Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ....

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
Post Reply
User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ....

#1

Post by The_Enigma » 03 May 2010, 12:27

..out of victory.

Sorry didnt have enough space in the topic title, am also unsure if this is really the right section of the forum to ponder this but anyhoo.

From my reading of the First World War, via uni, i have came to the conclusion that basically Germany had a very slim chance to win; everything had to go right otherwise in the first couple of months or they were snookered - to put it in the most basic sense. The same seems to be the case for the Second World War, from my own general reading, that once they failed to knock the USSR out in summer/autumn 1941 they were also basically buggered.

However i have noticed among my own peers on the uni forum (and in some cases some tutor comments) one would wonder how on earth the Allied forces in the First World War managed to defeat the Germans with such "incompetent" leadership and always "lagging behind" the superior Germans. In some respects we seem to see the same conversation taking place for the Second World War too - the essense of the whole thing seems to be that the opinion still exists that the Germans were cheated by overwelbing numbers/weapons etc etc all the while fighting an army "led by donkeys".

Am not getting into the argument of who was better than who etc and am attempting not to be anglophile or something when looking at this. It does seem that the tactical battles seem to overpower the larger strategic, logistical picture and in some cases what the very essense of the two wars were - attritional (i.e. in the inability to see the "bigger picture" over battles like Verdun etc).

I dont get it! We are closing in on 100 years since the end of the Great War and its 65 years since the end of the second, why is it does impression contuine to exist?

Any thoughts?

Okyzm
Banned
Posts: 602
Joined: 24 Mar 2008, 05:14
Location: Wrocław, Poland

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#2

Post by Okyzm » 03 May 2010, 16:34

:D A good assesment. It is clear that in both WW's Germany was outmatched and would require enormous luck to win.
The myth of German superiority is combination of several factors in my view-remnants of German nationalism and propaganda, that was spreaded by germanophile writers and historians, the need to justify earlier Allied defeats coming from the incompetance of Allied leadership and negative stereotypes regarding Eastern Europe("how could the Russians defeat Germans").


Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#3

Post by Panzermahn » 04 May 2010, 06:44

The only chance Germany ever had in WW2 was only a major tactical draw and highly unlikely, a strategic draw (postulated by Dr. Heinz Magenheimer) until they had some sort of political deal with the Western Allies until Roosevelt's "Unconditional Surrender" put paid to that.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#4

Post by Guaporense » 08 May 2010, 22:22

Okyzm, the "myth" of German superiority is not a myth, it was a reality. The Germans nearly always outfought their opponents. Just because they lost two world wars don't mean that the myth is untrue: considering the situation they were in, any other country would have been destroyed in months.

I don't hold such view of determinism in war: That if one side has a larger manpower base/resource base, they will win. That is lack of understanding of the complexity in reality.

In WW2 the allies were almost in the brink of losing the war until mid 1943. After that the USSR had turned the tide over, while the western allies helped to bring defeat to Germany in 44-45. But before that date, the situation was critical, the USSR was fighting an enemy with more material resources than her, with had superior armed forces and commanders. If the USSR collapsed or made peace with Germany, the allies would have lost WW2.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#5

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 May 2010, 22:39

Guaporense wrote:In WW2 the allies were almost in the brink of losing the war until mid 1943. After that the USSR had turned the tide over, while the western allies helped to bring defeat to Germany in 44-45. But before that date, the situation was critical,
Things do not change overnight. The situation in 1943 was the result of decisions taken much earlier. Much like planting an acorn on Monday does not give an oak tree on Friday.
Guaporense wrote:the USSR was fighting an enemy with more material resources than her,
And the fact Germany had to divert her resources to other fronts than Russia meant..................?

Guaporense wrote:If the USSR collapsed or made peace with Germany, the allies would have lost WW2.
The way Britain lost the war in 1940?

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#6

Post by Guaporense » 08 May 2010, 22:52

The_Enigma wrote:From my reading of the First World War, via uni, i have came to the conclusion that basically Germany had a very slim chance to win; everything had to go right otherwise in the first couple of months or they were snookered - to put it in the most basic sense.
Actually WW1 was a very close run thing. Even in 1918 Germany didn't lose the strategic initiative. In WW2 Germany lost the strategic imitative for 2 years before it's end.

Nial Ferguson, with holds the deterministic view on the outcome of WW2, wrote that WW1 was different and that in 1917 the situation for the allies was grin. In WW1 the allies never had the same material and manpower superiority that they achieved in the final campaigns of WW2.
The same seems to be the case for the Second World War, from my own general reading, that once they failed to knock the USSR out in summer/autumn 1941 they were also basically buggered.
If Germany managed to defeat the USSR in 1941, well, they would have won the easiest war ever. It would have been an war of 'Alexander the Great style'.

In WW2 the USSR did a superhuman effort to no be destroyed, sacrificing 30 million people for it. Even if they managed to put of the invaders from Moscow in 1941, nothing suggested that they could maintain their rate of casualties and still increase the size of their armed forces. To assume this heroic effort as given is to underestimate the Russian effort.
However i have noticed among my own peers on the uni forum (and in some cases some tutor comments) one would wonder how on earth the Allied forces in the First World War managed to defeat the Germans with such "incompetent" leadership and always "lagging behind" the superior Germans. In some respects we seem to see the same conversation taking place for the Second World War too - the essense of the whole thing seems to be that the opinion still exists that the Germans were cheated by overwelbing numbers/weapons etc etc all the while fighting an army "led by donkeys".
Actually, the allies had an inferior army. So, German commanders could do more with 50,000 men than the Allies because 50,000 German soldiers where better than 50,000 allied soldiers. That means that German generals can be overrated since they had better material to work with. In other words, since the military institutions of Germany produced a better overall army, some individuals cannot claim for themselves the product of the collective effort.

The view that allied generals where donkeys in WW1 also is the result of the political consequences of an industrialized war of attrition over a democratic public opinion: Millions of casualties where the natural consequence of the type of war that they fought in WW1, not because the generals were incompetent. But the public opinion in democracies doesn't tolerate casualties.
I dont get it! We are closing in on 100 years since the end of the Great War and its 65 years since the end of the second, why is it does impression contuine to exist? Any thoughts?
What impression? That the Germans lost because they faced worse odds, not because the allies outfought them? That is established historical fact.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#7

Post by Guaporense » 08 May 2010, 22:54

Michael Kenny wrote:
Guaporense wrote:In WW2 the allies were almost in the brink of losing the war until mid 1943. After that the USSR had turned the tide over, while the western allies helped to bring defeat to Germany in 44-45. But before that date, the situation was critical,
Things do not change overnight. The situation in 1943 was the result of decisions taken much earlier. Much like planting an acorn on Monday does not give an oak tree on Friday.
Everything is the long run result of the big bang. So?
Guaporense wrote:the USSR was fighting an enemy with more material resources than her,
And the fact Germany had to divert her resources to other fronts than Russia meant..................?
You could apply the same logic to the pacific war.
Guaporense wrote:If the USSR collapsed or made peace with Germany, the allies would have lost WW2.
The way Britain lost the war in 1940?
No.

In 1940 Britain didn't lost the war. The defeat of France only made it well-nigh impossible that Germany could be defeated by a cross Channel invasion. Although the allies did a cross Channel invasion in 1944, they did it agaisnt the remains of the German army, after the USSR had severely bleed the wehrmacht. If Germany never invaded the USSR, the allies couldn't hope to make a successful invasion of the European mainland. In analogy, 1940 Germany had achieved 50% of the victory points to win WW2. If they defeated the USSR, they would have achieved 100%.
Last edited by Guaporense on 08 May 2010, 23:01, edited 1 time in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#8

Post by The_Enigma » 08 May 2010, 22:55

Guaporense wrote:Okyzm, the "myth" of German superiority is not a myth, it was a reality. The Germans nearly always outfought their opponents. Just because they lost two world wars don't mean that the myth is untrue: considering the situation they were in, any other country would have been destroyed in months.
Guaporense, am afraid that it appears to be very much a myth when you take the rose tinted glasses off. What you have stated requires one to sound even more nationalist but am attempting to be very unbais here. You say the Germans nearly always outfought their opponents, but the fact is the more famous battles of the two wars seem to be ones were the Germans were defeated. The French, with British support, halted the Germans at the Marne and destroyed the nations war plan for a quick decisive victory within six weeks. The German attempt to destroy the French Army and the nations will to carry on the fight at Verdun completely failed. While inflicted big defeats on the Soviets they categoricaly failed at Moscow, Lenningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk etc Normandy highlighted how inapprobriate their tactical doctrine for when positions were lost - unneeded lives and precious resources such as tanks were casually thrown away.

It seems quite correct to state German superiority was a myth; the fact they lost is due to being un-superior in the grand strategic/strategic/operational and tactical levels. Sure they showed that they were more effient killers during the First World War and rather probably in the second but kill ratios isnt really something to base a "ive got a bigger dick" game on. I have noted from my studies that the First World War German army had a mass of trained reserves to build its army from, it had also fought near enough non stop wars to unify the nation during the previous hundred years (and probably beyond to) so in essence they were much more militiristic than the likes of the British Army - who lost the vast majority of trained soldiers in 1914-15 and relied on a conscript/volenteer force for the remainder (losing the best by the end of 1916).

Considering the situation: the First World War took 4 years to resolve and before that the last global war took near enough 15 years to resolve so i think your point is rather a red herring.
If the USSR collapsed or made peace with Germany, the allies would have lost WW2.
That truley is complete speculation, Germany had no real means to defeat the Western Allies following the fall of France. They didnt have the means to outproduce the Western Allies and it has been highlighted that, had, the Western Allies adopted a compelte total war outlook they could easily match the numbers of men in the field as the Germans. How such a war, or the casualties, would have unfolded is of course further speculation.

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#9

Post by The_Enigma » 08 May 2010, 23:08

Guaporense wrote:Actually WW1 was a very close run thing. Even in 1918 Germany didn't lose the strategic initiative. In WW2 Germany lost the strategic imitative for 2 years before it's end.
Germany lost the strategic initiative the moment their war plans fell apart - they had to divert troops to fight the Russians. They had to prop up the Austrian-Hungerians and the Ottoman Empire as the war prolonged. They were forced to respond to the Allied attacks in 1915-16, their plan to destroy the French nations will failed in 1916. Sure they were able to organise and take huge gains in 1918 thanks to Operation Michael? but that is also in part due to the attritional warfare of the previous years taking their effect on the opposing armies. Said attack did not work and led to the hundred days offensive. Where were the Germans holding the initiative?
In WW1 the allies never had the same material and manpower superiority that they achieved in the final campaigns of WW2.
Cant really compare the two... However in early 1918 the wester powers had 1,084 machine guns per infantry division compared to the 324 in the German, they had over 4,500 more artillery pieces on the western front that the Germans, had over 100,000 trucks backing them up compared to the 23,000 German, they had 800 tanks compared to the 10 German, finally they had over 4,500 planes copared to the 3,670 German.
They had material superiority.(Deist, 'The military collaspe of the German Empire)

In 1914 the Entente powers had 119 million more people than the Axis powers including the Ottomanns, and fielded 63 more divisions. They had the manpower advantage.

Of course there was problems of logistics and concentration but it seems your point is rather weak.
If Germany managed to defeat the USSR in 1941, well, they would have won the easiest war ever. It would have been an war of 'Alexander the Great style'.
Its what they planned and failed to do ...
To assume this heroic effort as given is to underestimate the Russian effort.
They practically did the same in 1914-18 while attempting to thawft revolution.
Actually, the allies had an inferior army. So, German commanders could do more with 50,000 men than the Allies because 50,000 German soldiers where better than 50,000 allied soldiers. That means that German generals can be overrated since they had better material to work with. In other words, since the military institutions of Germany produced a better overall army, some individuals cannot claim for themselves the product of the collective effort.
Unfounded speculation - a couple of German divisions and Rommel could not decisivley defeat the Western Desert Force is just a single example.
What impression? That the Germans lost because they faced worse odds, not because the allies outfought them? That is established historical fact.
rose tinted glasses :roll: Explain the Marne, Verdun, Normandy, Stalingrad etc etc

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#10

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 May 2010, 23:52

Guaporense wrote:
Everything is the long run result of the big bang. So?
So The War was lost before 1943!


Guaporense wrote:You could apply the same logic to the pacific war.
OK. What resources did Russia and Germany devote to the Pacific?


Guaporense wrote: Although the allies did a cross Channel invasion in 1944, they did it agaisnt the remains of the German army, after the USSR had severely bleed the wehrmacht.
The German 'Army' was bigger than the ground Force. You seem to be obsessed and blinded by figures so what were the comparable number of tanks in June 1944, Eastern Front v Western Front?
Same for The Luftwaffe, Flak Arm and Kriegsmarine


Guaporense wrote:If Germany never invaded the USSR, the allies couldn't hope to make a successful invasion of the European mainland. In analogy, 1940 Germany had achieved 50% of the victory points to win WW2. If they defeated the USSR, they would have achieved 100%.
You are still funny!
Do you remember when you first started down this path of drowing us in statistics?
Your main argument then was the superiority of the German Army in Normandy because it inflicted 200,000 Allied casualties for some 25,000 dead (top of my head but you get the gist)
You included every single Allied casualty but only counted the German dead AND you argued that German POW's/MIA should not be counted! You are still using the same methods.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#11

Post by Guaporense » 08 May 2010, 23:55

The_Enigma wrote:
Guaporense wrote:Okyzm, the "myth" of German superiority is not a myth, it was a reality. The Germans nearly always outfought their opponents. Just because they lost two world wars don't mean that the myth is untrue: considering the situation they were in, any other country would have been destroyed in months.
Guaporense, am afraid that it appears to be very much a myth when you take the rose tinted glasses off. What you have stated requires one to sound even more nationalist but am attempting to be very unbais here. You say the Germans nearly always outfought their opponents, but the fact is the more famous battles of the two wars seem to be ones were the Germans were defeated.
To be defeated doesn't mean to be outfought.

Also, I see why people here think that I may be biased. But that's because of the fact the people living in the Anglo American countries have a kind of pride in "winning" the two world wars. So anyone who says with a straight face that their militaries weren't special, while the ones that they "defeated", were, is not received very kindly.

I like to read about partly WW2 because of the German military feats (and also because of the Eastern front). The Western Allies aren't interesting: They didn't do anything outside the expected.
The French, with British support, halted the Germans at the Marne and destroyed the nations war plan for a quick decisive victory within six weeks. The German attempt to destroy the French Army and the nations will to carry on the fight at Verdun completely failed. While inflicted big defeats on the Soviets they categoricaly failed at Moscow, Lenningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk etc Normandy highlighted how inapprobriate their tactical doctrine for when positions were lost - unneeded lives and precious resources such as tanks were casually thrown away.
In WW2, in the battles that Germany won, they had manpower equality (or modest inferiority, superiority in numbers). When the Allies won, they had 3-4 times the superiority in numbers (and equipment).

For example, in Normandy, second to Niklas Zetterling, the allies feed into the battlefield 2.05 million men and 8,500 tanks. The Germans got 550,000 men and 2,300 tanks into the battlefield (not at the same time). If the allies lost they would have been infinitely inferior to the Germans in the operational and tactical levels. It would be like losing a football match versus a team of 3 players (with the usual 11 players).
It seems quite correct to state German superiority was a myth; the fact they lost is due to being un-superior in the grand strategic/strategic/operational and tactical levels.
It is strategic mistake to start a war against an numerically superior enemy?

To say that the Germans weren't superior in the tactical level is to reveal ignorance. Pretty much every serious study on the subject arrives at the conclusion that the Germans where superior than the allies in terms of combat effectiveness.
Sure they showed that they were more effient killers during the First World War and rather probably in the second but kill ratios isnt really something to base a "ive got a bigger dick" game on. I have noted from my studies that the First World War German army had a mass of trained reserves to build its army from, it had also fought near enough non stop wars to unify the nation during the previous hundred years (and probably beyond to) so in essence they were much more militiristic than the likes of the British Army - who lost the vast majority of trained soldiers in 1914-15 and relied on a conscript/volenteer force for the remainder (losing the best by the end of 1916).
Of course, the German superiority in ground combat came from centuries of evolution in their military institutions.

This is pretty much the reason of why the allies couldn't replicate their military effectiveness after replicating their doctrines, it takes centuries of military tradition to form those structures.
Considering the situation: the First World War took 4 years to resolve and before that the last global war took near enough 15 years to resolve so i think your point is rather a red herring.
I don't follow your argument.

And the Napoleonic wars weren't a single war.
If the USSR collapsed or made peace with Germany, the allies would have lost WW2.
That truley is complete speculation, Germany had no real means to defeat the Western Allies following the fall of France. They didnt have the means to outproduce the Western Allies and it has been highlighted that, had, the Western Allies adopted a compelte total war outlook they could easily match the numbers of men in the field as the Germans. How such a war, or the casualties, would have unfolded is of course further speculation.
Your assertions here are the worst in your post.

First: The western allies couldn't match the number of men in the field as the Germans, if the field is continental Europe. That's because the didn't do it historically, and they couldn't put much more men in Europe than they did. At most they could increase their forces by 30-40%. The reason is that, even thought the population of the western allies is twice the size as the population of Greater Germany, they needed to have more men in logistics to supply their troops.

Second: The western allies adopted a total war doctrine. In various respects the US and Britain mobilized more than Germany, they always had more people working in the munitions industry in proportion to their labor force. And Britain had a larger proportion of their working population involved in munitions production or employed by the armed forces than Germany. Even them, they couldn't put more men in Continental Europe than Germany had.

Third: It is not pure speculation. After the fall of France the Western Allies simply didn't have the resources to maintain an army the size of the Red Army in Europe. And an army of the size of the Red Army is required to defeat Germany. Unless you assume that the Allies could have nuked Europe into oblivion. Also, the Allies would suffer millions of casualties if they had to fight the entire Wehrmacht, and did they had the political will to do that?

Fourth: Germany couldn't outproduce Britain and the US combined, assuming that the 3 countries had the same level of efficiency and mobilization of resources into munitions production. And assuming that Germany is the prewar country named Germany. In the other hand, it was possible, though improbable, that Germany could outproduce the US and Britain combined if they mobilized a larger fraction of their resources into munitions production, that they achieved higher efficiency and that they increased their resources by assimilating the conquered countries into their war economy. Historically, the Western Allies had mobilized a higher proportion of their resources into their munitions industry, they achieved higher levels of efficiency than Germany and Germany failed to assimilate the resources of the conquered countries.

Fifth: Germany didn't need to defeat Britain and the US by occupying them. They only needed to make the costs of defeating Germany prohibitive. If you mean that Germany couldn't defeat the allies by occupying them. Well, I think that for Germany to occupy the US would be hard, but Britain would be feasible.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#12

Post by Michael Kenny » 09 May 2010, 00:12

Guaporense wrote: people living in the Anglo American countries have a kind of pride in "winning" the two world wars. So anyone who says with a straight face that their militaries weren't special, while the ones that they "defeated", were, is not received very kindly................... because of the German military feats ...........The Western Allies aren't interesting: To say the Germans weren't superior in the tactical level is to reveal ignorance. .................the Germans where superior than the allies in terms of combat effectiveness......the German superiority in ground combat came from centuries of evolution in their military institutions..........the allies couldn't replicate their military effectiveness .........., it takes centuries of military tradition to form those structures..
True colours at last!
Guaporense wrote:For example, in Normandy, second to Niklas Zetterling, the allies feed into the battlefield 2.05 million men and 8,500 tanks.
The Allies had 2 million men AND 8000 tanks in June/July 1944?

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#13

Post by Guaporense » 09 May 2010, 00:15

Michael Kenny wrote:
Guaporense wrote:
Everything is the long run result of the big bang. So?
So The War was lost before 1943!
The War was lost before the existence of the universe.

The future is the consequence of the past, and the past is the consequence of a more remote past, if you follow this logic, well, WW2 was won by allies in the nanosecond that the universe was born.
Guaporense wrote:You could apply the same logic to the pacific war.
OK. What resources did Russia and Germany devote to the Pacific?
It is said that Japan couldn't defeat the US because the US had more resources than Japan. Them it can be said that the USSR couldn't defeat Germany because Germany had more resources than the USSR. Although the differences in the quantities of resources available between the US and Japan are much greater than between Germany and the USSR.

But the fact is that Germany had more material resources than the USSR and failed to defeat it. Just as they had more material resources than Britain and failed to defeat it as well.
Guaporense wrote:If Germany never invaded the USSR, the allies couldn't hope to make a successful invasion of the European mainland. In analogy, 1940 Germany had achieved 50% of the victory points to win WW2. If they defeated the USSR, they would have achieved 100%.
You are still funny!
Do you remember when you first started down this path of drowing us in statistics?
Your main argument then was the superiority of the German Army in Normandy because it inflicted 200,000 Allied casualties for some 25,000 dead (top of my head but you get the gist)
You included every single Allied casualty but only counted the German dead AND you argued that German POW's/MIA should not be counted! You are still using the same methods.
My original argument about Normandy was a bit crude.

However, now I have read Zetterling's book about Normandy. You should read it:
http://www.amazon.com/Normandy-1944-Org ... 610&sr=1-4

He reaches the conclusion that the Germans performed better in combat than the allies. The same conclusion that I reached, but my conclusion was a bit crude in the sense that the amount study that I gave to the subject was small. This study in the other hand, is very convincing.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#14

Post by Michael Kenny » 09 May 2010, 00:28

Guaporense wrote: But the fact is that Germany had more material resources than the USSR and failed to defeat it.
The fact is you fail, time after time, to accept that Germany had to devote a great deal of her resources against the West and the Soviets had no such handicap.

Guaporense wrote:My original argument about Normandy was a bit crude.
Yet you continue with the same type of argument on every other subject!
Guaporense wrote:He (Zetterling)reaches the conclusion that the Germans performed better in combat than the allies. The same conclusion that I reached.
Perhaps you should contact him and tell him you have confirmed his conclusion. I am sure he will be relieved.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: Germany and the world wars; how everyone cheated them ..

#15

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 09 May 2010, 13:32

Hmmm,

If Germany had defeated the USSR in say 1942, then wouldn't we remember Berlin Day rather than Hiroshima Day as the day that the world saw its first atomic bomb attack? Even if USSR had sued for peace in 1942, there would have been a rump Soviet state probably east of the Volga that would have required careful watching by the German Army - bit like the million odd Germans who remained on the Eastern front after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918. Yes the war would have gone on for a lot longer but IMHO it would have still gone down to defeat eventually...perhaps under a series of mushroom clouds!

Rgds

Tom

Post Reply

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”