Okay Folks,
We have a new host, Rodger, and I am sure he will do a great job.
So, to break him in right I would like to know what everyone thinks was the greatest mistake of the second world war. Broad topic, I realize. Anything goes, from Kursk to Dunkirk. From Midway to Hiroshima.
Discuss...
Shaun
I will chime in later
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Greatest Mistake
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 07:12 AM UTC
gator
Vendor
#027
Member Since: April 13, 2005
entire network: 5,422 Posts
KitMaker Network: 146 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 07:26 AM UTC
How about Hitler not letting his commanders command? Thank goodness he was on their side! :-) :-) :-)
Subhunter
Subhunter
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 07:37 AM UTC
I always have two responses to this question. June 22, 1941, when Hitler attack the Soviet Union, and December 10 1941, when he declared war on the United States. While I don't doubt that eventually Germany and the Soviet Union would be at war, I think it was a huge blunder to attach while still engaged with the British. They should have waited until Britain was defeated, if at all possible. This was compounded to the 9th degree by then declaring war against the US. For those who think Hitler was obliged to declare war once Japan was in the war look at the actual wording of the Tri-Partie pact. It obliged either side to go the the other's aid if they were ATTACKED. Japan attacking the US did NOT mean Germany had to go to her aid.
One of the blunders was bad enough. To commit both is close to insanity.
One of the blunders was bad enough. To commit both is close to insanity.
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 07:46 AM UTC
Yeah, Rodger. The Germans should have camped. Theater wide they erred big time.
The American push into the Hurtgen forest was a tactical blunder.
Great to have some posting in this forum.
Shaun
The American push into the Hurtgen forest was a tactical blunder.
Great to have some posting in this forum.
Shaun
jazza
Member Since: August 03, 2005
entire network: 2,709 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 08:45 AM UTC
I think the Greatest mistake in WWII was for Germany to form an alliance with the Japanese.
Hitler was counting on the Japanese to help out on the front when in his infinite wisdom decided to attack Russia which then brought the war to Germany on both fronts. Needless to say, the Japanese never came to his rescue hence the inevitable royal anal probe they got from the russians in Berlin.
I would rank that as high as when the Japanese allowed the allies to stroll onto their shores in Iwo Jima. This allowed the allies to land there hardware which provided invaluable support further inland. If they repeated the casualty rate of D-Day at Normandy, they may have had a fighting chance further inland.
Cool topic by the way!
Hitler was counting on the Japanese to help out on the front when in his infinite wisdom decided to attack Russia which then brought the war to Germany on both fronts. Needless to say, the Japanese never came to his rescue hence the inevitable royal anal probe they got from the russians in Berlin.
I would rank that as high as when the Japanese allowed the allies to stroll onto their shores in Iwo Jima. This allowed the allies to land there hardware which provided invaluable support further inland. If they repeated the casualty rate of D-Day at Normandy, they may have had a fighting chance further inland.
Cool topic by the way!
ShermiesRule
Member Since: December 11, 2003
entire network: 5,409 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 08:52 AM UTC
I have often wondered if Hitler's persecution of the Jews wasn't a blunder. While it was also the rallying cry of Aryan superiority, the amount of resources dedicated to rounding up, imprisoning and exterminating Jews were enormous. If somehow Hitler were able to harness Jewish manpower they could have had another 7-8 millions people to add to the war effort. Imagine if Hitler had cooperative Jewish scientists working FOR him instead of HIDING from him.
GSPatton
Member Since: September 04, 2002
entire network: 1,411 Posts
KitMaker Network: 785 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 10:00 AM UTC
Great Topic - but where to start?
The attack on Pearl Harbor - awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with terrible resolve. The Japanese sank a lot of old battleships (all but two returned to active service) and destroyed some planes. It was the psychological effect that made America get off its collective butts and into the war.
Hitler attacking Russia - Napoleon made the same mistake and it cost him his empire.
The Holocaust - the persecution of the Jews and others wasted resources and galvanized a world against the Nazis. As Germany was in its death throws – men and material sat on railroad sidings while the trains filled with Jews moved to the camps. Lunacy on an epic scale. If there had been no Holocaust would the trials after the war condemned so many Nazis officials and officers to death?
Japanese Brutality - Bataan Death March, Rape of Nanking, biological experimentation in China, on and on - as the stories played out in the free world's press and movie theaters - hatred of the Japanese grew.
The internment of the Japanese in America. Never in the history of the US have citizens been removed from their homes, business and communities and rounded up into internment camps. Look at the heroism of the 442nd and you will see where these citizen’s allegiances truly lay.
The atomic bomb – Not a Mistake. In August 1945, with the potential of a million casualties facing US Military planners the dropping of the two bombs was heaven sent. However, with the revision of history some now consider this a mistake.
The attack on Pearl Harbor - awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with terrible resolve. The Japanese sank a lot of old battleships (all but two returned to active service) and destroyed some planes. It was the psychological effect that made America get off its collective butts and into the war.
Hitler attacking Russia - Napoleon made the same mistake and it cost him his empire.
The Holocaust - the persecution of the Jews and others wasted resources and galvanized a world against the Nazis. As Germany was in its death throws – men and material sat on railroad sidings while the trains filled with Jews moved to the camps. Lunacy on an epic scale. If there had been no Holocaust would the trials after the war condemned so many Nazis officials and officers to death?
Japanese Brutality - Bataan Death March, Rape of Nanking, biological experimentation in China, on and on - as the stories played out in the free world's press and movie theaters - hatred of the Japanese grew.
The internment of the Japanese in America. Never in the history of the US have citizens been removed from their homes, business and communities and rounded up into internment camps. Look at the heroism of the 442nd and you will see where these citizen’s allegiances truly lay.
The atomic bomb – Not a Mistake. In August 1945, with the potential of a million casualties facing US Military planners the dropping of the two bombs was heaven sent. However, with the revision of history some now consider this a mistake.
Clanky44
Member Since: September 15, 2005
entire network: 1,901 Posts
KitMaker Network: 237 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 10:21 AM UTC
An additonal two (big) blunders.....
Fall of '41,.... the road to Moscow was wide open.
Summer of '42,.... the road to Stalingrad was wide open....
Fall of '41,.... the road to Moscow was wide open.
Summer of '42,.... the road to Stalingrad was wide open....
Clanky44
Member Since: September 15, 2005
entire network: 1,901 Posts
KitMaker Network: 237 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 10:26 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The internment of the Japanese in America. Never in the history of the US have citizens been removed from their homes, business and communities and rounded up into internment camps. Look at the heroism of the 442nd and you will see where these citizen’s allegiances truly lay.
Not only in America, but also here in Canada,... we had (and still have) a large Canadian-Japanese community in British Columbia, most of them lost their jobs and their properties, and where interned, for the duration of the war.
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 01:57 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThe internment of the Japanese in America. Never in the history of the US have citizens been removed from their homes, business and communities and rounded up into internment camps. Look at the heroism of the 442nd and you will see where these citizen’s allegiances truly lay.
Not only in America, but also here in Canada,... we had (and still have) a large Canadian-Japanese community in British Columbia, most of them lost their jobs and their properties, and where interned, for the duration of the war.
Isn't the topic supposed to be 'The Greatest Mistake' of WW2? Not the greatest crime. The above certainly had no effect on the outcome of the war, and so can't be called a 'mistake'. 'Crime'? Maybe.
Pearl Harbour -- again, not a mistake. War between the US and Japan was inevitable given the trade sanctions in the northern pacific and the general economic war going on at the time. Japan's mistake (or rather, failure) was not nailing the US Navy's aircraft carriers at Pearl.
Germany declaring war on the US -- again, eventually inevitable if Germany planned to invade the UK. The US wouldn't have stood by and allowed it.
Germany invading the USSR while the UK still stood -- oh, yes, major mistake. The UK should have been dealt with first. The US would then have declared war, but opted to deal with Japan first. Germany could then have concentrated on the USSR.
Germany and the Jews -- hard to say. The war was already decided by the time the Allies discovered the camps. If at all, the discovery ensured that the Nazis didn't have a chance of entering the post-war political realm. Germany's pouring resources into the movement of the Jews was certaintly tactical blundering, but hardly their greatest mistake. Ditto on the topic of Jewish scientists -- hard to say.
By far, one of Germany's greatest mistakes was its failure to address its lack of long-range air capability. The Kriegsmarin opted for battleships instead of aircraft carriers, one of the few areas where Germany lagged behind the Allies in the school of war. The Luftwaffe also failed to develop long-range heavy bombers like the Focke-Wulf Condor which would possibly have had a major effect on both the Battle of Britain and the war in the Med. Both of the above would also have enabled Germany to cut off the convoys to the UK and Russia, and even take the war to the US mainland.
EDIT: Wonderful topic, guys. Let's keep it going.
greatbrit
Member Since: May 14, 2003
entire network: 2,127 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 02:17 PM UTC
Good topic, and some good points already raised.
In my opinion the ineffectiveness of the French army and command in 1940 was a catastrophic mistake.
At the time the French army was massive, with more heavy tanks than the Germans. The BEF was on par with the Germans in terms of equipment and training but was too small to be effective without the French holding the line.
If the French had held the line, and not been preoccupied the the maginot line then the war in europe could have been very different.
The Arras counterattack showed that the Germans were weak against strong counter attacks as all their effort was in keeping momentum in the attack. The problem was it just didnt happen.
If the Germans had been held in France, then the Battle of Britain would have not taken place and i doubt Hitler would have commited to the invasion of Russia whilst France still stood.
In my opinion the ineffectiveness of the French army and command in 1940 was a catastrophic mistake.
At the time the French army was massive, with more heavy tanks than the Germans. The BEF was on par with the Germans in terms of equipment and training but was too small to be effective without the French holding the line.
If the French had held the line, and not been preoccupied the the maginot line then the war in europe could have been very different.
The Arras counterattack showed that the Germans were weak against strong counter attacks as all their effort was in keeping momentum in the attack. The problem was it just didnt happen.
If the Germans had been held in France, then the Battle of Britain would have not taken place and i doubt Hitler would have commited to the invasion of Russia whilst France still stood.
warlock0322
Member Since: January 13, 2003
entire network: 1,036 Posts
KitMaker Network: 152 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 05:01 PM UTC
Having talked to some WWII vets my Dad one of them. I would have to say that the biggest blunder was Hitler not following through with an invasion of England.
According to them. Hitler had England on its knees and it was "ripe for the picking". Once the Germans eased up on England to Attack Russia and try to fight a 2 front war. That is when the wheels started falling of the wagon.
Also another blunder that comes to mind could lead to a "what if question"
Believing that the Normandy invasion was just a ruse and the real attack was going to come from Cailase (sp). Where Patton's "Paper Army" was. What if the Germans actually reinforced Normandy.
According to them. Hitler had England on its knees and it was "ripe for the picking". Once the Germans eased up on England to Attack Russia and try to fight a 2 front war. That is when the wheels started falling of the wagon.
Also another blunder that comes to mind could lead to a "what if question"
Believing that the Normandy invasion was just a ruse and the real attack was going to come from Cailase (sp). Where Patton's "Paper Army" was. What if the Germans actually reinforced Normandy.
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 05:20 PM UTC
Dave,
I have often wondered how things might have been different if the Germans had developed a four engine bomber program, too.
Shaun
I have often wondered how things might have been different if the Germans had developed a four engine bomber program, too.
Shaun
greatbrit
Member Since: May 14, 2003
entire network: 2,127 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 05:40 PM UTC
Not wishing to go off topic but,
A German invasion of Britain could not have succeeded for numerous reasons.
Germany lacked the capacity to move large numbers of troops and equipment over the channel and the naval assets to support such an invasion.
The defenses in Britain were designed to actually allow landings onto beaches with light opposition, due to the fact that the defenders could be rapidly re-enforced and supported via the most extensive rail and communications network in europe at the time.
They lacked the neccessary assault equipment (heavy bridging/obsticle crossing etc) that would be needed once inland, so they could be easily pushed into pre-prepared defensive pockets.
A little known fact is that there were over 22,000 bunkers and defensive positions already ready all across Britain, many formed into lines cutting the country into sections which could enclose the invaders.
In addition to home forces there were large numbers of commonwealth troops here, so manpower would not have been a problem.
Churchill had also authorised use of chemical weapons against the invaders should they have overwhelmed defenses. Stocks of blister and choking agent munitions were ready for deployment to combat units at short notice.
There was a study done several years ago by the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst that theorised how the invasion would have gone. As i recall the Germans landed large numbers of troops, but despite initial gains they could not get sufficient troops or armour ashore and were wiped out within a week or two.
Infact it is pretty interesting, i will find it an post it in a seperate thread.
Regards
Joe
A German invasion of Britain could not have succeeded for numerous reasons.
Germany lacked the capacity to move large numbers of troops and equipment over the channel and the naval assets to support such an invasion.
The defenses in Britain were designed to actually allow landings onto beaches with light opposition, due to the fact that the defenders could be rapidly re-enforced and supported via the most extensive rail and communications network in europe at the time.
They lacked the neccessary assault equipment (heavy bridging/obsticle crossing etc) that would be needed once inland, so they could be easily pushed into pre-prepared defensive pockets.
A little known fact is that there were over 22,000 bunkers and defensive positions already ready all across Britain, many formed into lines cutting the country into sections which could enclose the invaders.
In addition to home forces there were large numbers of commonwealth troops here, so manpower would not have been a problem.
Churchill had also authorised use of chemical weapons against the invaders should they have overwhelmed defenses. Stocks of blister and choking agent munitions were ready for deployment to combat units at short notice.
There was a study done several years ago by the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst that theorised how the invasion would have gone. As i recall the Germans landed large numbers of troops, but despite initial gains they could not get sufficient troops or armour ashore and were wiped out within a week or two.
Infact it is pretty interesting, i will find it an post it in a seperate thread.
Regards
Joe
Tigercat
Member Since: July 20, 2005
entire network: 216 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 05:52 PM UTC
The Germans biggest mistake was starting the war without enough u-boats. More u-boats would have allowed the Germans to starve the British out of the war.
Another major mistake was the German involvement in North Africa. This diverted resources away from the east and led to the occupation of countries they had no interest in. It also allowed the western allies to develop tactics and practice large scale amphibious operations.
The Axis belief that there communications were secure was also a major error. At times the allies were decoding and reading messages faster than the enemy.
The Japanese mistake at Pearl Harbor was the failure to destroy their primary target, the US aircraft carriers. This failure lead to the overly complicated Midway attack plan.
On the British side a mistake was the failure to learn the lessons from the first world war. Such as convoy protection and close air support.
David
Ps The Germans were developing long range bombers in the 1930's, but the programs were canceled before the war started.
Another major mistake was the German involvement in North Africa. This diverted resources away from the east and led to the occupation of countries they had no interest in. It also allowed the western allies to develop tactics and practice large scale amphibious operations.
The Axis belief that there communications were secure was also a major error. At times the allies were decoding and reading messages faster than the enemy.
The Japanese mistake at Pearl Harbor was the failure to destroy their primary target, the US aircraft carriers. This failure lead to the overly complicated Midway attack plan.
On the British side a mistake was the failure to learn the lessons from the first world war. Such as convoy protection and close air support.
David
Ps The Germans were developing long range bombers in the 1930's, but the programs were canceled before the war started.
gator
Vendor
#027
Member Since: April 13, 2005
entire network: 5,422 Posts
KitMaker Network: 146 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 08:15 AM UTC
This one always seemed to make me scratch my head. In the Battle of the Bulge, where time and more importantly fuel were at a premium, Hitler chose to use the biggest, gas guzzling tanks the Germans had. What if Germany attacked with Panzer IVs and Panthers and left the Tigers and Tiger II at home or on the Easten Front where they were needed more? Make sense to me, but when did any of Hitler's decisions make sense.
Kenny
Kenny
jRatz
Member Since: March 06, 2004
entire network: 1,171 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 09:17 AM UTC
When you say "Greatest Mistake" then I assume the focus is at the Strategic level -- lots of what I see here is tactical or maybe operational.
IMHO, the biggest mistake the Germans made was getting sucked into North Africa to bail out the Italians. That was an absolutely pointless exercise in an area that had absolutely no relevance to their overall aims and in fact forced a delay in the Russian campaign that threw it into winter ...
The Japanese attack on PH wasn't a mistake because they didn't get the carriers -- that the carriers were out of port was out of their control. The mistake was to make the attack at all -- a major misreading of the will of the American people -- and something that turned a largely isolationist country into their worst enemy. Without that, they could could have simply extended their influence/control thru-out Asia (resistance is futile).
Germany & Japan were never allies in the formal sense of real cooperation, mutual goals, etc -- the "Axis" was not a functional, mutually-supporting, close-cooperating, entity -- each had their own goals & prejudices & hatred of the other and if each had been successful, they would have been gone at each other when they met ....
Much of the Holocaust, etc, stuff mentioned here wasn't known at the time, so technically wasn't a mistake -- if they'd won, it wouldn't be relevant ....
On the Allied side, the mistakes tend to be operational or tactical -- allowing Churchill to divert effort into the Med/Balkans/etc cost time/people/etc, but had no long-range impact. The bottom line on the Allied side is that "Germany First", a pre-war philosphy of the US Rainbow Plans, worked. Splitting the Pacific in half didn't really hurt the long-range goal and was probably a good way to manage vast distances ....
And Shaun, you're a dog for laying this one out here ... GRIN ....
John
IMHO, the biggest mistake the Germans made was getting sucked into North Africa to bail out the Italians. That was an absolutely pointless exercise in an area that had absolutely no relevance to their overall aims and in fact forced a delay in the Russian campaign that threw it into winter ...
The Japanese attack on PH wasn't a mistake because they didn't get the carriers -- that the carriers were out of port was out of their control. The mistake was to make the attack at all -- a major misreading of the will of the American people -- and something that turned a largely isolationist country into their worst enemy. Without that, they could could have simply extended their influence/control thru-out Asia (resistance is futile).
Germany & Japan were never allies in the formal sense of real cooperation, mutual goals, etc -- the "Axis" was not a functional, mutually-supporting, close-cooperating, entity -- each had their own goals & prejudices & hatred of the other and if each had been successful, they would have been gone at each other when they met ....
Much of the Holocaust, etc, stuff mentioned here wasn't known at the time, so technically wasn't a mistake -- if they'd won, it wouldn't be relevant ....
On the Allied side, the mistakes tend to be operational or tactical -- allowing Churchill to divert effort into the Med/Balkans/etc cost time/people/etc, but had no long-range impact. The bottom line on the Allied side is that "Germany First", a pre-war philosphy of the US Rainbow Plans, worked. Splitting the Pacific in half didn't really hurt the long-range goal and was probably a good way to manage vast distances ....
And Shaun, you're a dog for laying this one out here ... GRIN ....
John
Anti44Hero
Member Since: December 28, 2005
entire network: 42 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 09:36 AM UTC
Personally I feel the greatest mistake was Britian and France's appeasement of Germany prior to WWII, if they had held Germany to the terms of the versailles and forcefully opposed Germanys rearmament, occupation of the Rhineland, and annexation of the sudeten land (spelling?) the worlds greatest war could have been avoided. However, that being done... I would have to say Operation Barbarrosa. Opening a second front, attacking the largest country in the world just seems to me to be a huge under estimation of Russia's strength, production and man power wise.
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 10:07 AM UTC
I'm ging to lean towards Dunkirk. If Hitler had allowed his forces to continue on, they would have captured the entire BEF. Britain was in terrible shape at that point in time. With no experieced military, no heavy military equipment and an immediate attack (within a month) Hitler could have probably knocked Great Britain out of war. England had no defenses set up in the southern sector. Everything they had done until this point had been in the Eastern sector expecting invasion from Norway region. They had not concieved of France falling, or of France falling that quickly. The Luftwaffe would have merely had to control the skies over a portion of the channel something they could have conceivably done within the range of their fighters. Setting all their UNdersea boats pickett like could have crippled the RN considerably. Britain would not have had time to set up the Home Guard so the Germans probably could have overrun enough to get what they really wanted...a truce / armistace with GB
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 10:13 AM UTC
Oh, I also forgot to congratulate Rodger on his Monitorship of this section. It has been in very sad shape ever since the departure of DL Judge. Rodger I know will put some meat back in. This used to be one of the great sections within Armorama because of the mental challenges it offered. So lead on Rodger !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jazza
Member Since: August 03, 2005
entire network: 2,709 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 01:50 PM UTC
Another massive mistake by Hitler would certainly be his declaration of war on the US after Pearl Harbour. As if he didnt have enough on his hands with battles on 2 fronts but he had to make things more challenging by gaining more enemies.
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 04:26 PM UTC
Just in reply to some of the points made:
I don't think it's possible to speculate the outcome of a German invasion of the UK, and is certainly unrealistic to say the invaders would have been crushed in two weeks. The BEF was shattered, the Commonwealth troops were still arriving and not really organized. If the Luftwaffe had won the Battle of Britain and had overall air superiority, we could have seen paratroops used as they were in Belgium and Crete, which would have then enabled the Germans to take bridges behind the bridgehead intact, just as the Allies did in Normandy.
Also, the German involvement in North Africa was unavoidable. Loss of Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt meant exposing a dangerous flank through loss of control of the Med, and thereby opening southern France and Italy to attack. Eventually as part of the Grosse Reich, the security of the Suez Canal and access to the Indian Ocean would have been vital too.
Pearl Harbour too was unavoidable. The US was certainly not isolationist when it came to the Far East and the Pacific. And it was increasingly nationalist trade policies by the US Government that forced Japan to go to war to secure its own trading system. Of all possible targets, the choice of Pearl by the IJN was outstanding. Just a disastrous intelligence failure that allowed the aircraft carriers to escape.
Jazza, Germany going to war with the US, as I said earlier, was also eventually inevitable, and at the time had no immediate effect on the war in Europe. The US had already been supplying the UK via convoy.
Personally, I think one of the biggest mistakes of WW2 happened at the end of WW1. The draconian set of laws imposed on Germany by the western allies that crippled every aspect of German life from rich to poor, and which opened the door for the far right and eventually Hitler and the Nazis. This was a lesson well learned by the Allies and thus we saw a far more lenient governing of defeated Germany post-WW2.
I don't think it's possible to speculate the outcome of a German invasion of the UK, and is certainly unrealistic to say the invaders would have been crushed in two weeks. The BEF was shattered, the Commonwealth troops were still arriving and not really organized. If the Luftwaffe had won the Battle of Britain and had overall air superiority, we could have seen paratroops used as they were in Belgium and Crete, which would have then enabled the Germans to take bridges behind the bridgehead intact, just as the Allies did in Normandy.
Also, the German involvement in North Africa was unavoidable. Loss of Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt meant exposing a dangerous flank through loss of control of the Med, and thereby opening southern France and Italy to attack. Eventually as part of the Grosse Reich, the security of the Suez Canal and access to the Indian Ocean would have been vital too.
Pearl Harbour too was unavoidable. The US was certainly not isolationist when it came to the Far East and the Pacific. And it was increasingly nationalist trade policies by the US Government that forced Japan to go to war to secure its own trading system. Of all possible targets, the choice of Pearl by the IJN was outstanding. Just a disastrous intelligence failure that allowed the aircraft carriers to escape.
Jazza, Germany going to war with the US, as I said earlier, was also eventually inevitable, and at the time had no immediate effect on the war in Europe. The US had already been supplying the UK via convoy.
Personally, I think one of the biggest mistakes of WW2 happened at the end of WW1. The draconian set of laws imposed on Germany by the western allies that crippled every aspect of German life from rich to poor, and which opened the door for the far right and eventually Hitler and the Nazis. This was a lesson well learned by the Allies and thus we saw a far more lenient governing of defeated Germany post-WW2.
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 09:16 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Just in reply to some of the points made:
I don't think it's possible to speculate the outcome of a German invasion of the UK, and is certainly unrealistic to say the invaders would have been crushed in two weeks. The BEF was shattered, the Commonwealth troops were still arriving and not really organized. If the Luftwaffe had won the Battle of Britain and had overall air superiority, we could have seen paratroops used as they were in Belgium and Crete, which would have then enabled the Germans to take bridges behind the bridgehead intact, just as the Allies did in Normandy.
While I feel it was a blunder to attack the USSR before finishing off the UK I also don't think it was possible to invade the UK. I go along with the old line by a Britsh Admiral of the Napoleonic period. "I don't say they can't come, I just say they can't come by sea."
I don't think there was ever any reasonable chance for anything like Sea Lion to succede. IF, that's a huge IF, they had gotten ashore then I think they could have won, but the trick was getting ashore.
I believe the only way Germany could have forced the UK out of the war was to concentrate their entire energy on making it so hard on Britain that they would have been forced to accept terms. I'm not saying that would be easy, but possible.
Quoted Text
Also, the German involvement in North Africa was unavoidable. Loss of Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt meant exposing a dangerous flank through loss of control of the Med, and thereby opening southern France and Italy to attack. Eventually as part of the Grosse Reich, the security of the Suez Canal and access to the Indian Ocean would have been vital too.
I don't agree that North Africa was unavoidable. The Germans didn't have any presence in Tunisia, Libya, or Egypt until they went there to pull Italian chestnuts out of the fire. If they WERE to go into those areas they should have done so with enough forces to do the job, not the penny packets like they did with Rommel.
Quoted Text
Pearl Harbour too was unavoidable. The US was certainly not isolationist when it came to the Far East and the Pacific. And it was increasingly nationalist trade policies by the US Government that forced Japan to go to war to secure its own trading system. Of all possible targets, the choice of Pearl by the IJN was outstanding. Just a disastrous intelligence failure that allowed the aircraft carriers to escape.
I totally agree that the Pearl Harbor attack was a good move for Japan. They just didn't really do it right. There should have been a 3rd wave, and they should have concentrated on the oil storage, repair facilities, and the sub base.
That said I don't agree with your statement, "intelligence failure that allowed the aircraft carriers to escape." If it hadn't been for weather the Enterprise would have docked Saturday night, and have been right in the middle of the attack. The other carriers were out on missions as well, and Japan couldn't forsee for sure where they would have been. Going off memory I think Japanes intelligence was saying one, possibly two, carriers would be in port. They were pretty accurate if the Enterprise hadn't been delayed.
Quoted Text
Jazza, Germany going to war with the US, as I said earlier, was also eventually inevitable, and at the time had no immediate effect on the war in Europe. The US had already been supplying the UK via convoy.
Yes it was unavoidable, but why pick a fight you don't have to unitl it is unavoidable?
Quoted Text
Personally, I think one of the biggest mistakes of WW2 happened at the end of WW1. The draconian set of laws imposed on Germany by the western allies that crippled every aspect of German life from rich to poor, and which opened the door for the far right and eventually Hitler and the Nazis. This was a lesson well learned by the Allies and thus we saw a far more lenient governing of defeated Germany post-WW2.
I totally agree with you. The Versailles, (sp) Treaty was as much a disaster for the Allies as it was for Germany and was a direct cause of WWII.
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 09:49 PM UTC
German paratroopers would have been a non-factor in a cross channel invasion. The Germans suffered between 6,400 (German admitted) and 16,500 (everyone else's numbers) causalties during the invasion of Crete. That is out of 22,750 troops. After Crete, the Germans never jumped again enmass.
Shaun
Shaun
generalzod
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 3,172 Posts
KitMaker Network: 612 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 10:38 PM UTC
The Allied landings at Anzio
Basically they just went ashore and stayed there Wasn't the way to Rome wide open when they landed? But then if they did push to Rome,or even farther inland,it may have been tragic for the forces there
Operation Market Garden
Brilliant plan Shame it didn't work What a waste of a lot of good paratroopers I often wondered what would've happened if the tankers of XXX corps would not have decided to wait for infantry support and would've gone to the rescue of the British airborne troops instead
Basically they just went ashore and stayed there Wasn't the way to Rome wide open when they landed? But then if they did push to Rome,or even farther inland,it may have been tragic for the forces there
Operation Market Garden
Brilliant plan Shame it didn't work What a waste of a lot of good paratroopers I often wondered what would've happened if the tankers of XXX corps would not have decided to wait for infantry support and would've gone to the rescue of the British airborne troops instead
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.