Sorry to bring the original post back but I wanted to say some things about its original claims
Dark Age wrote:
1: THE GERMANS LOST THE WAR IN 1939
Incorrect. Such statements are claims that the German defeat was inevitable. They fail to recognize that Germany was winning the war until late 1941. France was smashed, Britain was too weak to invade Europe on its own, and the Soviet Union was in the process of being bled to death. Germany lost the war on Dec 11, 1941 when Hitler declared war on the United States while his armies were engaged in Russia. That single act decided the war because it forced Germany to fight another opponent with awesome industrial capacity, western technology and which contained a population of around 140,000,000 and furthermore was safe from fighting a war on its own soil thus its production could not be molested. The huge population of the USA meant it could , in time, mobilize armies of many millions which would tip the balance in the allies favor.
Germany certainly didn't lose in 39 but it sure lost the war in 1940. He went simply too far in the settlement with France, gained the permanent hostility of the US and let the British off the hook with a half hearted campaign in NA. He was just as aimless with the USSR first by reducing military output particularly that of the newer model tanks before deciding to resume production despite already making up his mind about attacking the USSR.
Dark Age wrote:
2: HITLER WOULD HAVE WON THE WAR IF HE LISTENED TO HIS GENERALS
Nope. So he should have listened to the same generals that told him not to occupy the Rhineland? The same generals that told him not to expand in 1938? The same generals that told him that Germany was not ready for war in 1939? The same generals who in 1939-40 came up with a rehash of the German 1914 invasion of France which would have likely cost Germany tremendous casualties for an indecisive result? Hitler had to , in fact, go outside his general staff to lower generals like Manstein to get a workable plan to deliver a knockout blow against France. 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.
Having served in the army and studied history, I now can better understand Hitlers reluctance to listen to his generals. Many officers lack imagination and think too parochially. Napoleon was a brillant officer and great tactician but he failed to grasp things on a strategic level. He invaded Egypt and, by doing so ,wasted men and material which could have better been used in Europe where France faced more deadly threats. Wars in Europe are settled in Europe so seizing Egypt would have done nothing to bring the British Empire to its knees. Napoleon foolishly occupied Spain and then invaded Russia believing he could win against a country of that size in a convential battle. His tactial brillance meant nothing against Grand Strategy where a coalition of powers outnumbered him close to 3 to 1. Even if Napoleon would have won a Waterloo, he would have been defeated by sheer mass of numbers. Napoleon is the perfect example of a tactical officer failing because he refused to grasp strategy.
Officers during the Second World War and even today are generally no different. Hitler understood better what Napoleon didnt. Wars are about resources and population. And wars in Europe are settled in Europe, hence his reluctance to invade Britain and commit to Africa since such attacks would have done nothing to gain Germany living space to expand the its resources and population, two things which matter most in wars between technologically even powers.
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.
He should have listened to his generals because corporals don't make good generals, they never did and never will. There is a reason why Generals told Hitler not to reoccupy the Rhineland, it was to do with the sabre rattling in France. Hitler called their bluff and the folded. If they didn't Germany would have been screwed. Same with Austria and the Czech republic.
Further close examination of the events of WWII prove that probably the only good strategic decision Hitler ever made was In Dec. 41/Jan 42 when he forced his troops to dig in and stand fast.
Dark Age wrote:
3: THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN WAS A BRITISH VICTORY
Nonsense. The term "Battle of Britain" was invented by Winston Churchill since he needed any victory he could get in July 1940. The Battle of Britain was simply an aerial battle were all that happened was the British defended their air space successfully. It was not a great British triumph but merely a triumph of survival. Overall, on the Strategic Level, the aerial battle was a stalemate. Although Germany could not win air supremacy over the British Isles, the Brtish were cornered and could not invade or gain aerial supremacy over German occupied Europe. Hence the Battle was not a British victory but a propoganda attempt to hide the fact that the British were in a hopeless situation.
It was a victory. It drained precious German resources, saved Britain from invasion and helped the USSR. When Germany invaded the USSR it had less planes than when it invaded France and on a bigger front. In the first phases of Barbarossa it was the Luftwaffe, not the panzer divisions, that was the hero.
Dark Age wrote:
4: HITLER SHOULD HAVE FINISHED OFF THE BRITISH FIRST
Not logical. Hitler attempted to finish off the British first.. it was called the Battle of Britain. All that happened was both sides lost a lot of planes and airmen. A German aerial assault on the British in 1941 or 42 or 43 would have yielded the same results. Attacking through the Mediterrean would also not have brought the British to their knees. Remember to settle a war in Europe you have to win the war in Europe. A large scale Mediterrean/African campaign would have been a waste just like Napoleons invasion of Egypt. The logical enemy to attack was the Soviet Union who had over 3 million troops amassed opposite of Germany's LAND BORDERS and whos territory could expand your population and increase your resources.
An attempt to finish off Britain would have cost too many German casualties ( troops Hitler needed for Russia), tie up too many German troops in occupation(whether in the British Isles or elsewhere) and simply would have taken too long... probably until 1945-46 and by then the USA and Soviet Union would be at war with Germany. Also Hitler knew that the British, just like in the Napoleonic Wars, could not invade Europe hence why Hitler left only 600,000 troops in Western Europe during Barbaroosa
No general disagreement here, I too think the USSR was the major strategic threat after France and Britain would only be able to invade on its own in 1943 at the most (When they were supposed to reach 1917 levels of native soldiers+ colonies especially the 2 million Indians).
Dark Age wrote:
5: HITLER'S INVASION OF THE SOVIET UNION WAS A GREAT MILITARY BLUNDER
Wrong. It was objectively the most sensible option for an imperialistic Germany bent on conquest. Its territory had the capacity to turn Germany into a GLOBAL SUPERPOWER. The Soviet Union, with its massive army, was the greatest threat to Hitler as it stood directly on Germany's Land Borders. The ideological differences between the two meant war was practically inevitable and, as I already explained, finishing off the British first would take too long and be too costly hence invading the Soviet Union was totally logical.
History was on the Germanys side too. Historically the Germans and their allies defeated the Russians in 1917-18 while fighting the Italians, French and British on other land fronts. In 1941, Hitler had no European land fronts to fight on. The Soviet failure to conquer Finland and Stalin's purges made 1941 seem like a great time to strike. Because of the Soviet Union's closed society, gaining accurate intel on the Red Army was all but impossible too regardless of when the invasion occured so such an inability could not logically deter the Germans if they intended to invade from day 1.
People with an elementary understanding of history simply compare Barbarossa to Napoleon. What they fail to realize is that the Germans were winning in Russia. The year 1941 on the Eastern Front produced a total of about 750,000 German casualties. The Soviet Union however, lost over 4 times as much. Examing the populations of each country gives us objective evidence that the Soviet Union could not sustain such casualties and would have eventually lost. The population of Germany was around 80 million while the Soviet Union was around 190,000,000 or a little less. Thus the Soviet Union had slightly over twice the population of Germany but was sustaining losses of over 4 to 1 making it mathematically impossible for Stalin to win on his own.
There is the general claim that the Russians were thrashed by the Germans but eventually recovered from the defeats and learned how to defeat the Germans. This is parochialism at its worse for it ignores the fact that the Germans learned from their mistakes as well. Hence the continued kill ratio favoring the Germans throughout the war.
So when someone mentions the harsh winter of 1941 in negative context to the Germans, they fail to realize that the Russians were suffering far far worse. The casualty ratio would continue to favor the Germans only perhaps with exception to Bagration in 1944. On a Grand Stretegic level the only reason the Russians won was because Germany had to divert resources to the West once the USA entered the conflict. Hence generally Barbarossa was logical and not a military blunder. Hitler may have not reached Moscow, but he didnt need to if he could bleed Stalin's armies to death.
Agree with you here. Hitler had to invade the USSR or else uncle Joe would have invaded him and the Red army of 1942 would have been a lot better than that of 1941. Uncle Joe was already taking revenge on all countries he though were responsible for the 1917 defeat and "reconquering" lost territory starting with Poland and ending with Romania. He was probably thinking of going after Turkey, which he did after the war, for Kars and its neighbourhood by the time the Germans invaded.
Dark Age wrote:
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.
You should read about the battle of Smolensk before actually dismissing it. AGC was bled white as David Glantz said losing more men in the unnecessary 2 month stalemate than the other two AGs combined. He had a clean shot at Moscow around the middle of August when there were no major concentrations there yet decided to encircle Kiev for pure propaganda purposes. The Soviet Southwestern front was already in an extremely critical position and was in no shape ready to fight. Even its withdrawal was almost impossible due to Stalin's intransigence.
Dark Age wrote:
7: STALINGRAD WAS A GREAT/DECISIVE SOVIET VICTORY
Parochial nonsense. The Russian lost just as much, if not more, troops than the Germans in that battle. It was not a great victory but a Pyrrhic victory overhyped by Soviet propoganda. The Germans still had the ability to fight and counter-attack as seen in the 3rd Battle of Kharkov and Kursk so Stalingrad was objectively NOT DECISIVE.
If someone is concerned with technicality, then yes the Russians won the Battle but in reality, on a Grand Strategic Level, both sides had enormous casualties so it was not a victory at all. The Soviet Union could not sustain such casualties if they continued.
Why people fixate on the Battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's refusal to allow a retreat is beyond me. Regardless if the 6th Army is surrounded , its still preventing the Russians from advancing further West and killing a ton of them when the Russians assault their position.
When you through back your enemy 500km in roughly 2 months, destroy 5 field armies and successfully establish stable deep defensive lines that withstand a successful counter attack I guess you can call it a victory.
Unless you mean the battle in the city proper.
Dark Age wrote:
8: KURSK WAS A GREAT/DECISIVE SOVIET VICTORY
More parochial nonsense. The Russians lost more men and Tanks than the Germans. They once again only won on a technicality. No more than the British at the Battle of Breeds Hill , only on a much larger scale.
Of course it was a decisive victory. The Red army planners were planning for the gigantic counter offensives after the eventual and expected German attack fails. Even Hitler knew his attack was going no where. Within a month the Red army advanced well over 200 kms straightening the line for Hitler who refused to do so earlier.
Dark Age wrote:
9: LEND LEASE SAVED THE SOVIET UNION
I wanted to address this one because it is partly true. I see it on this forum often and people have already displayed numbers and sources of equipment provided to the Soviet Union. However as I said this is only parly true. Lend Lease was essential to equiping the Red Army. I will not deny that. However it alone would not have been enough to save Stalin. In addition to Lend Lease, the millions of American troops fighting in Europe are also needed to save the Russians for they divert German manpower and material away from the Russian Front. So the truth is Lend Lease alone wasnt enough to keep the Russians in the war, Lend Lease combined with American military attacks were. Stalin could have attempted to fight the war with Lend Lease but without American military intervention ,it would not have been enough. Having all the equipment in the world does not matter if all the people who will have to use the equipment are dead.
There is never one reason for why the USSR was never defeated. Each reason worked differently and at different times some reasons were indeed stronger than others.
Dark Age wrote:
10: THE INVASION OF NORMANDY OPENED UP THE SECOND FRONT IN EUROPE
No.I hear such foolishness often. Such an absurd notion is insulting to the Allied troops who fought in Italy, Sicily and North Africa and the airmen who fought in thr skies over Germany and Europe. The Second Front always existed since June 1941 and it had greater impact in 1942 once the United States was involved. The Germans gradually had to move more men and materal West to counter real or anticipated threats to German occupied Europe. Tunisa was just as costly to the Germans as Stalingrad and the Sicilian campaign forced the Germans to devote more divisions to occupy Italy. The bombing raids intensified in 1943 forcing the Luftwaffle to devote more fighters to aerial defense and remove them from the Eastern Front. The Second Front did not open on June 6th, 1944. I would argue that it was in late 1942 that the Second Front had noticable impact on weakening Germany's war effort with the Soviet Union.
Here I agree 100%. NA and Italy sapped German strength especially armoured strength. At one instance in time I read, maybe in Muller-Hillerbrand, that a full 20% of all armoured vehicles the Germans had were in North Africa. Not to mention the even more important sapping of Luftwaffe strength, and as I said before the Luftwaffe were the unsung heroes of Barbarossa and probably the eastern front. Germany if I am not mistaken had as much as 1 million men manning AA posts or engaged in occupation duty across the continent. One can only imagine what would they do in the east.