Originally Posted by MontyB

So how much of an effect did the breaking of German Air, Naval and Army codes play?

I have been very skeptical of German military intelligence during WW2, it seems to be completely off the mark in determining the enemy strengths and weaknesses and it flatly refused to believe that its codes had been broken for at least the last 3 years of the war.

If you consider how faulty the intelligence for Barbarossa was, a huge effect. The Germans had no right to be as successful as they were but the use of innovative tactics combined with aggressive commanders like Guderian; and the appalling unreadiness of the Red Army somewhat saved them from embarrassment.

Later on in the war, when Germany basically had no chance to win, the fact that Allied planners knew almost all of the German operational plans helped to shorten the war.

Maybe I should rephrase the question, how much worse could things have been if not for successful Allied intelligence?

For example how would the battle of the Atlantic gone had the allies not been able to direct convoys around uboat traps and direct warhips and aircraft onto uboats directly, what about Operation Lüttich could it have been successful had ultra not known about it from the beginning?

Originally Posted by MontyB

Maybe I should rephrase the question, how much worse could things have been if not for successful Allied intelligence?

For example how would the battle of the Atlantic gone had the allies not been able to direct convoys around uboat traps and direct warhips and aircraft onto uboats directly, what about Operation Lüttich could it have been successful had ultra not known about it from the beginning?

Operation Lüttich was thought to be suicidal irrespective of intelligence. Intelligence was probably more critical to the battle of the Atlantic in the early stages, prior to short wave radar and carrier escorts which would have turned the balance anyway. It is thought that intelligence shortened rather than determined the outcome of the war. Perhaps it was more beneficial to the allies since Stalin was always sceptical of second hand intelligence anyway. Not having the required intelligence may have resulted in a communist mainland Europe after the war.

Man for man, the Germans on the whole had the most skillful fighting units of the war. Attacking Russia was their major mistake. The Americans and British would have had terrible trouble taking on the best units the Germans had to offer if most had not been destroyed in Russia.

I think the Germans had plenty of good folks but I am not sure if I'd agree with the man for man part. I kind of feel and felt the Japanese had that one wrapped up.

Originally Posted by AikiRooster

I think the Germans had plenty of good folks but I am not sure if I'd agree with the man for man part. I kind of feel and felt the Japanese had that one wrapped up.

The Germans were far more professional than anyone else (if you leave Hitler out).

If we check the result of the last free election before Hitler took power, it can be seen, that two thirds of the electorate voted against him. To win a war, you need at least the support of the people in your own army. This did not exist although many a good man died in the belief that he was fighting for for his family and country. Whether Germany really started the war is a question which I find has not been answered. There are too many so-called facts which have never been proved, but are accepted because otherwise we would have to rewrite history.

Better soldiers.....Well to start with as they had quite of bit of experience from the civil war in Spain. War is the greatest teacher of all, you should always be learning new tactics and bringing on new weapons, your troops become battle harden which give them the edge over green troops. When WW2 started the Germans had more men under arms and better equipped do to their guns before butter policy, and there factories geared up to a higher level for producing military gear, so they started with a bigger advantage. It took the Allies a while to get into gear and start out producing the Axis and getting enough well trained men into the field. When you start at a low level you fighting hard just to keep up with your losses before you can start to out build your enemy

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Better soldiers.....Well to start with as they had quite of bit of experience from the civil war in Spain. War is the greatest teacher of all, you should always be learning new tactics and bringing on new weapons, your troops become battle harden which give them the edge over green troops. When WW2 started the Germans had more men under arms and better equipped do to their guns before butter policy, and there factories geared up to a higher level for producing military gear, so they started with a bigger advantage. It took the Allies a while to get into gear and start out producing the Axis and getting enough well trained men into the field. When you start at a low level you fighting hard just to keep up with your losses before you can start to out build your enemy

The Germans had more experience but they neither had more men under arms nor where their factories geared up to a higher level. The Germans did not move to a war footing until fully 3 years of war had passed.

The reason why the Germans were so successful initially?

Training, tactics, personal initiative at every level of the German Army and the element of surprise.

It took until the 1980s before the US Army, for example, actually began to catch up with the doctrine of the Germany Army of 1939.

Originally Posted by Englander2

(...)Whether Germany really started the war is a question which I find has not been answered. There are too many so-called facts which have never been proved, but are accepted because otherwise we would have to rewrite history.

Oh come on! You know better than that, do you want to tell me that Hitler didin't want a war? In my eyes there is no doubt that the germans started it.