About Turning point of WW2 Page 7
|June 1st, 2004||#61|
| || |
Britain is an island, both her greatest strength and her greatest weakness. So we managed to save 330,000 soldiers but so what - it had very little strategic significance to the war as a whole. Those soldiers were isolated on an island with very little heavy equipment and with no prospect of them being used in any land conflict before D-Day. Thus to the German conquest of Europe it didn't make any real difference that they lost the chance to eliminate those forces.
Britain has always been all about the Royal Navy and for most of the industrialised modern era we truly ruled the waves. We have a very well trained army but it's always been the Navy that saved our skins. Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain only served to push a half-hearted Hitler towards the Soviet Union and anyway, Hitler's focus was always towards the East. One only has to read Mein Kampf to realise that. His ultimate aim was always to rid the eastern lands of the 'untermensch' to create 'Lebensraum' for the German peoples.
So I stand by my assertion that Dunkirk did *nothing* to change the outcome of WW2.
|June 2nd, 2004||#62|
| || |
The turning point of WW2: Battle of Moscow (Winter 1941), + Battle Of Stalingrad( Winter Autumn 1942-Winter 1943), + Battle of Kursk (Spring/Summer 1943), The Battle of Kursk was the last and the most important battles of the 3, Germans lost the amount of ppl, tanks,planes that they couldnt afford to replace. Germans lost 80-90% of all their troops in the eastern front...and finally Battle of Berlin concluded it all.
|June 2nd, 2004||#63|
| || |
Generally I agree. What exactly do u call the "massive help to USSR"...even during the worst months of 1942, i.e. during Battle of Stalingrad and later U.S. was sending 1/4 to USSR of what it was sending to UK which was hardly participating in the war at all, meaning that US sent 1/4 of what it would send to an ally not actively participating in any serious military action...The US aid to USSR is very often stretched way out of proportions as is the Allied Air Campaign against Germany. I admit that the help was useful...yet for example a lot of what was sent wasn't suitable for the war effort in Russia...especially American tanks which were primarily used by the Russians to pull Artillery into the field due to virtual inability to engage any of the German tanks. The most useful tank used by the soviets was the British Valentine which was almost equivalent to t-34 yet was usually of better quality and was used during battle of Kursk. From the american side the most helpful were american trucks which they sent in great amounts.
|June 2nd, 2004||#64|
| || |
im in a hurry at the moment, but ill post a little list with things, the russians were supported by the us. And without those things the war at the eastern front would have been harldy to win
russia had to move its whole industry out of range of the german bombers. So they moved the industry far behind the ural Mountains. But there was absolutely no infrastructure. So the US delivered almost all Lokomotives and cargo waggons that were in russia in use to get soldiers and material to the front.
The US also delivered 380.000 field phones and 35.000 radio equipment.
With that basic equipment the red army was able to coordinate its tank divisions. Before that the tanks werent able to be coordinated by radio.
And beside that The US delivered masses of copper, aluminium, kerosin and explosives.
|June 2nd, 2004||#65|
| || |
I have no info about US sending Grants but if they did - this could be the most usefull tank
|June 2nd, 2004||#66|
| || |
You cannot say the that the Battle of Moscow was a turning point because in the aftermath of the retreat from Moscow the Germans still held a defensive line deep in European Russia and were very well placed to resume the offensive in 1942.
I'll give you some leeway with Kursk however as Germany still had some options after Stalingrad but definately had none after Kursk. Hitler should really have followed Manstein's alternative plan. His plan was to lure an overextended Soviet offensive into the Donets Basin in the Ukraine. Then the German 4th Panzer & 6th Armies would wheel south from Kharkov and drive towards Rostov, trapping the entire southern wing of the Red Army with the Sea of Azov (and therefore no escape) behind them. It was a daring, brilliant plan and had it been followed then the debacle at Kursk would probably have never happened.
With hindsight Kursk really was a stupid decision that went against every tenet of Blitzkrieg, instead harking back to the entrenched warfare of WW1. Even at the time Manstein and notably Guderian deeply questioned why they were attacking Kursk. Guderian asked Hitler if he even knew where Kursk was and Hitler replied that the thought of attacking Kursk "turned his stomach". It was probably the first emergent signs that Hitler was beginning to lose track of all reality.
Read more about the Battle of Kursk here:
Erich Von Manstein was simply a genius. His own memiors called 'Lost Victories' sums up what might have been for him and for Germany. And in Heinz Guderian they had the one man that more than most was responsible for the great victories of the Wehrmacht that shocked the world.
Lucky for us that Hitler was such a stubborn arse
|June 2nd, 2004||#67|
| || |
My point was that the 3 battles in sequence turned into the turning point it wasn't just one single battle. I think it is ridiculous to blame all german military failures on Hitler and ppl very often do that, it is funny how Hitler suddenly turns "delusional" right after a series of catastrophic defeats on the eastern front, if he was such an idiot then how did he manage to take control of such a brilliant nation as Germans along with all of its brilliant generals? Hitler built German army, his leadership provided German Army with it's strengh, high moral. In 1940 ALL of his generals were claiming that Hitler was delusional when he was planning an all-out war against France, because they believed that they couldn't win that war and that wasn't the first time and not the last time. The success of war against France clearly shows that Hitler was a good strategist and no need to blame later german military failures on him. Anybody can join into the discussion and claim: "I would have done better", but war is the sort of thing when unexpected things happen. All of his generals also agreed that it was an insane idea to invade USSR. It was Hitler's strategical genius that allowed such success of Barbarossa, generals were simply following his orders. If you really want to take Hitler out of the picture...then the war in the east could have been finished in 1941 the same year when it started...there would no point in even discussing Stalingrad or Kursk...
Before and after german failure near Moscow the german army was already demoralized and tired out...it was obvious that they they couldn't achieve their primary objective and started slowly pulling back...at that point Stalin ordered an all-out counter-offensive and the German front would certainly have collapsed if it wasn't for it's strong leadership in the face of Fuhrer...it was then that Hitler saved German armies only to come back and try to take revenge at Stalingrad and Kursk...but those also turned into failures because this time the Russians were ready...
Hitler strongly believed that Soviet Union would have collapsed because
it's ppl would have turned against their own bolshevik government, so his primary objective was Moscow where the government was located. As it was clearly seen he was by far not an idiot and his idea could have materialized had he taken Moscow...at least none of his generals could have masterminded or carried out such a plan. So in a way Hitler's failure at Moscow can be viewed as the first stage of the turning point of the war.
"Dude pls check the armour, the speed and the piercing value of the guns of the two tanks - they are out of comparison!
I have no info about US sending Grants but if they did - this could be the most usefull tank"
They did send M3 general Lee tanks...I believe the tank was called- the grave for 6 brothers...the overall design of the tank made it a very easy traget to hit. Also the tracks were constantly failing. It had rubber-metal tracks and during battle rubber quickly melted and entire tracks collapsed...The fuel type used in the US was often incompatible with the fuel type produced in USSR...often tank failed to operate. The tank had no turning turret...so even though it had the 75 mm gun- which was a good standard gun for the time...tankers had to turn the entire tank around just to take a shot...again making the tank slow and easy target for germans. US sent only 300 of these tanks...The other tank that was sent was General Stuart Tank...which was basically a toy-tank with it's 37 mm gun and very thin armour. It is as if the americans had very limited idea as to what makes a successful tank in the battlefield at the time...
Now going back to British Valentine: The tank was a good strategical choice for combat overall even though it had it's drawbacks as well for example it had a petrol engine. It's class was medium battle tank - same as t-34...and british sent 2300 of them so the russians received enough of them to form entire units consisting of just valentines. Obviously it hardly stands a comparison with T-34. T-34 had a diesel engine with twice the power of valentine and much better armour...but generally as was proven in combat which Russians have quite a few records of, the tank was used and quite successfully...especially during battle of Kursk when tanks were positioned at a distance from each other that one hit would have meant a certain death regardless of the armour...or whether the tank had petrol or diesel engine. The Russians received the Valentine with 57 mm Gun which was more or less good enough against most earlier german tanks which they brought a great a mount of to Kursk.
|June 2nd, 2004||#68|
| || |
OK, a couple of points:
1. The M3 Medium Tank, AKA the Grant or Lee, was known by the Russians as the "Grave for Seven Brothers” due to the size of the crew and the tank's known faults (riveted armor and gasoline engine - although diesel models were built).
2. Aid to the Russians from the US and UK, was both massive and continuous thoughout WWII (raw materials and all classes of supplies). The radios and trucks made such a hit with the Red Army that the words for those items are phonetic adaptations of the english words for them (i.e. jeep - zeep, radio - rahdio, truck - studabaker).
3. As facinating as this dicusssion is (and it really is a good discussion ), we are way off from the topic at hand. I think we could easily start a new topic for the War in the East.
I'd rather be a Soldier with a mule and mountain gun, than Knight of old, with spurs of gold, or Roman, Greek or Hun. For when there's trouble brewing, they always send for me!
Mortui Non Mordent - Celeritas Et Accuratio
|June 3rd, 2004||#69|
| || |
He wasn't, far from it.
Neither was he a "strategical genius", as you put it. Hitler's decision to launch Operation Barbarossa had nothing to do with military strategy and everything to do with ideology. Go and read Mein Kampf and perhaps you might understand why.
Hitler *did not* build the Wehrmacht into the unstoppable force it was in the early years of the war. He merely fostered an environment in which it could happen. I credit Hitler with the foresight to allow men like Heinz Guderian to build up the German Panzer arm but to suggest he actually had a major hand in it is silly.
The success of the war against France had nothing to do with Hitler and everything to do with Erich Von Manstein's plan to attack with Panzers through the heavily forested Ardennes and the skill and leadership of men like Guderian and Erwin Rommel who drove their Panzers towards the Atlantic. All Hitler did was to approve the plan and sit back and dance jigs of delight when he heard how far the Panzers had thrust deep into France in so little time.
The success of Operation Barbarossa in 1941/42 had everything to do with the brilliant tactics of Blitzkrieg and the unpreparedness of the Red Army.
Yes, Hitler fostered an environment in which all this was able to happen and yes he restored immense pride back into Germany. But all this was down to the right set of historical conditions, Hitler's brilliant grasp of people, his oratory skills and his indisuptable will and sense of history rather than any battlefield leadership or generalship qualities he may have had.
It was Hitler who did not allow the German industry to go onto a war footing in 1941 so that the German armies fighting in the coldest winter for 140 years were shivering and freezing to death in their summer uniforms.
It was Hitler who decided in 1942 that the Wehrmacht drive to Stalingrad instead of Moscow. His Generals wanted to capture Moscow, believing that if it was captured the whole Stalinist regime would collapse. Instead Hitler wanted to capture the oil fields of the Caucasus but *ALSO* to destroy the city that bore the name of his nemesis. Thus he allowed a personal whim to get in the way of solid strategy and common sense. There was *no* real need to even go near Stalingrad as Germany had already virtually secured those oil fields by the time they approached Stalingrad.
It was Hitler who ultimately cost his nation defeat in WW2 by virtue of his serious personality flaws that meant no-one else could be right and himself wrong. Not all of of Germany's military failures were Hitler's fault, but the major ones certainly belonged to him. If you're gonna attempt to defend Hitler please at least read up on some history first.
|June 3rd, 2004||#70|
| || |
I am afraid that you have missed on quite a bit of reading yourself...I think it was a little too early for rantings in my opinion.
I have read Mein Kampf and I have also read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" - an extensive source of information on Hitler, nazis and WW2. I have also read Hitler's Biography, "War in Russia" by some british author (sorry can't remeber his name now).
I do not believe that you know enough about Hitler to judge him in any respect. I almost feel like not writing anything else here but simply suggest that you go and read or re-read the books I've mentioned and then try to form an opinion on Hitler and his generals.
Mein Kampf was primarily written for the dumb german folk and you should be careful when you are trying to analyze it yourself...Hitler was quite good at controlling and brainwashing the crowds.
Generals like Guderian survived the war and spent years after it writing memoirs always portraying themselves as the truely brilliant commanders under the "delusional" "stupid" Hitler so I would be careful when I am reading anything from them either. Ever heard of a misnomer "Military Intelligence" ?
"All Hitler did was to approve the plan and sit back and dance jigs of delight when he heard how far the Panzers had thrust deep into France in so little time."
How did you come with something like that?
As I understand Hitler couldn't care less for any ideology. I think his main goal was world domination. You should read how he joined the Social Nationalist movement and how he later transformed something that was meant to be just a "worker's party" into something entirely different.
Hitler did a lot more than just foster the environment, he WAS the main cause of WW2 and his generals were just submissive pawns in his hands.
It is a very common thing for generals to be boasting about some military achievements which they never had anything to do with. If you read Von Clausewitz you will be able to see that there is a lot more to war than just generals and their ability to successfully carry out military operations.
From Von Clausewitz "On War":
"24.—War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.
We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the art of war in general and the commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception."
Hitler created a very strong politcal force in the country consisting of millions of germans...who later participated in the wars as soldiers under the generals that you mentioned. And he created it with one intention - to start a war. The generals were under exactly the same political influence as any common german. Any claim that the success of the german armies was brought about by a few charismatic generals I would rate as ludicrous and if you did put any one of those generals in command of the Reich...the life of the Third Reich would have been much shorter than it was.
This should prove my point : "...at that point Stalin ordered an all-out counter-offensive and the German front would certainly have collapsed if it wasn't for it's strong leadership in the face of Fuhrer...it was then that Hitler saved German armies only to come back and try to take revenge at Stalingrad and Kursk..."
It was Fuhrer who was in charge of everything and that was exactly what made german army so strong there was only one source of politics so soldiers (generals) rarely had to think too hard deciding which military action was right and which was wrong.
"The reason why the German Army held their lines in the face of a stiff Russian counterattack in the winter of 1941 had everything to do with the morale and spirit of the individual German soldier and the quality of their field commanders."
Sorry but that is just some mumbo-jumbo ... sounds like Mein Kampf had too much of a negative effect on you
"Dude you need to read some history and stop being so damm psychophantic towards Hitler! "
Ten times that back at you
"It was Hitler who did not allow the German industry to go onto a war footing in 1941 so that the German armies fighting in the coldest winter for 140 years were shivering and freezing to death in their summer uniforms."
Wow...I dont even know where to start...virtually irrelevant argument...yes "poor" german soldiers had to suffer the bitter cold... most likely because they didn't have enough trucks to transport all those coats to russia...it would have taken 10s of thousands of trucks for that task alone...they didn't have enough trucks for that...nor horses...they brought 700,000 horses with them remember? They ate them later.
Anyway I am going to sum all of this up: the generals could have only retarded the success of German armies...the more they argued with Hitler the more they undermined their own moral and the moral of the army overall...
"It was Hitler who ultimately cost his nation defeat in WW2 by virtue of his serious personality flaws that meant no-one else could be right and himself wrong. Not all of of Germany's military failures were Hitler's fault, but the major ones certainly belonged to him. If you're gonna attempt to defend Hitler please at least read up on some history first."
You will have to elborate on this one...it is all too easy to blame everything on one person...Germans lost because they never had enough resources/manpower for the task...one word: mission impossible. Hitler's genius at one point made it seem possible...yet he still failed.