World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mistakes
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
The Germans started the Barbarossa already turning their defense industry to aircraft manufacture to face the USAAF. Even so, there are people saying: "German aircraft production would rise stratospherically if not for the EF!".
- The_Enigma
- Member
- Posts: 2270
- Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
- Location: Cheshire, England
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
The premise of this thread is somewhat laughable, i have quite enjoyed reading the well informed and argued responses of the vets of this broad be so easily dismissed and ignored.Overall the claim, HITLER LOST THE WAR IN 1939, can not be said with any certainty. Nor can it be used as a rational justification for Germany to do nothing and accept Versailles.
However the above quote, is the one i have found the most strange thus far. I was pretty much under the impression that:
A) The Weimar Republic, begrudgingly, accepted said treaty since the First World War did in fact end and that hostilities did not resume thereafter.
B) All sides felt the treaty was unfair, and during the twenties dismantled it so that by 1930 (iirc) the only real aspect of the treaty still in force was that Germany was territorially smaller than it was in 1914.
C) Hitler himself stated he would not go to war to reverse the treaty, although his political moves during the 1930s did restore some of the lost territory and in fact increased the size of Germany compared to 1914 (i do believe).
D) The Second World War was not really fought over Danzig or the "German lands" that were then part of Poland.
So what does the ToV have to do with anything?
Edit: Having seen quite a bit of discussion on Hitler's strategic decission making, i wonder what the fourmnites thoughts are on Hitler's hold fast orders during the Allied advance to the Rhine? I have done a little bit of reading lately, which suggests, if Hitler had not kept butting in, a more prolonged and deadly defense could have been made east of the Rhine, whereas the case was the strength of the German army was sapped west of the river.
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
LWD wrote:Was it? Guess it depends on what you mean by "turned the tide". From my viewpoint it was a group effort.Mr.No one wrote:But it was still the Red Army which turned the tide of the war:LWD wrote:Hardly. While they faced the majority of the Wehrmacht they were not alone at any point after the Germans attacked.Mr.No one wrote:Sorry,what I meant was that it was the Red Army which wore down the German army-Alone until 1943That's far from clear. Certainly they made the eventual allied victory much less costly for the western allies but it's far from clear that a German victory was possible even if the USSR was defeated.... But it was the Red Army which prevented GERMAN victory,as the Wehrmacht became more and more wore down by attrition and by 1943 Germany was in position doomed for defeat...That hardly proves your point.Compare the Wehrmacht in 1941 with the Wehrmacht in 1943,and the Red Army in 1941 with the Red Army in 1943.Actually the proved quite capable of fighting the REd Army right up to the end of the war. Beating it or the allies on the other hand was more problematic. The point of course is that the Red Army wasn't fighting alone and after June of 41 neither was the British Empire. Even though the western allies weren't on the continent in 42 doesn't mean that they weren't fighting and weren't having an impact on the fighting in the East. There are a couple of long threads on this forum that address whether the Soviets or the Western Allies could have won alone. Neither have proven conclusive IMO. No point on rehashing them here either.... So all in all the German Armed Forces proved itself to weak to fight the Red Army although it inflicted tremendous losses against them.
This discussion isn't going anywhere,partly because of my argumentation.
All I wanted say was that I didn't agree with Guaporense's statement of August the 14th where he said:
So, overall, it was the US that made total allied victory feasible.
Séan
Believe in truth!
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
I'm in complete agreement with you on that point. It would very likely have been longer and bloodier without the US (although if Japan stays out who knows) but there was certainly a very good possiblity that the British Empire and the Soviets would defeat the Germans. Especially if the US was "neutral" like it was in say mid 41.Mr.No one wrote: ... All I wanted say was that I didn't agree with Guaporense's statement of August the 14th where he said:
So, overall, it was the US that made total allied victory feasible.
Séan
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
The British Empire and the USSR against the European Axis backed by the American "neutrality", yes, favourable chance of victory. The problem is with Japan's position.
-
- Member
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 21 Jul 2012, 00:06
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
perhaps not everyone.paspartoo wrote: . . .
Everyone thought the Soviet military would be wiped out in a few weeks. Check what the Brits and the Americans thought was going to happen in case of a Soviet-German war.
in jan 1941 just before the us congressional action on lend lease (wendell willkie warned fdr that it would meet resistance) fdr sent harry hopkins to london to assess gb's situation. hopkin's reported back that churchill and the people were sound. fdr accepted the assessment and went on with the fight for lend lease.
in july 1941 fdr sent hopkins first to london then on to moscow to assess ussr's situation. hopkin's reported that stalin and ussr would fight on.
to quote from robert e sherwood roosevelt and hopkins: an intimate history
" . . . this was indeed the turning point in the wartime relations of great britain and the united states with the soviet union. no longer would all anglo-american calculations be based on the probability of early russian collapse - after this, the whole approach to the problem was changed."
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
If a defeat from the USSR would not necessarily result in an Axis victory, then it's incorrect to point out the Eastern Front as the decisive theater, at least in neutral works.
Having said that, I give one cent for who managed to convince the Wikipedians of this. Here's a discussion I had with one of them:
Me:
This is the kind of individual that likes to resume WWII to a ring called "Eastern Front", where Germany and the Soviet Union are the only heavy weight wrestlers, while the US and Britain are medium weight, so they can't compete.
Having said that, I give one cent for who managed to convince the Wikipedians of this. Here's a discussion I had with one of them:
Me:
Him:Re "If the Soviet Union was defeated, victory from the Western Allies could not be ruled out totally as well, and you also must considerate the German problems and how they would overcome them to defeat the USSR, like logistics."
Me:good answer that explains nothing: deficient German logistics in the East was a direct result of ongoing hostilities and partisan war. Re A-bomb: Werner Heisenberg explained it as follows: "Heisenberg tells how German industry was stretched to the limit in 1942. More importantly he says "the undertaking could not be initiated against the psychological background of the men responsible for the German war policy." The military leaders would not back anything that did not promise early results." (Why No Nazi Atomic Bomb The Science News-Letter, Vol. 52, No. 18 (Nov. 1, 1947), p. 276) Obviously, this stretch was a direct result of terrible situation in the East (because no other theatres created problems for Hitler during that time).
Him:Re "The Western Allies were capable of muster much more strenght against Germany if necessary."
After that, I had to show him some informations from Tooze's book. His statements about the atomic bomb are incorrect (the source outdated), while he never provided a source of how the Germans would develop and launch ballistic missiles in the US. After, I noticed activity of the individual in the Wik, but not anymore in that discussion.Then why hadn't they done that, and forced the USSR to fight alone? According to you, since two theatres existed, then they both were equally important. That is not the case, however, and Italian or Japanese theatres had much less strategic effect than the European theatre, and especially the EF
This is the kind of individual that likes to resume WWII to a ring called "Eastern Front", where Germany and the Soviet Union are the only heavy weight wrestlers, while the US and Britain are medium weight, so they can't compete.
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
The same Guaporense (or is it a double) always claimed that the US were no good in fighting,and that even In 1945,the Germans could do a new Dunkirk .
It seems that he (or his double) now had found a new scape-goat:Britain,or the SU,was not good in fighting .
He is very good in acrobatics.
It seems that he (or his double) now had found a new scape-goat:Britain,or the SU,was not good in fighting .
He is very good in acrobatics.
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
That's a very odd statement since the German Army didn't win over the Soviet Union...They LOST to the Soviet Union!Jenisch wrote:If a defeat from the USSR would not necessarily result in an Axis victory, then it's incorrect to point out the Eastern Front as the decisive theater, at least in neutral works.
Believe in truth!
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
You do not understand me. In many works, the Eastern Front is mentioned as the decisive theater of WWII i.e (USSR defeated: Germany win the war). However, we have evidence that even if Germany defeated the USSR (it also would depend on how this would be done), it would not necessarily result in the Allies didn't having capability to defeat it. Therefore, I think such claim is controversial.Mr.No one wrote:That's a very odd statement since the German Army didn't win over the Soviet Union...They LOST to the Soviet Union!Jenisch wrote:If a defeat from the USSR would not necessarily result in an Axis victory, then it's incorrect to point out the Eastern Front as the decisive theater, at least in neutral works.
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
It was decisive in that only the Russians could defeat the Axis's hold on Europe within the historical time frame of WW2.
Had Russia been defeated, the western Alliance could finish the job, but WW2 would have taken far longer.
Had Russia been defeated, the western Alliance could finish the job, but WW2 would have taken far longer.
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
If that's the criteria, then ok.Kingfish wrote:It was decisive in that only the Russians could defeat the Axis's hold on Europe within the historical time frame of WW2.
Had Russia been defeated, the western Alliance could finish the job, but WW2 would have taken far longer.
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
Yeah,ok,that seems fair.Jenisch wrote:You do not understand me. In many works, the Eastern Front is mentioned as the decisive theater of WWII i.e (USSR defeated: Germany win the war). However, we have evidence that even if Germany defeated the USSR (it also would depend on how this would be done), it would not necessarily result in the Allies didn't having capability to defeat it. Therefore, I think such claim is controversial.Mr.No one wrote:That's a very odd statement since the German Army didn't win over the Soviet Union...They LOST to the Soviet Union!Jenisch wrote:If a defeat from the USSR would not necessarily result in an Axis victory, then it's incorrect to point out the Eastern Front as the decisive theater, at least in neutral works.
For me it seems to be up to how costly the victory over the Soviet Union would be for Germany...
But also how effective the German economy would then be-in terms of exploiting the recources of Russia.
Séan
Believe in truth!
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
I don't have a source at the momment, but someone can provide evidence that they were not doing well with most of the rich areas of the USSR. Occupied France was much better.Mr.No one wrote:Jenisch wrote:Mr.No one wrote:Jenisch wrote:But also how effective the German economy would then be-in terms of exploiting the recources of Russia.
Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista
The initial response of the British and American militaries was that the Soviet army would be defeated in a couple of weeks.john becktel wrote:perhaps not everyone.paspartoo wrote: . . .
Everyone thought the Soviet military would be wiped out in a few weeks. Check what the Brits and the Americans thought was going to happen in case of a Soviet-German war.
in jan 1941 just before the us congressional action on lend lease (wendell willkie warned fdr that it would meet resistance) fdr sent harry hopkins to london to assess gb's situation. hopkin's reported back that churchill and the people were sound. fdr accepted the assessment and went on with the fight for lend lease.
in july 1941 fdr sent hopkins first to london then on to moscow to assess ussr's situation. hopkin's reported that stalin and ussr would fight on.
to quote from robert e sherwood roosevelt and hopkins: an intimate history
" . . . this was indeed the turning point in the wartime relations of great britain and the united states with the soviet union. no longer would all anglo-american calculations be based on the probability of early russian collapse - after this, the whole approach to the problem was changed."
A simple economist with an unhealthy interest in military and intelligence history.....
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/