the great WAR

[Blackadderthe4th]

I seriously doubt Churchill would have ever agreed terms with Germany. The Russians hated the Germans and would equally never surrender and the Russian's war of attrition was too much for Germany to handle. The German army only got weaker whilst the Russian's got stronger. Even with extra German troops they couldn't realistically conquer all of Russia and the Russian tactic was to give up land and men whilst slowly building its army up ready for the counter attack.

The Mediterranean was ruled by the British Navy hence why the Afrika Korps wasn't supplied as well as the British Army in Africa and how they were pushed into Libya where they would have been eventually even if the Americans hadn't landed there to help entrap them.

I'm not saying that without the US supplies the War wouldn't have been lost but I am saying that if Pearl harbor had never happened (or rather Hitler hadn't declared war on the US because Pearl Harbor alone didn't guarantee US troops in Europe), that the German Military would have still been defeated. The supplies alone gave Britain and Russia a fighting chance. Just look at how Russia rebuilt its air force after the initial lose of 90% of their aircraft to gain air superiority once again over their land. This was all before D-day, the second front and the collapse of German Industry.

My initial musings was just a response to your 'thank God for pearl harbor' comment, maybe not thank God for that but certainly for the US supply of Britain and Russia. It comes down to what you mean as 'intervening,' we paid for all those supplies accumulating a debt that ended the biggest Empire in history and I see the real intervention was when the US started fighting for real.

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""luukje""]Not always. But still very often. Single battles are often the result of tactical decisions. At least when both parties are of equal strength. The blitzkrieg was the result of strategic and tactical victories. Jsut like Rommel in the dessert. But the defeats of Germany and Japan were due to the enormous US war machine.
A war can be decided by a string of individual victories, but it's more likely that the partie with the most resources prevails in the end.

But it makes the outcome of WW2 without the US intervening even more likely: a german Victory. Germans would have been able to keep their core army intact, the veterans of the blitzkrieg, and would have kept on rolling over the russians.[/quote]

Putting this in TAD terms:

Germany had good micro: winning individual battles, overwhelming opponents
Germany had bad macro: Gave up map control.

If Germany had stopped, yes stopped in say 1940-1941 and held their ground kept the US out of the war by not aggressing them, built their supply lines (read: industry) they would have been unstoppable in 1943-44.

In the end, England & Russia turtled while Germany rushed. Once the rush was repelled, they called in reinforcements, and overwhelmed Germany.

Surprised Kaiser hasn't gotten in on this one yet this morning.

[LaZy]

Hmmm.... being German is going make me say the following:

a) Germany felt the same thing that Napoleon felt when heading towards the East. Potatoes will soon b the only thing eadable in the cold winters!

b) The sole culpit for Pearl Harbour were the Amercians themselves. they forced Japan 2 attack them 1st! Everything was done 2 "force" an incidence. Shows this in under 2mins

c) The US joined the war in Europe bcos they also forced Germany to attack 1st. Mustnt forget who sent civilian ships into harms way with intent!. Much like they forced the Lusitania 2 start the US involvemnet into WWI Everything was done 2 "force" an incidence.

d) Luukje I agree with everything uve posted. There is, however, one small little thing. Project Manhatten was underway. Enola *** could have just as easily headed towards Berlin as it did Nagasaki and Hirshima.

e) Germany did what they did bcos they elected an insane Austrian. America did what they did bcos they wanted (and did) make a huge profit). Russia did what they did simply bcos they wanted 2 survive.

Out

PS http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2.htm

Click it, read it, remember it!

[luukje]

TAD: Well Germany had to rush, because England and Russia had map control. They needed to Win before both of them could boom.
They forced britain to turtle and without the US, Britain would have resigned or would have been limited to a bit of harmless raiding. Without a threat in their own backyard, they would have steamrolled Russia with their superior units.

@ blackadder: I believe without a serious challenge from Britain and the US in their own backyard, germans could have taken moscow, leningrad and beyond in 42.

Without the US and their endless stream of destroyers and liberty freighters, german subs could have isolated britain. From Italy, they could have gained control over the meditaranian. It would have been a logistic nightmare for England, fighting in the middle east without US help.

The russians couldnt retreat endlessly. In fact, the stands at Leningrad, stalingrad and moscow were more kinda back against the wall fights.

Leningrad was vital to the USSR for keeping the ice free harbors or Murmansk and Archanglsk. Without those, they had to count on the harbors on the side of Siberia, thousands of miles away.

Moscow was vital as the centre of country were all decisons were made, centre of communications and governement. They could move the military HQ and the governement, but the loss of moscow would have been a big blow.

ANd stalingrad was the key to the oil fields of the caucasus. Russia's most productive source at that moment.

A stronger germany in 1941 and 1942 would have taken those 3 objectives. They were mighty close in reality. And without those 3, there would be no russian surge. Sure they could have retreated to siberia, but why would the germans follow them there? The germans never wanted to conquer russia. They wanted control over central Europe and the resources of the persian gulf. They just would let Stalin freeze over there.

lol; I saw a comment on televison that some of the WW2 debts were only paid of recently by britain.

[luukje]

I thought you were from portugal lazy?

[Soccerman771]

Luukje, old Hitler should have read up on his Napoleon and studied what happened at Borodino.....

BTW Lazy, while you say we were in it for $$$, that's partially true, but we were there to fight evil as well.

And I come directly from a german heritage (great grand-dad came over on the boat around the late 1890's).

[LaZy]

[quote=""luukje""]I thought you were from portugal lazy?[/quote]

Born in Germany, son of a German father and Portuguese mother. raised in Portugal where I currently reside and work.

Out

Just 2 add a little extra spice 2 the whole subject: Portugal decided (via the **** Salazar) that Portugal would just sit back, eat Sardines and drink red wine whilst all hell was breaking out all over the planet. This is the classical FFA strategy. Problem is that although every1 let Portugal boom like mad (historically not true btw) Portugal lost that game bcos of bad connections and dropped out!

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""LaZy""][quote=""luukje""]I thought you were from portugal lazy?[/quote]

Born in Germany, son of a German father and Portuguese mother. raised in Portugal where I currently reside and work.

Out

Just 2 add a little extra spice 2 the whole subject: Portugal decided (via the **** Salazar) that Portugal would just sit back, eat Sardines and drink red wine whilst all hell was breaking out all over the planet. This is the classical FFA strategy. Problem is that although every1 let Portugal boom like mad (historically not true btw) Portugal lost that game bcos of bad connections and dropped out![/quote]

I knew the ports were a bunch of drop-trickers... 8O

[Sporting_Lisbon]

Heh it was a good thing that we escaped WWII o_O

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

Surprised Kaiser hasn't gotten in on this one yet this morning.[/quote]

Hehe, it was just a matter of time before I got involved

These are all very interesting arguments. I have never heard the argument that Russia might have defeated Germany single-handedly following a German-British armistice in 1940. It was always my impression that standing alone the Soviets never would have survived the German onslaught. Hitler's crucial mistake--aside from knocking out England before invading Russia--was diverting his armies to Kiev in August 1941 rather than driving straight to Moscow. Instead, he waited until November 1941 to make the last push and we all know what happened after that (General Winter). Had Hitler "decapitated" the Soviet government very early in the campaign, the entire USSR would have disintegrated into chaos. The Ukrainians and White Russians, for instance, were none too happy with Stalinist rule and would have made ready German allies against the Reds. Here Hitler blundered again; rather than utilizing popular resentment against Stalin, he opted to send in the SS and terrorize the very people who could have helped him topple the Soviet Union.

Still, I don't know whether Germany could have really held on to what it conquered. Hitler himself was the cause of many German setbacks and blunders. His own Generals resented him for interfering with their professional military judgment. It still amazes me that Hitler was able to take control--as a low-born Austrian commoner--in a country that is extremely class-conscious, ie, without a "von" before your name, you shouldn't be ruling anything. Germany traditionally depended on a military aristocracy with largely free rein to make tactical decisions in the field. Hitler was a notorious micromanager who forced commanders to make totally irrational decisions that were bound to fail. Imagine how frustrated they must have been; but what could they do? Disobey and be shot? He also distracted German scientists from working on technology like jet fighters in 1940 and obviously sent hundreds of talented Jewish physicists out of the country who could have developed the atomic bomb for him long before they did the same for the US. In short, Hitler's own personality sealed his fate.

About the United States never having a "real war," I think we all know America is extraordinarily warlike. True, the USA never had to contend with foreign armies trampling across its borders as in Europe, but it has nonetheless built itself on violence. It almost obliterated itself in the Civil War. And it only reached its current size through aggressive land-grabbing wars of extermination against native peoples. So while I can see why some would say America has not faced a foreign invasion recently (cough, War of 1812), I am forced to say that America has been actively warring... almost all the time!

I have a ton more to say on these matters... looking forward to seeing everyone else's posts

[Blackadderthe4th]

Indeed many mistakes were made that seem shockingly obvious to us now, such as the Luftwaffe's decision to stop bombing airfields during the battle of Britain and giving vital respite to the RAF.

I still think that with US supplies Russia and Britain could have held out against Germany without US troops (but not without being supplied with food, weapons, oil, etc)and that Hitler's decision to invade Russia was his downfall as Napoleon before him. Even with troops freed from the Mediterranean and Europe the Russian winter was so complete and the Germans so unprepared for it that for them to advance further then they did was impossible when the very fuel that drove the tanks froze.

More troops in the German Army might have meant a quicker advance before winter came up, but they advanced so damn quick I doubt they could have gone much quicker. As for destroying Moscow the defenses there were ready for a fight and if you look how fiercely the Russian's fought at Stalingrad imagine how much fiercer they would have fought in Moscow. In order to beat the Russian's they would have to take the city before winter came in because of the Germans inability to advance in the Russian winter and subsequent spring thawing. I don't think it would have been taken that quickly given how fierce the fighting was in other cities. Again look at how fierce the fighting was in Berlin after a complete German collapse, I believe the fighting would have been much harder going as the City was more prepared to fight on and the Russian army didn't see surrender to the west as its main priority.

[luukje]

Well some decisons made sense at that moment, but now we consider them as big mistakes.

I dont think the germans could have gone much faster in 1941, but the offensive could have started months earlier if the Mussolini balkan campain hadnt failed miserabely so Hitler had to postpone his russia campain to save Il Duce. That month should have been enough to take moscow.

The germans split up in three divisions to capture three key parts of Russia: Leningrad and the harbors on the baltic sea. Moscow. And to the south the harbors on the krim peninsula and the oil fiels of the caucasus where a big part of the russian war industry was situated. But it meant three supply line shad to be created and protected and the reserves were small. They overstretchted their resources much quicker than with a single or double spearhead would have been the case.

The push for Kiev was a great tactical victory, capturing over 500.000 russians, but it just might have slowed them down to much, indeed.

In stead of pushing on in december, the germans should have retreated a couple of hunders miles to easy defendable positions and stayed in steady winter camps.

An often forgotten thing is the incredibly harsh winter of 41, the coldest in over a 100 year. With a normal winter the germans might have gotten cold, but they wouldnt have completely frozen like they did. Tanks, trucks, guns needed to be abondend just because there was no supplying of ammo or fuel at all. Only horses could supply the troops.

I feel that it was close and that the USSR would have disintigrated like Kaiser said if the German offensive would have been just a bit more succesfull. Stalin would have signed a peace treaty conceding control over central europe to save his own position, or more nationalistic, german minded regimes would have taken control in several republics.

And that would have forced the allied governements to negotiate a peace treaty conceding the german wishes - it was never the intention to "conquer" russia of france but lebensraum to the east, giving back the alsace, acces to the persian gulf...
You never know with a nutcase like Hitler off course. Im glad things didnt turn out that way and that the US sended us Ike and a couple of million soldiers.

[Blackadderthe4th]

[quote=""luukje""]
You never know with a nutcase like Hitler off course. Im glad things didnt turn out that way and that the US sended us Ike and a couple of million soldiers.[/quote]

I think we all are.

[luukje]

Lol this originated from having a history teacher, a grandfacther and father in law obsessed with WW2. they have hundreds of books and stories.

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

Everybody loves to speculate about WW2; it has long been a favorite pastime of mine. But all speculations aside, I think people should recognize just how brutal the war between Germany and the Soviet Union really was. Roughly 50 million people died in the entire war. Of that number, about 25 million died on the Eastern Front, including civilians on both the German and Russian sides. Furthermore, it was a cruel, merciless struggle between two ruthless, absolute leaders who absolutely despised one another and everything the other stood for. Atrocities were commonplace, even expected. And the scale of slaughter was greater than any war in history, with millions of men and machines locked in colossal battles every month. Americans seem to think that D-Day was the only battle in WW2. I say that Russia did the lion's share of work in that war. America's power simply tipped the scales in the Allies' favor. Russia paid the ultimate price, too: It did not recover its pre-war population levels until the mid-1960s!