World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mistakes

[ljadw]

About the US:
Cash and Carry,Lend Lease,Plan Orange,Arcadia were proving that the US were no longer neutral.
The US mobilisation was directed against Germany
If Hitler did not declare war after PH,he could never declare war :a DOW in february 1942 would be ridiculous
The immediate result of the DOW was .....,well,what was it ? The first battle between US and German ground forces was .......in february 1943.

[Graeme Sydney]

Hmm My take on Axis Mistakes. (no particular order)

1. Standardisation - I'm thinking mainly trucks. Too many different types of trucks, If they standardised on a few types and concentrated on their mass production they could have done better.

2. Working With Allies - Mainly Italy, the Italian submarines had limited impact surely a better working relationship joint command of a submarine force. But generally standardisation of equipment to better joint supplies lines and better (german designed) equipment for Italian forces.But generally a better working relationship and co-operation.

3. Less Racist Ideology - Better treatment of the conquered areas & prisoners, working with political groups, The Ukraine & Russia this could have been handled much better. Surely the Prisioners could have been used as manpower to feed themselves and rehabilitate conquered regions into better shape.

4. Not Declaring war on the US. (I think they would come in anyway and there support was pretty massive before the actual declaration, but actual US involvement would have been longer coming)

5. Better Appreciation of the problems in Russia - Logistics. Understanding that Russia was a tough nut, that the sheer space was a problem, (as well bad Intel) better gearing up, rolling stock, railway engineers, trucks.

6. Taking Moscow & Leningrad in the first attack on Russia. Too many objectives spread the Army to thin, Leningrad and Moscow were takable if there was more focus. Eastern Russia was less definable objectives (in terms there was always something further east) it was not going be over there by the first winter. Moscow & Leningrad could have been over and dealt with allowing better regrouping/consolidation for the push east in the second summer.

To pugsville and Dark Age;

Concede all of these and Germany still doesn't win the war.

And if you are going to theorize and let Germany run a perfect war, with all the perfect decisions with perfect employment of her perfect resources with perfect timing, then to have an apple to apples comparison, make the same concessions to the Allies and Russia.

[Dark Age]

Hmm My take on Axis Mistakes. (no particular order)

1. Standardisation - I'm thinking mainly trucks. Too many different types of trucks, If they standardised on a few types and concentrated on their mass production they could have done better.

2. Working With Allies - Mainly Italy, the Italian submarines had limited impact surely a better working relationship joint command of a submarine force. But generally standardisation of equipment to better joint supplies lines and better (german designed) equipment for Italian forces.But generally a better working relationship and co-operation.

3. Less Racist Ideology - Better treatment of the conquered areas & prisoners, working with political groups, The Ukraine & Russia this could have been handled much better. Surely the Prisioners could have been used as manpower to feed themselves and rehabilitate conquered regions into better shape.

4. Not Declaring war on the US. (I think they would come in anyway and there support was pretty massive before the actual declaration, but actual US involvement would have been longer coming)

5. Better Appreciation of the problems in Russia - Logistics. Understanding that Russia was a tough nut, that the sheer space was a problem, (as well bad Intel) better gearing up, rolling stock, railway engineers, trucks.

6. Taking Moscow & Leningrad in the first attack on Russia. Too many objectives spread the Army to thin, Leningrad and Moscow were takable if there was more focus. Eastern Russia was less definable objectives (in terms there was always something further east) it was not going be over there by the first winter. Moscow & Leningrad could have been over and dealt with allowing better regrouping/consolidation for the push east in the second summer.

To pugsville and Dark Age;

Concede all of these and Germany still doesn't win the war.

And if you are going to theorize and let Germany run a perfect war, with all the perfect decisions with perfect employment of her perfect resources with perfect timing, then to have an apple to apples comparison, make the same concessions to the Allies and Russia.

The Germans dont have to fight the perfect war. They just do not have to declare war on the USA in Dec 41 and they win. Edit: Unless the USA declares war but they would probably hold off until 1943 after Guadacanal

[Graeme Sydney]

The Germans dont have to fight the perfect war. They just do not have to declare war on the USA in Dec 41 and they win. Edit: Unless the USA declares war but they would probably hold off until 1943 after Guadacanal

That is absolute fantasy . That doesn't have the remotest connection to history or reality or possibility or probability.

For starters, as explained several times in several different ways by several different contributors, in '41 Germany and America were effectively at war anyway.

[Dark Age]

The Germans dont have to fight the perfect war. They just do not have to declare war on the USA in Dec 41 and they win. Edit: Unless the USA declares war but they would probably hold off until 1943 after Guadacanal

That is absolute fantasy . That doesn't have the remotest connection to history or reality or possibility or probability.

For starters, as explained several times in several different ways by several different contributors, in '41 Germany and America were effectively at war anyway.

Really? Then explain to me how and when Roosevelt will convince Congress to declare war on Germany then I might be inclined to agree with you. Much of the American population seemed isolationalist until Pearl Harbor. Even then they would be fixated on the Japanese not Europe. With the series of early Japanese victories in the Pacific, I do not see the USA officially declaring war on Germany until Japans defeat was obvious.

And no America and Germany werent at war before Dec 41. Sending 3 million troops to Europe is war. Having American ships guard convoys is bait for the Germans.

[mescal]

Really? Then explain to me how and when Roosevelt will convince Congress to declare war on Germany then I might be inclined to agree with you. Much of the American population seemed isolationalist until Pearl Harbor. Even then they would be fixated on the Japanese not Europe. With the series of early Japanese victories in the Pacific, I do not see the USA officially declaring war on Germany until Japans defeat was obvious.

And no America and Germany werent at war before Dec 41. Sending 3 million troops to Europe is war. Having American ships guard convoys is bait for the Germans.

Regarding your first question, two names :
Kearny & Reuben James.
And it was sure more of such incidents were to come.
IIRC, U-203 had USS Texas in its crosshairs in the summer 41, requested permission to fire and was denied. With time, it's highly probable that a misidentification would lead to the torpedoeing of a US heavy unit. What do you think American people would say if a battleship is torpedoed or even goes down ?

The isolationnist sentiment was waning quickly by 1941. A search on the forum will send you to threads were it's been discussed at length.

And yes, Germany and the US were, for all practical purpose, at war from the autumn of 1941. See the rules of engagement of the US warships in the Atlantic.
Moreover, have a look at the buildup of the military power in the US. It dates back from 1939-1940.
It was planned (and work had actually largely begun by 41) among other things to build 50,000 aircraft a year, a navy twice the size of what existed.
Do you think those weapons were not meant to be used ?

And note that many of those plans (especially w.r.t. the aerial buildup) were coordinated with the British far earlier than December 1941.
The air war over Europe was not effective yet for the Americans in 41, but it was certainly in the making.
(and note that, reciprocally, Germany was planning its own air buildup in late 40/early 41 anticipating the US on the enemy side).

[Kingfish]

I do not mean to sound rude but spare us the parochial sentiment.

I am merely coming to the same conclusion with Kursk, Midway, etc as you did with the BoB.
If it seems parochial to you, well....

Battles no doubt are important but the strategic decisions that give birth to such battles are of the highest importance.

You seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand you acknowledge the importance of battles and how they shape the strategic decisions both before and after said battles. All very good except your original posts you go out of your way to reduce the importance of BoB, Stalingrad and Kursk, all of which had a profound effect on the war's direction and outcome. To say Stalingrad was a Pyrrhic victory at best fails to acknowledge what effect it had on Fall Blau as a whole.

If you equate a victory to the Battle of Britain than you have low standards for victory.

Me...and just about everyone else on the planet.

The British though successful in defending the British Isles from invasion lacked the strength to even force a favorable stalemate with Germany.

The Germans though successful in defending the continent from invasion lacked the strength to even force a favorable stalemate with England.

[apollo144]

Furthermore in the case with Russia, Hitler was for the most part correct in his military decisions. Russia was unlike central and western Europe were towns were in close proximity and thus a defensive position could be abandoned in favor of another defensive position close by. In Russia , defensible postions were far apart hence Hitlers reluctance to allow a retreat. Hitler decision to hold the line in Dec 1941 was to prove correct and logical.

Far from true. Defensive positions have nothing to do with towns. You can certainly fall back from position to position. What is really wrong is holding on too long in an indefensible position and then getting cut off and destroyed. Hitler's decision in december 1941was wrong.

[apollo144]

6: HITLER SHOULD HAVE ATTACKED MOSCOW INSTEAD OF THE UKRAINE IN 1941

This is more "Hitler should have listened to his generals nonsense" Hitler's decision to reinforce Army Group South and attack the Ukraine before moving on Moscow was logical. During the summer of 1941, Army Group Center captured Smolensk but Army Group South had failed to conquer Kiev. This meant that if Hitler allowed the advance on Moscow , Army Group Center, whether successful or not, would have been exposed in an enormous, vulnerable salient directly in the center of the front and be exposed to attacks on its flank. In a way, Hitler in 1941 was like General Eisenhower in 1944 in that he wanted to attack on a broad front. So those who say Hitler was wrong for choosing to attack on a broad front in 1941 also have to admit that General Eisenhower was wrong to want to attack on a Broad front in Western Europe in 1944-45 which is an absurb notion given the failure of Market Garden.

Also Hitler was more correctly fixated on resources than capital cities like his unimaginative generals. People also ignore the huge German victory in the South at Kiev which yielded over 500,000 Russian casualties. When that victory is coupled with the loss of large economic areas of the Ukrainie and when considering the consequences of allowing Army Group Center to attack Moscow without flank support, the benefits of attacking South outweigh even the most favorable result of attacking Moscow in August 1941. Hence it is false to believe continuing the drive on Moscow in July/August 1941 would have produced better results. .

Going for Moscow would have been better as a way to force a decisive battle . And listening to your military advisors is never nonense.

[apollo144]

You forget :it only was cold on the German side,never in Siberia,Stalin moving (on the advice of Sorge )fresh Siberian divisions (from Wladivostok to Moscow ),etc,etc
It is not strange that these myths are published still today :people like crap.

Only myths in the eyes of certain people. That the russian cold was no problem at all for the german army is the real myth you try to sell.

[apollo144]

2: HITLER WOULD HAVE WON THE WAR IF HE LISTENED TO HIS GENERALS

Many of his generals were unimaginative and too fixated on convential warfare with the occupation of enemy cites rather than Hitler who prefered to attack an enemy's resources.

No his generals were focused on destroying the enemy army.

[apollo144]

Nice overview. For some reason WWII seems to be the most misrepresented conflict in human history. From the stupid Hitler that didn’t listen to his generals, the Luftwaffe that could have won the war if only it had built strategic bombers, going after Moscow instead for the Ukraine, Kursk costing the Germans 1,500 tanks etc etc. Tons and tons of shit. What’s strange is that even books published today still repeat these myths.

A very simplistic generalisation.

[ljadw]

Furthermore in the case with Russia, Hitler was for the most part correct in his military decisions. Russia was unlike central and western Europe were towns were in close proximity and thus a defensive position could be abandoned in favor of another defensive position close by. In Russia , defensible postions were far apart hence Hitlers reluctance to allow a retreat. Hitler decision to hold the line in Dec 1941 was to prove correct and logical.

Far from true. Defensive positions have nothing to do with towns. You can certainly fall back from position to position. What is really wrong is holding on too long in an indefensible position and then getting cut off and destroyed. Hitler's decision in december 1941was wrong.

Why ? The Ostheer was not cut off /destroyed in the 1941/1942 winter.

[ljadw]

Nice overview. For some reason WWII seems to be the most misrepresented conflict in human history. From the stupid Hitler that didn’t listen to his generals, the Luftwaffe that could have won the war if only it had built strategic bombers, going after Moscow instead for the Ukraine, Kursk costing the Germans 1,500 tanks etc etc. Tons and tons of shit. What’s strange is that even books published today still repeat these myths.

A very simplistic generalisation.

Only simplistic people will say this is a simplistic generalisation

[ljadw]

2: HITLER WOULD HAVE WON THE WAR IF HE LISTENED TO HIS GENERALS

Many of his generals were unimaginative and too fixated on convential warfare with the occupation of enemy cites rather than Hitler who prefered to attack an enemy's resources.

No his generals were focused on destroying the enemy army.

As was Hitler :they were unanimous