in the West (and in Poland) and more importantly between 1939-1941 Germany was finally able to produce enough to think about attacking Soviet Union. Earlier attack was simply not feasible. Not even mentioning that in real-life Hitler would actually have to leave more troops at the western border in your scenario than it took to occupy the west. There was no way he could be sure the allies would not attack when he was in the war with USSR. As someone mentioned it seems you play too much Hearts of Iron to think your plan was even feasible in real life
But that is actually beside the point as my main point of contention was that Poland would not cede the corridor without war in any conceivable scenario other than magic hand-waving. That is why I am saying even your scenario's starting point is not achievable. So how do you as Germany force Poland to cede the corridor. You know that Germany tried to gain it diplomatically and failed and that is what lead to attack on Poland, right ?
So OK, Stalin and the USSR military establishment were wrong, with all the information at their disposal, and you are right. And, clearly, I think that the German forces would fair badly in any attempt to conquer Russia, no matter when the attack wa made or how good there equipment and resupply situation was.
Nazi ideology demanded an attack on the USSR since, at least, 1925 when Mein Kampf was published. So the thought, the intention and the will had been in existence for some time before 1941.
There was no time when an attack on the USSR was feasible; earlier or later it was doomed to failure. I have never played Hearts of Iron, though I have enjoyed many games of Civ, but I have studied WW2 extensively, especially aspects of the Holocaust.
You underestimate the value of diplomacy and the gains that can be achieved by its considered application. The Polish government, wannabe nazis that it was, did not want war with Germany. There was little trust in the promises of Britain and France and even if they did honor them, as surprisingly they did, there was nothing that they could do about the situation in Poland until after Germany had been conquered. An agreement that ensured a form of autonomy and guaranteed non-aggression, even alliance, could have conceivably been brokered as an alternative to the destruction of the state. German diplomacy failed to gain the Danzig corridor because Hitler was not prepared to offer enough for the concession, not because it was not negotiable.
Now, all I have done is set up a scenario that allows my point to be made; that nazi racism ensured defeat, under any circumstance (barring nukes), in an attack on the USSR. How about you address the point and not the fluff that introduces it.
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration.
The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied.
OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation.
If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
Your scenario is basically : If magic then something happens, because you cannot satisfy your starting assumptions by any other way than magic. There was no way for things to go that way no matter what decision Hitler made. Your scenario is not "what-if with benefit of the hindsight" it is "what-if magic made it so" as there is no way to achieve it by just changing decisions on part of Germany. Also your assumption about sure early victories in the east are far from clear as Wehrmacht was not ready to attack USSR in 1939/40 even more so than Red army was weaker in 1939 compared to 1941.
The scenario is one that allows nazi Germany to attack the USSR earlier without the losses incurred in taking the west and leaving an occupying force behind. It is a best case scenario that you can replace with any other that suits you.
My assumptions about early vicories are in accord with Stalin's own assesment. He agreed to a secure border and non-aggression pact with Hitler because of his valid fears concerning German military superiority. And that was the situation in 1939.
Stalin's assessment was wrong in the sense that though Red army was not adequately prepared to fight Germany so was Germany not ready to fight Soviet Union, and fears do not equal reality, he overestimated Germany's ability. In 1939 Germany encountered quite severe logistical problems in their war against Poland with massive losses of equipment, the same logistical problems and lack of equipment were present in invasion of France, how do you think they would fare in Russia with its vast distances and climate. They had no ability to attack Soviet Union in 1939, that it the fact of life. In all campaigns in 1939-1940 Germany was walking very close to maximum abilities of their armies.
On the other hand losses incurred in taking the west were more than outweighed by material and equipment captured in the West (and in Poland) and more importantly between 1939-1941 Germany was finally able to produce enough to think about attacking Soviet Union. Earlier attack was simply not feasible. Not even mentioning that in real-life Hitler would actually have to leave more troops at the western border in your scenario than it took to occupy the west. There was no way he could be sure the allies would not attack when he was in the war with USSR. As someone mentioned it seems you play too much Hearts of Iron to think your plan was even feasible in real life
But that is actually beside the point as my main point of contention was that Poland would not cede the corridor without war in any conceivable scenario other than magic hand-waving. That is why I am saying even your scenario's starting point is not achievable. So how do you as Germany force Poland to cede the corridor. You know that Germany tried to gain it diplomatically and failed and that is what lead to attack on Poland, right ?
So OK, Stalin and the USSR military establishment were wrong, with all the information at their disposal, and you are right. And, clearly, I think that the German forces would fair badly in any attempt to conquer Russia, no matter when the attack wa made or how good there equipment and resupply situation was.
Nazi ideology demanded an attack on the USSR since, at least, 1925 when Mein Kampf was published. So the thought, the intention and the will had been in existence for some time before 1941.
There was no time when an attack on the USSR was feasible; earlier or later it was doomed to failure. I have never played Hearts of Iron, though I have enjoyed many games of Civ, but I have studied WW2 extensively, especially aspects of the Holocaust.
Stalin and USSR military had less information than we do now, so that argument seems strange. In history assessments of enemy abilities were wrong so often that this one is not really surprising.
Anyway, I know that you state that Germany would lose no matter when the attack happened. I agree with that, I am disagreeing with your statement that attacking in 1939/early 1940 would have been more successful than the historical attack in 1941. I pointed out shortcomings of Nazi military in 1939/40 that would make the attack much less successful, because at that time German Army was much weaker than in 1941, barely able to logistically supply itself in Poland and France on much shorter distances. Also at that time German army lacked a lot of equipment that was captured in Poland and in the west.
That is my second point that you did not address at all, other than appeal to Stalin's authority.
On January 04 2012 16:51 dmgdnooc wrote: You underestimate the value of diplomacy and the gains that can be achieved by its considered application. The Polish government, wannabe nazis that it was, did not want war with Germany. There was little trust in the promises of Britain and France and even if they did honor them, as surprisingly they did, there was nothing that they could do about the situation in Poland until after Germany had been conquered. An agreement that ensured a form of autonomy and guaranteed non-aggression, even alliance, could have conceivably been brokered as an alternative to the destruction of the state. German diplomacy failed to gain the Danzig corridor because Hitler was not prepared to offer enough for the concession, not because it was not negotiable.
Now, all I have done is set up a scenario that allows my point to be made; that nazi racism ensured defeat, under any circumstance (barring nukes), in an attack on the USSR. How about you address the point and not the fluff that introduces it.
Poland did not want war with Germany and historically Germany did not want war with Poland even more in 1939. Germans actually did want peaceful solution to the corridor problem. But they were unable to get it anyway. Germany had nothing to offer to Poland for it that would be worth losing for Germany. Despite you calling Poland government wannabe nazis, they did not feel any sympathy towards Germany and unless you show exactly what could have Germany offered them for the corridor, you scenario is magic-based. Your argument that Poland would accept any loss of sovereignity (by saying that autonomy could be offered to them) without going to war is showing absolute lack of knowledge of Polish history and realities of the time.
On January 03 2012 18:24 Masamune wrote: The cool thing about this thread is that it's on an international forum where you get to see the war from a German angle with some of the contributions of posters in this thread. Even hearing about stories from posters about their relatives as POWs, be they Russian, French etc. is pretty interesting as well.
Definitely brings a new light to the topic considering most of us have always been taught about WWII from an Allied perspective and lens.
Aye , you're right. I've got a couple books at home about this.
Two of them are written from the perspective of the common German soldier , in fairness , one is WW1 though.
They are both very old books i've had the luck of getting my hands on when my Grandfather wanted to toss them out since he was moving to an elderly home.
Good reads, they do not offer to much perspective on what propaganda for example was used, they are mostly combat experiences. Detailed stories of lines being shelled and how it affected them etc. In this regard , the one about WW1 is somewhat horrific at times to read, the utter madness of being sent to enemy trenches after being shelled for days with practically no chance of any succes.
The WW2 one is from a perspective of a german soldier who was stationed on the eastern front. He participated in some of the succesfull actions and the failures aswell. It is well written since you notice a very subtle shift in his " line of thinking" along the way.
I'll look them up if you're interested, maybe they are available still in some way.
One of the less documented but massively important bit of history during WWII was how Hitler looted, transported, and housed all the artworks from the countries the Nazi occupied. Loot is actually an inaccurate word, given the care Hitler gave to the collection of the works (Hitler prides himself as being an artist and art patron). In the process however, a lot of the works were damaged, destroyed, and apparently forever lost. This dark section of WWII has yet to be researched and brought to light.
I'd like to make a conjecture here, on the topic of Germany VS Russia.
Suppose The Battle of Britain ends in a German victory. England's airforce is practically a non-entity with this loss, thus England is out of the war as far as Germany is concerned. Sure they still have forces in Africa, but no strategic bombing campaign can be launched.
With no B17's or Lancasters bombing every factory, German forces will fair much better in Russia. I doubt the first push would have gone much better, as the bombing campaign had not really begun at the time. The Russian counter-attack would not have been nearly as effective however, as the Wehrmacht would have been much more prepared.
Whether this would allow a German victory is impossible to tell, I think. I believe it all hinges on the strategic and tactical decision-making skills of the Russian commanders, which to be honest I know little about.
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR. I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much. What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland. Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities. But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not. Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion. And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany. My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch. Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death. The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land. There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat. It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living. It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement. So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration.
The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied.
OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation.
If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
Your scenario is basically : If magic then something happens, because you cannot satisfy your starting assumptions by any other way than magic. There was no way for things to go that way no matter what decision Hitler made. Your scenario is not "what-if with benefit of the hindsight" it is "what-if magic made it so" as there is no way to achieve it by just changing decisions on part of Germany. Also your assumption about sure early victories in the east are far from clear as Wehrmacht was not ready to attack USSR in 1939/40 even more so than Red army was weaker in 1939 compared to 1941.
The scenario is one that allows nazi Germany to attack the USSR earlier without the losses incurred in taking the west and leaving an occupying force behind. It is a best case scenario that you can replace with any other that suits you.
My assumptions about early vicories are in accord with Stalin's own assesment. He agreed to a secure border and non-aggression pact with Hitler because of his valid fears concerning German military superiority. And that was the situation in 1939.
Stalin's assessment was wrong in the sense that though Red army was not adequately prepared to fight Germany so was Germany not ready to fight Soviet Union, and fears do not equal reality, he overestimated Germany's ability. In 1939 Germany encountered quite severe logistical problems in their war against Poland with massive losses of equipment, the same logistical problems and lack of equipment were present in invasion of France, how do you think they would fare in Russia with its vast distances and climate. They had no ability to attack Soviet Union in 1939, that it the fact of life. In all campaigns in 1939-1940 Germany was walking very close to maximum abilities of their armies.
On the other hand losses incurred in taking the west were more than outweighed by material and equipment captured in the West (and in Poland) and more importantly between 1939-1941 Germany was finally able to produce enough to think about attacking Soviet Union. Earlier attack was simply not feasible. Not even mentioning that in real-life Hitler would actually have to leave more troops at the western border in your scenario than it took to occupy the west. There was no way he could be sure the allies would not attack when he was in the war with USSR. As someone mentioned it seems you play too much Hearts of Iron to think your plan was even feasible in real life
But that is actually beside the point as my main point of contention was that Poland would not cede the corridor without war in any conceivable scenario other than magic hand-waving. That is why I am saying even your scenario's starting point is not achievable. So how do you as Germany force Poland to cede the corridor. You know that Germany tried to gain it diplomatically and failed and that is what lead to attack on Poland, right ?
So OK, Stalin and the USSR military establishment were wrong, with all the information at their disposal, and you are right. And, clearly, I think that the German forces would fair badly in any attempt to conquer Russia, no matter when the attack wa made or how good there equipment and resupply situation was.
Nazi ideology demanded an attack on the USSR since, at least, 1925 when Mein Kampf was published. So the thought, the intention and the will had been in existence for some time before 1941.
There was no time when an attack on the USSR was feasible; earlier or later it was doomed to failure. I have never played Hearts of Iron, though I have enjoyed many games of Civ, but I have studied WW2 extensively, especially aspects of the Holocaust.
Stalin and USSR military had less information than we do now, so that argument seems strange. In history assessments of enemy abilities were wrong so often that this one is not really surprising.
Anyway, I know that you state that Germany would lose no matter when the attack happened. I agree with that, I am disagreeing with your statement that attacking in 1939/early 1940 would have been more successful than the historical attack in 1941. I pointed out shortcomings of Nazi military in 1939/40 that would make the attack much less successful, because at that time German Army was much weaker than in 1941, barely able to logistically supply itself in Poland and France on much shorter distances. Also at that time German army lacked a lot of equipment that was captured in Poland and in the west.
That is my second point that you did not address at all, other than appeal to Stalin's authority.
On January 04 2012 16:51 dmgdnooc wrote: You underestimate the value of diplomacy and the gains that can be achieved by its considered application. The Polish government, wannabe nazis that it was, did not want war with Germany. There was little trust in the promises of Britain and France and even if they did honor them, as surprisingly they did, there was nothing that they could do about the situation in Poland until after Germany had been conquered. An agreement that ensured a form of autonomy and guaranteed non-aggression, even alliance, could have conceivably been brokered as an alternative to the destruction of the state. German diplomacy failed to gain the Danzig corridor because Hitler was not prepared to offer enough for the concession, not because it was not negotiable.
Now, all I have done is set up a scenario that allows my point to be made; that nazi racism ensured defeat, under any circumstance (barring nukes), in an attack on the USSR. How about you address the point and not the fluff that introduces it.
Poland did not want war with Germany and historically Germany did not want war with Poland even more in 1939. Germans actually did want peaceful solution to the corridor problem. But they were unable to get it anyway. Germany had nothing to offer to Poland for it that would be worth losing for Germany. Despite you calling Poland government wannabe nazis, they did not feel any sympathy towards Germany and unless you show exactly what could have Germany offered them for the corridor, you scenario is magic-based. Your argument that Poland would accept any loss of sovereignity (by saying that autonomy could be offered to them) without going to war is showing absolute lack of knowledge of Polish history and realities of the time.
I agree, that the benefit of hindsight gives a clearer picture of the actual current situation of 1939. However, the decisions of 1939 were not made with that benefit. Both Stalin and Hitler knew that the German army was superior to the USSR's and the logistical problems encountered in the invasions of Poland and France were unkown and unaccounted for, thereby having no bearing on the thinking of the time. But, after overcoming those difficulties, the assumption that they would be similarly overcome in the Russian offensive did have a bearing on the 1941 invasion.
My scenario recognises that the stated objective of nazi Germany was to expand to the east, which made the USSR the ultimate and principal target from the first. My assumption is that if Britain and France had not declared war on Germany in 1939 that Hitler's attention would have been given to Operation Barbarossa as his first priority. A shaky assumption I admit, as it seems that Hitler was a man driven by powerful emotions rather than logical assessment. And his desire for revenge for the outcome of WW1 and to humiliate the French and British was a strong motivator of his actions. Germany was also the strongest of the European powers and it had long been British policy to weaken the strongest and support the 2nd strongest power. So that when France was strongest Britain allied with Germany, and when Germany was strongest Britain allied with France. I suppose that if the USSR was attacked and not Poland there was still a strong possibility of a declaration being made by Britain and France; but maybe not immediately, the weakening of the USSR was also in their interests.
OK, so we agree, 'Germany would lose no matter when the attack happened'. I think that because of the fault that I perceive in nazi ideology coupled with the military considerations of the USSR's physical factors (distance, weather, sub standard roads etc).while you appear to believe that the loss would occur purely because of the overriding military factors concerning the geographical nature of the USSR.
Perhaps you have not considered the galvanising effect that the nazi policy of extermination had on the Slavic peoples, perhaps you should.
Germany had much to offer Poland in exchange for the Danzig corridor, but it did not offer enough for the Poles to concede the corridor. Peace, security, technology, capital, alliance and much more I would suppose. I do maintain that diplomacy could have turned the situation but diplomacy failed because Germany did not offer enough for the concession. Everything is for sale, if the price is right.
I described the Polish government as 'wannabe nazis' because of the anti-semitic legislative programme they had implimented to marginalise and disempower the large Jewish minority. A programme similar in many respects to its German model. And because of its strongly right wing nationalistic tendencies and the predominance of the military amongst its members. On second thoughts, maybe they weren't so 'wannabe'.
On January 04 2012 18:01 Millitron wrote: I'd like to make a conjecture here, on the topic of Germany VS Russia.
Suppose The Battle of Britain ends in a German victory. England's airforce is practically a non-entity with this loss, thus England is out of the war as far as Germany is concerned. Sure they still have forces in Africa, but no strategic bombing campaign can be launched.
With no B17's or Lancasters bombing every factory, German forces will fair much better in Russia. I doubt the first push would have gone much better, as the bombing campaign had not really begun at the time. The Russian counter-attack would not have been nearly as effective however, as the Wehrmacht would have been much more prepared.
Whether this would allow a German victory is impossible to tell, I think. I believe it all hinges on the strategic and tactical decision-making skills of the Russian commanders, which to be honest I know little about.
The victory in Battle of Britain would not mean no bombing campaign. When US enters the war the bombing campaign would start anyway, just maybe slightly delayed. Also British seeing the inevitable defeat in the air war, could just evacuate their remaining air forces north where they would be quite safe. And could launch some bombing raids from there anyway.
On January 04 2012 18:01 Millitron wrote: I'd like to make a conjecture here, on the topic of Germany VS Russia.
Suppose The Battle of Britain ends in a German victory. England's airforce is practically a non-entity with this loss, thus England is out of the war as far as Germany is concerned. Sure they still have forces in Africa, but no strategic bombing campaign can be launched.
With no B17's or Lancasters bombing every factory, German forces will fair much better in Russia. I doubt the first push would have gone much better, as the bombing campaign had not really begun at the time. The Russian counter-attack would not have been nearly as effective however, as the Wehrmacht would have been much more prepared.
Whether this would allow a German victory is impossible to tell, I think. I believe it all hinges on the strategic and tactical decision-making skills of the Russian commanders, which to be honest I know little about.
I'd like to make a conjecture here, on the topic of Miyamoto Musashi vs Bruce L... wait no, erm Germany vs the UK.
Suppose Guderian was a good soldier and his panzer division did not race the Allies to reach the sea, according to HQ orders. Thousands and thousands of men and equipment would've been shipped to the UK and later to Africa! Rommel would've had no chance!
Suppose French tank were resupplied by mobile oil cans and not by useless big-ass trunks, like German panzers. They could've been used!
Suppose De Gaulle had had a better success at launching tank production... German panzers could've been outnumbered!
Suppose France had actually attacked Germany when they invaded Poland, as even Poland adopted a strategy that counted on Allied support, and as their equipment was in fact on par with the german's, quality and quantity-wise!
But then... suppose De Gaulle had fallen off a cliff when he was seven years old, France wouldv'e been a part of Germany...
On January 03 2012 18:24 mcc wrote: [quote] It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration.
The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied.
OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation.
If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
Your scenario is basically : If magic then something happens, because you cannot satisfy your starting assumptions by any other way than magic. There was no way for things to go that way no matter what decision Hitler made. Your scenario is not "what-if with benefit of the hindsight" it is "what-if magic made it so" as there is no way to achieve it by just changing decisions on part of Germany. Also your assumption about sure early victories in the east are far from clear as Wehrmacht was not ready to attack USSR in 1939/40 even more so than Red army was weaker in 1939 compared to 1941.
The scenario is one that allows nazi Germany to attack the USSR earlier without the losses incurred in taking the west and leaving an occupying force behind. It is a best case scenario that you can replace with any other that suits you.
My assumptions about early vicories are in accord with Stalin's own assesment. He agreed to a secure border and non-aggression pact with Hitler because of his valid fears concerning German military superiority. And that was the situation in 1939.
Stalin's assessment was wrong in the sense that though Red army was not adequately prepared to fight Germany so was Germany not ready to fight Soviet Union, and fears do not equal reality, he overestimated Germany's ability. In 1939 Germany encountered quite severe logistical problems in their war against Poland with massive losses of equipment, the same logistical problems and lack of equipment were present in invasion of France, how do you think they would fare in Russia with its vast distances and climate. They had no ability to attack Soviet Union in 1939, that it the fact of life. In all campaigns in 1939-1940 Germany was walking very close to maximum abilities of their armies.
On the other hand losses incurred in taking the west were more than outweighed by material and equipment captured in the West (and in Poland) and more importantly between 1939-1941 Germany was finally able to produce enough to think about attacking Soviet Union. Earlier attack was simply not feasible. Not even mentioning that in real-life Hitler would actually have to leave more troops at the western border in your scenario than it took to occupy the west. There was no way he could be sure the allies would not attack when he was in the war with USSR. As someone mentioned it seems you play too much Hearts of Iron to think your plan was even feasible in real life
But that is actually beside the point as my main point of contention was that Poland would not cede the corridor without war in any conceivable scenario other than magic hand-waving. That is why I am saying even your scenario's starting point is not achievable. So how do you as Germany force Poland to cede the corridor. You know that Germany tried to gain it diplomatically and failed and that is what lead to attack on Poland, right ?
So OK, Stalin and the USSR military establishment were wrong, with all the information at their disposal, and you are right. And, clearly, I think that the German forces would fair badly in any attempt to conquer Russia, no matter when the attack wa made or how good there equipment and resupply situation was.
Nazi ideology demanded an attack on the USSR since, at least, 1925 when Mein Kampf was published. So the thought, the intention and the will had been in existence for some time before 1941.
There was no time when an attack on the USSR was feasible; earlier or later it was doomed to failure. I have never played Hearts of Iron, though I have enjoyed many games of Civ, but I have studied WW2 extensively, especially aspects of the Holocaust.
Stalin and USSR military had less information than we do now, so that argument seems strange. In history assessments of enemy abilities were wrong so often that this one is not really surprising.
Anyway, I know that you state that Germany would lose no matter when the attack happened. I agree with that, I am disagreeing with your statement that attacking in 1939/early 1940 would have been more successful than the historical attack in 1941. I pointed out shortcomings of Nazi military in 1939/40 that would make the attack much less successful, because at that time German Army was much weaker than in 1941, barely able to logistically supply itself in Poland and France on much shorter distances. Also at that time German army lacked a lot of equipment that was captured in Poland and in the west.
That is my second point that you did not address at all, other than appeal to Stalin's authority.
On January 04 2012 16:51 dmgdnooc wrote: You underestimate the value of diplomacy and the gains that can be achieved by its considered application. The Polish government, wannabe nazis that it was, did not want war with Germany. There was little trust in the promises of Britain and France and even if they did honor them, as surprisingly they did, there was nothing that they could do about the situation in Poland until after Germany had been conquered. An agreement that ensured a form of autonomy and guaranteed non-aggression, even alliance, could have conceivably been brokered as an alternative to the destruction of the state. German diplomacy failed to gain the Danzig corridor because Hitler was not prepared to offer enough for the concession, not because it was not negotiable.
Now, all I have done is set up a scenario that allows my point to be made; that nazi racism ensured defeat, under any circumstance (barring nukes), in an attack on the USSR. How about you address the point and not the fluff that introduces it.
Poland did not want war with Germany and historically Germany did not want war with Poland even more in 1939. Germans actually did want peaceful solution to the corridor problem. But they were unable to get it anyway. Germany had nothing to offer to Poland for it that would be worth losing for Germany. Despite you calling Poland government wannabe nazis, they did not feel any sympathy towards Germany and unless you show exactly what could have Germany offered them for the corridor, you scenario is magic-based. Your argument that Poland would accept any loss of sovereignity (by saying that autonomy could be offered to them) without going to war is showing absolute lack of knowledge of Polish history and realities of the time.
I agree, that the benefit of hindsight gives a clearer picture of the actual current situation of 1939. However, the decisions of 1939 were not made with that benefit. Both Stalin and Hitler knew that the German army was superior to the USSR's and the logistical problems encountered in the invasions of Poland and France were unkown and unaccounted for, thereby having no bearing on the thinking of the time. But, after overcoming those difficulties, the assumption that they would be similarly overcome in the Russian offensive did have a bearing on the 1941 invasion.
They were not overcome, Poland and Allies just were defeated before the logistical and supply problems made it impossible for Germans to continue. That would not be case in Russia. Problem of 1939/40 German army was that they had no capabilities at all for such an operation. They could not overcome those problems as they lacked any means to do so at that time. Only in 1941 they made it so, so possible to launch Barbarossa.
On January 04 2012 19:46 dmgdnooc wrote: My scenario recognises that the stated objective of nazi Germany was to expand to the east, which made the USSR the ultimate and principal target from the first. My assumption is that if Britain and France had not declared war on Germany in 1939 that Hitler's attention would have been given to Operation Barbarossa as his first priority. A shaky assumption I admit, as it seems that Hitler was a man driven by powerful emotions rather than logical assessment. And his desire for revenge for the outcome of WW1 and to humiliate the French and British was a strong motivator of his actions. Germany was also the strongest of the European powers and it had long been British policy to weaken the strongest and support the 2nd strongest power. So that when France was strongest Britain allied with Germany, and when Germany was strongest Britain allied with France. I suppose that if the USSR was attacked and not Poland there was still a strong possibility of a declaration being made by Britain and France; but maybe not immediately, the weakening of the USSR was also in their interests.
Declaration of war by France and Britain is not necessary to make it necessary for extremely big chunk of 1939 German army to remain on French borders, mere threat would be enough. Hitler could not gamble on their inactivity as in case of Poland as in this case his army would be much farther to be recalled for a much, much longer period of time. Meaning his attack on Soviet Union would be even that much weaker.
On January 04 2012 19:46 dmgdnooc wrote: OK, so we agree, 'Germany would lose no matter when the attack happened'. I think that because of the fault that I perceive in nazi ideology coupled with the military considerations of the USSR's physical factors (distance, weather, sub standard roads etc).while you appear to believe that the loss would occur purely because of the overriding military factors concerning the geographical nature of the USSR.
Perhaps you have not considered the galvanising effect that the nazi policy of extermination had on the Slavic peoples, perhaps you should.
Germany had much to offer Poland in exchange for the Danzig corridor, but it did not offer enough for the Poles to concede the corridor. Peace, security, technology, capital, alliance and much more I would suppose. I do maintain that diplomacy could have turned the situation but diplomacy failed because Germany did not offer enough for the concession. Everything is for sale, if the price is right.
I described the Polish government as 'wannabe nazis' because of the anti-semitic legislative programme they had implimented to marginalise and disempower the large Jewish minority. A programme similar in many respects to its German model. And because of its strongly right wing nationalistic tendencies and the predominance of the military amongst its members. On second thoughts, maybe they weren't so 'wannabe'.
Similar political leanings in some areas do not make countries friends or even more likely to reach a diplomatic deal. Peace and security is not something Germany could offer Poland at all and in this particular case Poland would not choose them over the corridor as they did not do so in reality. Poland would not trade technology for territory. Same for capital. If you think so you severely misunderstand political realities and Polish mindset.
Furthermore Polish territory would be crucial for staging attack on Soviet Russia, without it the invasion is even more unrealistic, so some conquest of Poland is required anyway.
On January 04 2012 18:01 Millitron wrote: I'd like to make a conjecture here, on the topic of Germany VS Russia.
Suppose The Battle of Britain ends in a German victory. England's airforce is practically a non-entity with this loss, thus England is out of the war as far as Germany is concerned. Sure they still have forces in Africa, but no strategic bombing campaign can be launched.
With no B17's or Lancasters bombing every factory, German forces will fair much better in Russia. I doubt the first push would have gone much better, as the bombing campaign had not really begun at the time. The Russian counter-attack would not have been nearly as effective however, as the Wehrmacht would have been much more prepared.
Whether this would allow a German victory is impossible to tell, I think. I believe it all hinges on the strategic and tactical decision-making skills of the Russian commanders, which to be honest I know little about.
No, not likely. The Allied bombing campaign didn't really begin in earnest until late 1942, by which point the Russians had already repelled the Germans once at Moscow and were doing it again at Stalingrad. Furthermore, even as the Allies were bombing Germany, the Luftwaffe still kept Luftflotte 4 (the air fleet responsible for the Stalingrad sector) at its peak strength of nearly 900 aircraft, which made it the largest air formation in the world at the time.
@dmg Sup Yo, one thing 123 years without a country suddenly Your country rises No way You're freaking allying with Your enemy who You fought for eternity. Also, with all the things they've done in Silesia and not only there just after independent Poland was created nobody thought any deals with be it republican or nazi Germany would be good.
On January 04 2012 18:01 Millitron wrote: I'd like to make a conjecture here, on the topic of Germany VS Russia.
Suppose The Battle of Britain ends in a German victory. England's airforce is practically a non-entity with this loss, thus England is out of the war as far as Germany is concerned. Sure they still have forces in Africa, but no strategic bombing campaign can be launched.
With no B17's or Lancasters bombing every factory, German forces will fair much better in Russia. I doubt the first push would have gone much better, as the bombing campaign had not really begun at the time. The Russian counter-attack would not have been nearly as effective however, as the Wehrmacht would have been much more prepared.
Whether this would allow a German victory is impossible to tell, I think. I believe it all hinges on the strategic and tactical decision-making skills of the Russian commanders, which to be honest I know little about.
No, not likely. The Allied bombing campaign didn't really begin in earnest until late 1942, by which point the Russians had already repelled the Germans once at Moscow and were doing it again at Stalingrad. Furthermore, even as the Allies were bombing Germany, the Luftwaffe still kept Luftflotte 4 (the air fleet responsible for the Stalingrad sector) at its peak strength of nearly 900 aircraft, which made it the largest air formation in the world at the time.
How could Luftflotte 4 be kept at full strength when the ground forces were so poorly supplied they were eating rats?
I'm not saying I don't believe it, just that I don't understand how there can be such a disparity in supplies.
On January 04 2012 10:05 SilentchiLL wrote: I don't think that the situation in Germany after WW1 and the one in Japan after WW2 are comparable in that aspect mcc.
Well they share a lot of common aspects, why do you think they are not even comparable ? I am aware of the differences, but there are also similarities.
To be honest there aren't that many common aspects which they wouldn't share with any other nation which just lost a major war, very few which are what you talked about and many differences. I actually thought about telling you about the similarities and differences, but even after thinking only shortly about them I already piled up more than I'm willing to write down here (guess you could call me lazy, but it would seriously be VERY long) one of the differences would be for example how they saw the war after it was over and how different the wars were, the first world war might have not been looked upon with the remorse it would've deserved in Germany(and ofc way less in the countries of the winning side), although the views on it already changed dramatically because it was the first war in which pretty much every family lost some of it's members and the Germans were deeply pissed because of how the winning countries treated them afterwards, but the Germans still didn't want the second world war until they heard of the big victories in the beginning of it. And compared to all those war crimes committed in WWII the first one was fought in a relatively "nice" way(and yes I'm saying that although I know of the gas attacks and some of the warcrimes commited back then) for example something like a christmas truce (for those of you who want to know more about it, this a good article from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce (gotta say that I think that the German article is much better in my opinion so you might wanna get other sources for it, though that might be just my opinion since there are for example diary entries and other sourced infos about football playing, the united mass, the singing, the sharing of family photos, the giving of presents and other nice acts) ) would have never been possible in the second world war. So the young generations might have been taught that they have done nothing wrong (which you could actually argue for since germany didn't give the initial reason for WWII and pretty much every bigger country in europe wanted the war) but the situation was still completely different than the one in Japan after WWII and saying that they learned nothing out of it isn't true either, which is shown by the reluctance of the German people to start a new war until they heard of the overwhelming victories. Hope I could help you, even though I only really adressed one or 1.5 points and had to stop myself on several points so I don't write too much by going too much into detail here. Maybe there is an essay in English or Czech you could look up which compares both if you really want to know more about it.
Edit: however, I will agree that it's never perfect. An example would be the image given to Germany and especially to the German soldiers. The difference bewteen the Einsatzgruppen and the regular Wehrmacht is never underlined, and soldiers are never shown as regular people.
Can you explain what you meant. please? I don't think I understand.
And to add some entertainment to this serious topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_(soldier_bear) The history of a bear adopted by Polish soldiers from 2nd Corps, which was formed in Middle East from Polish deportees coming from the GULAG camps.
Edit: however, I will agree that it's never perfect. An example would be the image given to Germany and especially to the German soldiers. The difference bewteen the Einsatzgruppen and the regular Wehrmacht is never underlined, and soldiers are never shown as regular people.
Can you explain what you meant. please? I don't think I understand.
And to add some entertainment to this serious topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_(soldier_bear) The history of a bear adopted by Polish soldiers from 2nd Corps, which was formed in Middle East from Polish deportees coming from the GULAG camps.
...The two barrels of beer were drunk, and the German officer was right: if it was possible for a man to have drunk the two barrels himself he would have bursted before he had got drunk. French beer was rotten stuff.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Gulag_Prisoner_Stats_1934-1953.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://www.nh.gov/nhsl/ww2/images/ww47.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0ZLlX.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.smittenbybritain.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/scissors-beat-paper.jpg)
