Dr. A. Roberts presents: Why Hitler Lost the War - German Strategic Mistakes in WWII - Page 2




 
--
 
September 9th, 2014  
lljadw
 
I should advise Gerhard Weinberg in " WWII:Myths,Misconceptions and Surprises"(available on the web)
September 9th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
NO

1) A lot of people disliked Stalin,but most of them would not fight against Stalin.

2)A lot of Germans disliked Hitler,but they would not fight with the allies against Hitler.

3) A lot of Soviets disliked the Germans,but most people in the occupied territories were not fighting against the Germans.

4) If more Balts,etc were joining the Germans,it would not help the Germans,because the Germans had not even sufficient weapons for their own troops .


Besides,you are exaggerating the hostility in the SU to the regime:the hostility was concentrated in the territories annexed by the Soviets between 1939/1940.
Afaics,in the other parts of the SU(with some exceptions),there was no pronounced hostility to the regime .

This is also proven by the war : although there were a lot of Soviet POW,there were no mass surrenderings (with a few exceptions) and from the beginning,the Soviet soldier was fighting stubbornly .
1) Many people hated Stalin and would fight against him if the Germans went in as liberators. I named many of the groups in my previous post.

2) Hitler had a 90% approval rating and was seen as a God like figure by many Germans. Even in the end the when defeat was certain they still remained loyal except for some of the officer corps.

3) People in occupied Europe fought the Nazis. France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Poland, the USSR, Holland Belgium, Norway, Greece all had resistance cells that tied up valuable German troops and caused some irreparable damage “heavy water in Norway, mountain passes in the Balkans that took months to clear”.

4) Of the peoples who joined the Waffen SS so called foreign legions most performed rear guard duty. I’m sure a few extra mousers could be found when needed.
Belorussia, Ukraine, Chechnya, the Crimea, Kalmytaka were not annexed in 1939/1940 all these countries were all very hostile to Stalin

Are you kidding no country has ever had 5 million POW’s in the history of warfare, 700,000 at Kiev alone.

I will give you that one the Soviet Soldier may not have been as well trained and professional as his German counterpart but they were stubborn and fought to the death. Besides what was the alternative surrender and die at the hands of the Nazi’s or retreat and get shoot by blocking troops.
September 10th, 2014  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC

3) People in occupied Europe fought the Nazis. France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Poland, the USSR, Holland Belgium, Norway, Greece all had resistance cells that tied up valuable German troops and caused some irreparable damage “heavy water in Norway, mountain passes in the Balkans that took months to clear”.

This is a widespread misconception : A FEW people in occupied Europe fought the nazis (most had only one aim : to survive),live was going on .

That they tied up valuable German troops and caused irreparable damage is postwar resistance propaganda .
--
September 10th, 2014  
lljadw
 
[quote=JOC;677794]

700,000 at Kiev alone. [/quote ] postwar propaganda

official (and INFLATED) German figures on Soviet POW in 1941

june : 112000

july: 700000

august : 700000

september : 1 million

october : 1.03 million

november : 290000

december : 75000


at the end of the year,the Germans arbitrary decreased the total by 500000,because they did not believe (any more) their own figures .

Besides, 5 million POW does not indicate a bad moral,or unwillingbess to fight :France lost 1.7 million POW in 6 weeks and no one will say that they fought badly .

At the end of the summer of 1941,the offensive power of the WM had been broken : losses in august : 200000
September 10th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: Resistance in Europe WW2


Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
This is a widespread misconception : A FEW people in occupied Europe fought the nazis (most had only one aim : to survive),live was going on .

That they tied up valuable German troops and caused irreparable damage is postwar resistance propaganda .
I beg to differ
www.historylearningsite.co.uk/resistance_movements.htm
September 10th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
[quote=lljadw;677825]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC

700,000 at Kiev alone. [/quote ] postwar propaganda

official (and INFLATED) German figures on Soviet POW in 1941

june : 112000

july: 700000

august : 700000

september : 1 million

october : 1.03 million

november : 290000

december : 75000


at the end of the year,the Germans arbitrary decreased the total by 500000,because they did not believe (any more) their own figures .

Besides, 5 million POW does not indicate a bad moral,or unwillingbess to fight :France lost 1.7 million POW in 6 weeks and no one will say that they fought badly .

At the end of the summer of 1941,the offensive power of the WM had been broken : losses in august : 200000
Well the French certainly weren't at the top of their game with > 10 Frenchman dying for every German during the battle for France.

The Ostheer 1st began to see issues outside Moscow 'Operation Typhoon'. Even after the Moscow victory the Soviets suffered massive defeats in the winter of 42, losing 100.000 of thousands of more POW's and dead. However here is where the war of attrition started to set-in in which the Germans couldn't quite keep up with the seemingly limitless manpower resources of the USSR.
September 10th, 2014  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
4) None of the above.

One of the things that is never defined in these discussions is what conditions would have to have existed before Germany could have claimed victory.

In the broadest definition it was WORLD war II therefore logically Germany or its allies would have to have controlled the world which was never likely.

A more narrow definition would have been Germany controlling all of europe and the Atlantic (Urals to Los Angeles) just as unlikely for a nation that has not prioritised its navy and that had already lost the Battle of Britain.

The fact is that even at the height of the Axis power they never looked like being able to control the world.
I envisage the most likely scenario, barring Hitlers mania, and assuming some coordination between the various powers, was complete Axis control of Europe, Asia, Australasia & Africa, with the America's remaining independent.

If the UK and it's empire was taken, I couldn't really see the US attempting to continue a war with Germany at all. By what route would they attack Germany assuming Russia and the UK was under Axis control?
September 10th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
I envisage the most likely scenario, barring Hitlers mania, and assuming some coordination between the various powers, was complete Axis control of Europe, Asia, Australasia & Africa, with the America's remaining independent.

If the UK and it's empire was taken, I couldn't really see the US attempting to continue a war with Germany at all. By what route would they attack Germany assuming Russia and the UK was under Axis control?
Speaking for Germany and her satellite sates. I think if they had managed to knock the USSR out of the war which appeared feasible in 41 perhaps even into 42 an Nazi dominated Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals was tangable. I don’t know that Hitler was really interested in the rest of the so called world. Although I have heard of far flung plans to go further.
I don’t know how they would have managed to take Britain with Britain’s navy except, perhaps by staving them out with massive u-boats packs? However this thorn in Hitler’s side Britain would have always left an opening for the US. Hitler secretly hoped to make peace someday with Britain considering them fellow Aryans. Churchill would have none of this. Churchill once said “if Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil
September 11th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
Churchill would have none of this. Churchill once said “if Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil
This would be the same Churchill that created a famine in India/Bangladesh to ensure Britain had more than it needed?

I am sorry I realise that this will draw the ire of a few but Churchill was an a-hole.
September 11th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
This would be the same Churchill that created a famine in India/Bangladesh to ensure Britain had more than it needed?

I am sorry I realise that this will draw the ire of a few but Churchill was an a-hole.
I thought Britain depended heavily on lend lease for food? Spam and such.
 


Similar Topics
Turning point of WW2
"Tommy's Dictionary Of The Trenches" WWI
Animals in War Did you know.........?
Best Army Commander of the WW2 Allies
Allies and neutrals in WW2