[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5agLW7fTzBc"]A good presentation[/ame], but perhaps a rather Anglo-American centric view of the war?

Perhaps he should have added that Hitler underestimated the power of Stalin's own brand of totalitarianism especially when driven to desperation, something which he almost achieved himself and should have understood.

Roberts also wrote the best seller 'The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War', hardly groundbreaking but again a good overview.

He also has some rather controversial political views.

I found it rather on target. Particularly in mentioning of Hitler's distain for the use of the strategic withdrawal. If the German commanders in the field were allowed this freedom of movement it would have saved the lives of many German solders. Instead Hitler often waited until it was to late to do anything but make a mad dash, leaving the heavy equipment behind. Although by this time the war was likely lost.
Also he flippantly declared war on the US perhaps his worse move in the war, good point.
He could have mentioned a bit more about Hitler's - Germany's errors -catastrophes in the USSR which is where the war was really lost for the most part.

I think his views were flawed right from the start where he claims WW2 was a war that Germany could have won, he then goes on to repeat and attempt to justify every common misconception about the war that has existed since the war.

Take for example his comments about operation Sealion he seems to attribute the German decision not to invade on the defeat in the Battle of Britain and ignores the fact that Germany did not have a navy capable of transfering the invasion force to the invasion beaches nor was it capable of defending the supply lines to those beaches therefore it was impossible to invade Britain (as indicated by the 1974 Sandhurst wargames).

Worst of all like all "armchair Generals" at no stage does he mention the Royal Navy who's actions in Norway had all but destroyed the German destroyer force and who's size and presence meant that any invasion of Britain was going to a suicide mission.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think his views were flawed right from the start where he claims WW2 was a war that Germany could have won, he then goes on to repeat and attempt to justify every common misconception about the war that has existed since the war.

Take for example his comments about operation Sealion he seems to attribute the German decision not to invade on the defeat in the Battle of Britain and ignores the fact that Germany did not have a navy capable of transfering the invasion force to the invasion beaches nor was it capable of defending the supply lines to those beaches therefore it was impossible to invade Britain (as indicated by the 1974 Sandhurst wargames).

Worst of all like all "armchair Generals" at no stage does he mention the Royal Navy who's actions in Norway had all but destroyed the German destroyer force and who's size and presence meant that any invasion of Britain was going to a suicide mission.

Yes I thought similarly when he mentioned the Battle of Britain. All the same surely it was a war Germany could have won, it depends what stage you wish to change history.

1) before Hitler's 'halt order' in late May 1940?

2) before the invasion of Russia?

3) before the declaration of war on the US?

would German defeat have been likely in all these cases?

It would be difficult to see a German defeat if large numbers of Ukrainians and 'White' Russian people defected to Hitler in retaliation for the atrocities of Stalin and the Reds.

Eminent Churchillians is a good book, but "Why Hitler lost the war-German strategic mistakes in WWII" is qualifying the author as a crap-writer :German mistakes in WWII were irrelevant for the outcome of the war (if there were any strategic mistakes,something which is questionable) .

Originally Posted by JOC

He could have mentioned a bit more about Hitler's - Germany's errors -catastrophes in the USSR.

There were no such things

Originally Posted by perseus

Yes I thought similarly when he mentioned the Battle of Britain. All the same surely it was a war Germany could have won, it depends what stage you wish to change history.

1) before Hitler's 'halt order' in late May 1940?

2) before the invasion of Russia?

3) before the declaration of war on the US?

would German defeat have been likely in all these cases?

It would be difficult to see a German defeat if large numbers of Ukrainians and 'White' Russian people defected to Hitler in retaliation for the atrocities of Stalin and the Reds.

There were a lot of Ukrainians and White Russians defecting to Hitler, but the result was still :the Soviets in Berlin .

Originally Posted by perseus

Yes I thought similarly when he mentioned the Battle of Britain. All the same surely it was a war Germany could have won, it depends what stage you wish to change history.

1) before Hitler's 'halt order' in late May 1940?

2) before the invasion of Russia?

3) before the declaration of war on the US?

would German defeat have been likely in all these cases?

It would be difficult to see a German defeat if large numbers of Ukrainians and 'White' Russian people defected to Hitler in retaliation for the atrocities of Stalin and the Reds.

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.

Originally Posted by lljadw

There were a lot of Ukrainians and White Russians defecting to Hitler, but the result was still :the Soviets in Berlin .

I have to comment on this.
More Ukrainians were murdered by the Nazi's than were Jews. Nearly 30 % of the population of White Russia "Belorussia" were wiped out by the Nazis. Yes a few jumped to the Nazi's side mainly to save their hide or due to old blood feuds with the Bolsheviks. Actually the most famous of these was the Don Cossacks. Hundreds perhaps as many as a thousand towns and villages in these countries were burned complete with the inhabitants locked inside the burning building. Watch the documentary the fight within "Blood upon the Snow". Hitler fought the war in the USSR as a 3 fold war. To gain resources (most of which the USSR was supplies in peace time), gain living room for the supposedly overpopulated Germany and a war of extermination against the Slavs.

Vadim Erlikman has detailed Soviet losses totaling 26.5 million war related deaths. Military losses of 10.6 million include 6.0 million killed or missing in action and 3.6 million POW dead, plus 400,000 paramilitary and Soviet partisan losses.
Civilian deaths totaled 15.9 million, which included 1.5 million from military actions; 7.1 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 1.8 million deported to Germany for forced labor; and 5.5 million famine and disease deaths. Additional famine deaths, which totaled 1 million during 1946–47, are not included here. Soviet repressions seems also to be not included. These losses are for the entire territory of the USSR including territories annexed in 1939–40. BTW Gorbachev said that the Soviet civilian dead was ~ 19 million.Belarus lost a quarter of its pre-war population, including practically all its intellectual elite. Following bloody encirclement battles, all of the present-day Belarus territory was occupied by the Germans by the end of August 1941. The Nazis imposed a brutal regime, deporting some 380,000 young people for slave labour, and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians more.[citation needed] More than 600 villages like Khatyn were burned with their entire population.[71] More than 209 cities and towns (out of 270 total) and 9,000 villages were destroyed.
Himmler pronounced a plan according to which 3/4 of Belarusian population was designated for "eradication" and 1/4 of racially cleaner population (blue eyes, light hair) would be allowed to serve Germans as slaves.
Some recent reports raise the number of Belarusians who perished in War to "3 million 650 thousand people, unlike the former 2.2 million. That is to say not every fourth inhabitant but almost 40% of the pre-war Belarusian population perished (considering the present-day borders of Belarus).
If the Nazi's crazed genocidal policies were not implemented on such a grand scale they likely would have won in the USSR as most Balts, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Chechens, Tartars would have gladly sided with Germany to throw off the Stalinist yoke. Instead he made them forget about Stalin by being in worse.

Originally Posted by JOC

If the Nazi's crazed genocidal policies were not implemented on such a grand scale they likely would have won in the USSR as most Balts, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Chechens, Tartars would have gladly sided with Germany to throw off the Stalinist yoke. Instead he made them forget about Stalin by being in worse.

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 .