JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags alternate history , Nazi Germany history , World War II history

Reply
Old 30th October 2012, 02:57 AM   #281
smartcooky
Master Poster
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 2,413
Obviously I have overstated the case a bit here.

I had always believed, based on watching documentaries over a number of years while growing up, that Operation Sealion was ready to go and was only cancelled because the German commanders felt that the Luftwaffe had failed in their attempts to suppress the RAF, so they switched to bombing London, cancelled Sea Lion and turned their attention to Barbarossa

So I went looking for information on this today, and found this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux-J8B8fURk

It appears that I have fallen into the trap of believing a poplar myth. In fact, Hitler kept up the appearance of invasion in order to keep the British on their toes with the apparent threat of invasion.

However, I still think it was a mistake to turn around and attack the Russians. Over 90% of Germany's wartime losses were as a direct result of their attempt to invade Russia.


PS: Is video embedding possible? I couldn't work out how to do it.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 03:33 AM   #282
Tolls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,506
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Auchinleck got sacked for the disasters from Gazala onwards, which were due to unclear strategy, poor command structure, poor choice of commanders etc. Even when he stepped in himself at the First battle of Alamein he ran up high casualties for little gain.
There was no further disaster after Gazala.
That was the last defeat in the Western Desert.
Auchinleck then halted Rommel at First Alamein a month later.

Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Montgomery had the measure of Churchill. IIRC he drafted a signal for Alexander to send basically saying 'if you force me to attack in September it will fail, in October victory is certain' - what politician will over-ride a general with that message on the record?
Which sort of reinforces my point.
That Churchill did interfere, and you had to play the game.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 03:35 AM   #283
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,965
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You mean Tauntauns?
I was using the NIV spelling.
Quote:
They should have, another little corporal had the same problem 129 years earlier, almost to the day.
Some guy named Santayana referenced this problem once.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 03:39 AM   #284
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,965
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Obviously I have overstated the case a bit here.

I had always believed, based on watching documentaries over a number of years while growing up, that Operation Sealion was ready to go and was only cancelled because the German commanders felt that the Luftwaffe had failed in their attempts to suppress the RAF, so they switched to bombing London, cancelled Sea Lion and turned their attention to Barbarossa

So I went looking for information on this today, and found this video

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


It appears that I have fallen into the trap of believing a poplar myth. In fact, Hitler kept up the appearance of invasion in order to keep the British on their toes with the apparent threat of invasion.
Yeah, the Germans had almost zero appreciation of the difficulties of amphibious operations. The US Marines had decided to own that aspect of naval warfare in the Twenties and conducted annual landing exercises to see what worked and what didn't. Nearly twenty years of practice later they still had a lot to learn. Overlord pointed that up nicely.
Quote:
However, I still think it was a mistake to turn around and attack the Russians. Over 90% of Germany's wartime losses were as a direct result of their attempt to invade Russia.


PS: Is video embedding possible? I couldn't work out how to do it.
It can be done.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 04:00 AM   #285
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 11,284
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
NAZI Germany missed numerous opportunities to deliver killer blows, committed crucial errors of omission, or made poor tactical choices. Mostly, the blame could be laid squarely at the feet of their leader, a brilliant madman who didn't understand the advantages of technological superiority, and failed to appreciate the benefits of a tactical retreat, and refused to take advice from better, more experienced commanders in the field.

Some of the main mistakes they made were...

1. Switching from bombing RAF airfields to bombing London
Big tactical blunder. Germany started attacking RAF airfields in early August 1940. By September 1940, the airfields of 11 group (south) and to a lesser extent 10 group (south-west) and and 12 group (midlands) were barely able to function. My father was an aircraft engineer at RAF Hornchurch in 1940. Before he died, he related to me that, while they were very upset about bombing of London, there was a sense of relief among his colleagues that with the Luftwaffe no longer bombing them, they could get on with their job virtually unhindered. This was never so succinctly put than by this quote, from AVM Keith Park (AOC 11 Group) talking about what he saw the day the Luftwaffe started bombing London...

"It was burning all down the river. It was a horrid sight. But I looked down and said 'Thank God for that', because I knew that the Nazis had switched their attack from the fighter stations thinking that they were knocked out. They weren't, but they were pretty groggy"

Following on from that mistake, this one..

2. Cancelling Operation Sealion.

Had they invaded England when they originally intended, the war could have been over within a few months. The airfields of 10, 11 and 12 group were in a dire state, and 13 Group (in the north of England) was too far away to effectively defend the south coast and channel. England was totally unprepared to defend herself against the type of attack that the German armed forces had used against Poland, Czechoslovakia and France...Blitzkreig.

3. Not pursuing Jet Engine research with enough urgency.
By August 1939 the Germans had a jet aircraft flying (the Heinkel 178) with a turbojet engine based on a 1928 Frank Whittle design concept. Similarly, the Italians also had a jet aircraft (the Caproni Campini N1) flying 12 months later. However, Hitler seemed disinterested in pushing this technology along as a priority. They had the Me262 fighter jet flying by mid 1942, but it was almost two years (April 1944) before they entered service. Too little and too late.

4. Attacking the Soviets
Big mistake. What kind of leader decides to open a new front in one direction, when they are only just holding their own on the one in the opposite direction? Its a variation the old adage "divide and conquer"... if you divide your limited forces, you will probably be conquered.

5. Victimising the Jews
There can be little doubt that Hitler's maniacal obsession with promoting the concept of Aryan supremacy was his undoing. In his insane drive to rid Europe of Jews, he killed a LOT of scientists and intelligent people, or drove them out towards the enemy. He and his hangers-on were blinkered, taking a "we don't need any Jews science" attitude. These were just the sort of people who could have given him a technological advantage.
1 and 2 have pretty much been dealt with, though I'd add that while the Germans might have successfully landed in Britain such a beachhead would soon have been cut off and probably gassed.
3 is interesting but German jet/turbine development was hampered by restricted access to minerals (e.g. nickel, cobalt and molybdenum) needed to make long life engine components. Plus, later in the war, lack of fuel.
4 and 5 are valid points but don't account for Hitler. He considered the Slavs and Jews the main enemy, not France and Britain.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 04:06 AM   #286
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
 
Krikkiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Obviously I have overstated the case a bit here.

I had always believed, based on watching documentaries over a number of years while growing up, that Operation Sealion was ready to go and was only cancelled because the German commanders felt that the Luftwaffe had failed in their attempts to suppress the RAF, so they switched to bombing London, cancelled Sea Lion and turned their attention to Barbarossa

So I went looking for information on this today, and found this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux-J8B8fURk

It appears that I have fallen into the trap of believing a poplar myth. In fact, Hitler kept up the appearance of invasion in order to keep the British on their toes with the apparent threat of invasion.

However, I still think it was a mistake to turn around and attack the Russians. Over 90% of Germany's wartime losses were as a direct result of their attempt to invade Russia.


PS: Is video embedding possible? I couldn't work out how to do it.

It's hard to know whether or not whole thing was a bluff to get Britain to "sue for peace" or just a half hearted afterthought. Maybe both.

But he was going to have a go at the USSR anyway.
__________________
"Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was."
Krikkiter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 04:17 AM   #287
Hubert Cumberdale
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 653
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
There was no further disaster after Gazala.
That was the last defeat in the Western Desert.
Auchinleck then halted Rommel at First Alamein a month later.
Auchinleck was also responsible for Op Crusader. Bearing in mind that he won this victory with scarce quantitative advantage and a considerable qualitative disadvantage, particularly in tanks, its one of the most underestimated achievements of the war.
__________________
Hubert Cumberdale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 04:46 AM   #288
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,391
Originally Posted by John Mekki View Post
"twenty five of the thirty eight Waffen-SS division were formed from foreign volunteers or conscripts, or around 60% of Waffen-SS members were non-German."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-...and_conscripts

I think there were multiple cases in which foreign nationals (Soon Danish, Belgian, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish and Dutch volunteers) joined the SS
Yes, those foreign volunteers and conscripts came from all over Europe. The 60% is a bit misleading. The German wiki says:
Quote:
Von anfänglich 28.500 Mann (1939) wuchs die Waffen-SS auf 910.200 Mann (1945) an. Etwa 200.000 waren Ausländer, 310.000 waren Volksdeutsche aus Südosteuropa. Etwa jeder vierte bis fünfte Angehörige der Waffen-SS war Ungarn- oder Rumäniendeutscher.
So, of the 910,000 Waffen-SS men, 310,000 were Volksdeutsche, i.e. ethnic Germans (going back generations and even centuries) in SE European countries, mainly Hungary and Romania. Only 200,000 were "real" foreigners, coming from all countries from Ireland in the West to the Caucasus in the East.

And those from the Baltic states were not volunteering:
Quote:
Soldiers from Estonia and Latvia were not volunteers[6] but conscripts which the German authorities had denied their wish to form national military units allied to Germany. Under such circumstances, these had either volunteered to the Wehrmacht and had later been forced into the Waffen-SS or were illegally conscripted by general mobilisations.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 05:00 AM   #289
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
Did it get all holocaust denial up in here a page ago or am I just misreading some posts?


anyway, to get myself back on topic:

I am pretty good with some of the actual military history of the war itself, but my political knowledge is pretty darn laymen (Stephen E Ambrose book level) so I'd like to ask a question of some the "experts" on here:

IF Churchill had been Prime Minister does he sign the Munich Agreement?

IF the answer to this is NO, what do you expect the results to have been? immediate invasion of the Sudetenland and/or Poland? Immediate declaration of war on Britain by the Germans? Would Hitler have pushed earlier for an alliance with Stalin?


any and all answers are welcome as I am very interested in this stuff
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 05:26 AM   #290
Hubert Cumberdale
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 653
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
Did it get all holocaust denial up in here a page ago or am I just misreading some posts?


anyway, to get myself back on topic:

I am pretty good with some of the actual military history of the war itself, but my political knowledge is pretty darn laymen (Stephen E Ambrose book level) so I'd like to ask a question of some the "experts" on here:

IF Churchill had been Prime Minister does he sign the Munich Agreement?

IF the answer to this is NO, what do you expect the results to have been? immediate invasion of the Sudetenland and/or Poland? Immediate declaration of war on Britain by the Germans? Would Hitler have pushed earlier for an alliance with Stalin?


any and all answers are welcome as I am very interested in this stuff
Interesting one. Britain of course was not in a position to do anything without French backing anyway so....

I guess Hitler invades Czechoslovakia but finds it no mean task. The Czech army was good and well equipped and the defences in the Sudetenland are a tough nut to crack.

Best case scenario is that it all goes a bit pear-shaped and Hitler gets impeached.
__________________
Hubert Cumberdale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 05:33 AM   #291
Border Reiver
Illuminator
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 3,210
Would Churchill have signed the Munich Accord if he had been PM at the time, based on his speeches in the House at the time - I would say that he would have definitely wanted to say NO, now what he could have said with the political realities in the UK at the time may be a different story (it's easy to take the principled stand when you don't have any consequences for it, when you've got other concerns as well - not so much).

NOw if he did say NO to the Accord, there is a strong likely hood that He would have needed to give assurances to Czechoslovakia to come to their aid if an attack happened. This would not have been popular in the UK, the strong support given to the Poles came about as a realization that Hitler's Germany could not be trusted AFTER the Munich Accords were walked over.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 05:46 AM   #292
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
So are the accusations that Chamberlain was a boob unfair? There seems to be this notion that he was foolish to think Hitler would ever stick to the agreement and that he blundered by ever thinking he would. Or is this unfair ,20/20 hindsight criticism?
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 05:46 AM   #293
Aber
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cultural Capital
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
There was no further disaster after Gazala.
That was the last defeat in the Western Desert.
Auchinleck then halted Rommel at First Alamein a month later.
Tobruk?
Mersa Matruh?

First Alamein was a mess, a month of sparring by 2 exhausted armies with British casualties almost equal to Second Alamein.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 06:08 AM   #294
Tolls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,506
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Tobruk?
Mersa Matruh?
They're part of the Gazala gallop.
Mersa was part of the retreat, especially since Auk chose to withdraw (since it was virtually indefensible).

Originally Posted by Aber View Post
First Alamein was a mess, a month of sparring by 2 exhausted armies with British casualties almost equal to Second Alamein.
And?
Rommel was stopped.

And it really has nowt to do with whether Churchill interfered and pressurised his generals, which was my whole point.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 06:25 AM   #295
erwinl
Muse
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: A small country beneath the sea
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
So are the accusations that Chamberlain was a boob unfair? There seems to be this notion that he was foolish to think Hitler would ever stick to the agreement and that he blundered by ever thinking he would. Or is this unfair ,20/20 hindsight criticism?
I think he get's judged unfairly.
There was nothing he could do for Czechoslovakia. Britain simply was not in the position, army wise, to take on a European ground war.
What he could do was rearm Britain as fast as he could, for when war would be inevitable. Which he did.

That whole 'Peace for Our Time', was a bit unfortunate for his reputation, but whether that was to fool Germany into complacancy, or to reassure the British people, is up for grabs. I really don't know either way.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"

Last edited by erwinl; 30th October 2012 at 06:34 AM. Reason: It was Peace for our Time
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 06:33 AM   #296
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
not to continue my minor sub-derail, but what do you think are the best books out there for reading about the political side of things leading up to the war during the late 30's? Maybe I haven't looked properly, (or more likely since I was so gung ho about reading about the battles I just skipped over them when reading the descriptions).

getting older, this stuff is much more interesting to me than it was say when I was pushing 30 rather than 40. :-)

Last edited by StankApe; 30th October 2012 at 08:09 AM.
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 06:47 AM   #297
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,391
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
Did it get all holocaust denial up in here a page ago or am I just misreading some posts?
You hadn't met MaGZ before? He is a Hitler fanboy, antisemite and Holocaust denier.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 06:52 AM   #298
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
You hadn't met MaGZ before? He is a Hitler fanboy, antisemite and Holocaust denier.
hmmmmm.....noted


for a second there I almost commented on that mentality, but what's the point?
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 07:03 AM   #299
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,391
Originally Posted by Hubert Cumberdale View Post
Interesting one. Britain of course was not in a position to do anything without French backing anyway so....

I guess Hitler invades Czechoslovakia but finds it no mean task. The Czech army was good and well equipped and the defences in the Sudetenland are a tough nut to crack.
They had a defence line comparable to the French Maginot line.

Originally Posted by Hubert Cumberdale View Post
Best case scenario is that it all goes a bit pear-shaped and Hitler gets impeached.
"Best case" from whose perspective? And what were the chances that Beck could pull of a putsch in case of war with Czechoslovakia?

For lulz, let's make this alternate history line really interesting. Munich happens, Churchill refuses to give away Sudetenland, but Daladier agrees. What happens? Do the Czech put up a fight? And if so, do the French renege on their agreement and march into the West of Germany?
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 07:22 AM   #300
Craig B
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,667
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
They had a defence line comparable to the French Maginot line.


"Best case" from whose perspective? And what were the chances that Beck could pull of a putsch in case of war with Czechoslovakia?

For lulz, let's make this alternate history line really interesting. Munich happens, Churchill refuses to give away Sudetenland, but Daladier agrees. What happens? Do the Czech put up a fight? And if so, do the French renege on their agreement and march into the West of Germany?
God knows! But almost anything that could be supposed plausible would have been better than what in fact then happened.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 07:29 AM   #301
Tolls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,506
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
They had a defence line comparable to the French Maginot line.
Except it had already been outflanked by the anschluss.
It also covered a frontier far longer than the Maginot Line, and for a fraction of the budget.
Never mind that it was far from complete.
I really wouldn't call it comparable.

Originally Posted by ddt View Post
"Best case" from whose perspective? And what were the chances that Beck could pull of a putsch in case of war with Czechoslovakia?

For lulz, let's make this alternate history line really interesting. Munich happens, Churchill refuses to give away Sudetenland, but Daladier agrees. What happens? Do the Czech put up a fight? And if so, do the French renege on their agreement and march into the West of Germany?
If France does not fight then the Czechs lose.
If France does, then the Czechs lose.

I really don't see much difference to Poland (beyond casualties, which we could argue about). I don't think I've read an analysis that suggested the Czechs holding out for long enough for a French mobilisation.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 07:55 AM   #302
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,965
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
You hadn't met MaGZ before? He is a Hitler fanboy, antisemite and Holocaust denier.
And don't forget his sock puppet, MG1962.*




*Of course, I could be mistaken about that.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 08:19 AM   #303
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,069
Amateurs talk tactics, and professionals talk logistics.

The classic story on the subject has an American enlisted man guarding German POW's after the war, and he sparks a conversation with an english speaking German officer:

EM: "If you guys were the master race, how did we beat you?"

GO: "I was in charge of an 88mm anti-tank battery. Every time you American or British sent a tank up the road, we killed it. I ran out of ammunition, but you didn't run out of tanks."

Nazi Germany, even with the material output of the occupied countries, had no chance of victory once American manufacturing went to a 100% war production schedule.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 08:26 AM   #304
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,965
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Amateurs talk tactics, and professionals talk logistics.

The classic story on the subject has an American enlisted man guarding German POW's after the war, and he sparks a conversation with an english speaking German officer:

EM: "If you guys were the master race, how did we beat you?"

GO: "I was in charge of an 88mm anti-tank battery. Every time you American or British sent a tank up the road, we killed it. I ran out of ammunition, but you didn't run out of tanks."

Nazi Germany, even with the material output of the occupied countries, had no chance of victory once American manufacturing went to a 100% war production schedule.
We built 50,000 C-47s, not a combatant aircraft.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 09:31 AM   #305
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 11,284
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
They had a defence line comparable to the French Maginot line.


"Best case" from whose perspective? And what were the chances that Beck could pull of a putsch in case of war with Czechoslovakia?

For lulz, let's make this alternate history line really interesting. Munich happens, Churchill refuses to give away Sudetenland, but Daladier agrees. What happens? Do the Czech put up a fight? And if so, do the French renege on their agreement and march into the West of Germany?
Take a look at Turtledove's The War That Came Early series.

Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Auchinleck got sacked for the disasters from Gazala onwards, which were due to unclear strategy, poor command structure, poor choice of commanders etc. Even when he stepped in himself at the First battle of Alamein he ran up high casualties for little gain.

Montgomery had the measure of Churchill. IIRC he drafted a signal for Alexander to send basically saying 'if you force me to attack in September it will fail, in October victory is certain' - what politician will over-ride a general with that message on the record?
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Yes it is said that he was a very poor military planner, and that campaigns he unduly interfered in (during both world wars) ended badly.

But it is also said that, like Stalin, but unlike Hitler, he learned to leave generals alone to do their work. Stalin, too, liked people to "kiss up to him" but military skill, such as was displayed by Zhukov, was not rejected, even if it was not accompanied by grovelling sycophancy.

Throughout the war, while Churchill and Stalin improved, Hitler deteriorated, and ended by moving non-existent units around maps, while his generals tried to work out how best to surrender without falling into the hands of the Russians.
One thing that should be remembered is the influence of Alan Brook and his ability to keep some of Churchill's dafter ideas (invasion of Portugal, landing in France in 1942 for example) from being carried out.
Hitler lacked any such person.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 11:44 AM   #306
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 10,449
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
3. Not pursuing Jet Engine research with enough urgency.
By August 1939 the Germans had a jet aircraft flying (the Heinkel 178) with a turbojet engine based on a 1928 Frank Whittle design concept. Similarly, the Italians also had a jet aircraft (the Caproni Campini N1) flying 12 months later. However, Hitler seemed disinterested in pushing this technology along as a priority. They had the Me262 fighter jet flying by mid 1942, but it was almost two years (April 1944) before they entered service. Too little and too late.

Some points about the above.

The Me 262 first flew on 4 April 1941—but using a piston engine. It didn't fly under jet engine power until more than a year later, on 18 July 1942. It didn't get into mass production until about two years after that. The commonly repeated story is that Hitler's insistence on turning the Me 262 into a fast bomber is what caused the production delay, and while that had a role, the main problem the Germans encountered was getting the jet engines into mass production with satisfactory quality. Achieving that proved a difficult task. By the time that was mastered it was too late for the Me 262 to make a decisive difference.

But here's the interesting thing. The He 280 jet fighter prototype flew under jet engine power more than a year before the Me 262 did—on 2 April 1941, or two days before the Me 262 prototype was test flown using a piston engine. But the German leadership wasn't interested. It was still thinking in terms of quick victories, and anything that couldn't be put into production rapidly was largely ignored.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 12:14 PM   #307
smartcooky
Master Poster
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 2,413
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
not to continue my minor sub-derail, but what do you think are the best books out there for reading about the political side of things leading up to the war during the late 30's? Maybe I haven't looked properly, (or more likely since I was so gung ho about reading about the battles I just skipped over them when reading the descriptions).
The only book suggestion I have is Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy by Eric Weitz, but you might find these videos interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hEG-5_9nK4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqPc93Pvs0U

This is also an interesting article about the Weimar Republic

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~semp/weimar.htm
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 12:30 PM   #308
Craig B
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,667
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
We built 50,000 C-47s, not a combatant aircraft.
Can I ask what you mean by that, in terms of war production? So Liberty Ships weren't war ships, because they didn't shoot at enemy ships; therefore their manufacture wasn't war production?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 01:36 PM   #309
lobosrul
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,051
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
We built 50,000 C-47s, not a combatant aircraft.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Can I ask what you mean by that, in terms of war production? So Liberty Ships weren't war ships, because they didn't shoot at enemy ships; therefore their manufacture wasn't war production?
I'm not sure what he means by that either. For one thing I can't see anywhere on the interwebs that states that many C-47's were ever built, even including DC-3's. The most produced plane ever is the Cesna 172 at about 43,000.

Anyways I came across a year by year comparison of manufacturing by airframe weight (in millions of pounds), the US was increasingly building more and heavier bombers:

US
1941 - 81.36
1942 - 275.83
1943 - 654.19
1944 - 961.12

UK
1941 - 87.25
1942 - 133.38
1943 - 185.25
1944 - 208.47

Germany
1941 - 64.43
1942 - 91.72
1943 - 139.90
1944 - 173.66

Also, I'm sure we (the US) built at least 32,000 4-engine bombers during the war.

Last edited by lobosrul; 30th October 2012 at 01:39 PM.
lobosrul is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 03:56 PM   #310
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The only book suggestion I have is Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy by Eric Weitz, but you might find these videos interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hEG-5_9nK4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqPc93Pvs0U

This is also an interesting article about the Weimar Republic

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~semp/weimar.htm

Thank you very much!!
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 04:12 PM   #311
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,965
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Can I ask what you mean by that, in terms of war production? So Liberty Ships weren't war ships, because they didn't shoot at enemy ships; therefore their manufacture wasn't war production?
Where did that come from?
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 04:13 PM   #312
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,965
The C-47 was a cargo carrier, not some sexy fighter. What I said was rather like saying how many mules Longstreet had.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 05:05 PM   #313
smartcooky
Master Poster
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 2,413
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
The C-47 was a cargo carrier, not some sexy fighter. What I said was rather like saying how many mules Longstreet had.
It might not have been a sexy fighter, but the C-47 was the "C-130" of her day, a mighty workhorse that was often used in risky situations, like paratroop dropping.



Here, C-47s are dropping hundred of paratroops as part of Operation Varsity; 24 -31 March 1945

Caption:
"C-47 transport planes release hundreds of paratroops and their supplies over the Rees-Wesel area to the east of the Rhine. This was the greatest airborne operation of the war. Some 40,000 paratroops were dropped by 1,500 troop-carrying planes and gliders."
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 05:10 PM   #314
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,965
Please note I'm not dissing the Gooney Bird, just pointing out that we made poo-poo loads of them along with everything else.

Sorry if I stepped on anybody's tail feathers.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 05:11 PM   #315
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
We built 50,000 C-47s, not a combatant aircraft.
That was the extent of lend-lease?

Somewhere I seem to remember that a whole line of British and Russian caliber artillery, mortar and small arms ammo was shipped overseas, as well as P40's to China, as well as trucks to Russia.

Maybe I'm misinformed.

I know that Remington, Westinghouse and Savage manufactured British and Russian model (Enfield P14 and SMLE, Mosin Nagant) rifles well into the millions of units for WWI, and as late as WWII the British were still issuing the rifles they had held in reserve.

As late as the mid 1960's surplus US manufactured .303 Brit ammo was on the civilian market here, so enough had to have been manufactured that sufficient quanties were available for quantity (I remember 440 round cases) sales, 20 years after VE.

Browning allowed allied nations (England, Canada) to manufacture their own issue caliber versions of the 1919 machinegun for ground and aircraft use, without royalty (same as his deal w/ USGOV) and many US Browning 1919A4's were sent out as lend lease in the U.S 30/06 chambering. I've seen Brit proofed Inland manufactured 1919's that came back before '68 and were amnesty reg'd.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 05:28 PM   #316
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,965
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
That was the extent of lend-lease?
:snork:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...hip/index.html
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 05:53 PM   #317
Craig B
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,667
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
Where did that come from?
It came from me, and was a request for information, to enable me to understand a comment you made.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 06:23 PM   #318
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,965
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
It came from me, and was a request for information, to enable me to understand a comment you made.
Sorry, sounded rather cross to me. Must be an echo in here.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 06:49 PM   #319
nudger1964
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Obviously I have overstated the case a bit here.

I had always believed, based on watching documentaries over a number of years while growing up, that Operation Sealion was ready to go and was only cancelled because the German commanders felt that the Luftwaffe had failed in their attempts to suppress the RAF, so they switched to bombing London, cancelled Sea Lion and turned their attention to Barbarossa

So I went looking for information on this today, and found this video


It appears that I have fallen into the trap of believing a poplar myth. In fact, Hitler kept up the appearance of invasion in order to keep the British on their toes with the apparent threat of invasion.

However, I still think it was a mistake to turn around and attack the Russians. Over 90% of Germany's wartime losses were as a direct result of their attempt to invade Russia.


PS: Is video embedding possible? I couldn't work out how to do it.
I dont think you can call it a popular myth - it was the way historians portrayed it in good faith for many yrs after the war.
Im not entirely convinced Hitler always viewed Sea lion as a bluff - I am convinced it never really had a chance of success, and at some point Hitler realized this...Im just not sure if he always knew that.
Even if the Luftwaffe had concentrated on the RAF and cleared the skies of southern britain, I dont see how that would have helped them - worse case the RAF would retreat to the midlands and north of England until required or recouped.
nudger1964 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 07:10 PM   #320
Craig B
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,667
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
Sorry, sounded rather cross to me. Must be an echo in here.
Gawdzilla, I have no idea what you're on about. Really not. I simply asked what you meant by "war production", because it seemed to me that your definition was narrower than what I would understand by the term.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.