Originally Posted by Der Alte

The idea of collective responsibility and collective superiority served the Germans well during the initial victorious stages of the war. German soldiers killed many hostages in reprisal for attacks against the Wehrmacht, they committed many atrocities. At the end of the war, when the war fortunes changed, the German changed the rules, the collective responsibility was substituted with individual irresponsibility. Individually the Germans did not know about the atrocities or could prevent them. The Germans were not responsible for the atrocities they did not commit, the individual murderers were not responsible for all the murders committed on orders from above. An order cannot be refused. Suddenly each SS-man saved some inmates, each German had a Jewish friend.

This explains the German psyche very well but what it doesn't explain is why today the German war effort is better known by most people than their own countries efforts, why is that in many cases German war "myth" (The atomic bomb etc.) is being accepted as fact when clearly it wasn't, it is almost as though there is a certain regret that Germany lost.

I find it incredibly strange that there is almost a glorification of the Wehrmacht while all that failed was "Hitler's incompetence", everything that went right was because of Rommel, Guderian or one of the half dozen socially acceptable Generals everything that went badly was Hitler, Goering etc.

Monty.
My own theory is that the romance with the German army is based on the idea of "The lost Cause", the same as the attraction for the Confederate army particularly the Army of Northern Virginia under R.E. Lee. The romantic notion of a doomed fight by great warriors against insurmountable odds has a great pull on the imagination. One needs to look past "the good fight" to see the rotten political system behind the great warriors.

Originally Posted by Der Alte

Monty.
My own theory is that the romance with the German army is based on the idea of "The lost Cause", the same as the attraction for the Confederate army particularly the Army of Northern Virginia under R.E. Lee. The romantic notion of a doomed fight by great warriors against insurmountable odds has a great pull on the imagination. One needs to look past "the good fight" to see the rotten political system behind the great warriors.

I think you are probably correct but surely it does not take a great amount of effort to realise that in both cases had the "under dog" won it would have been a nightmare on a global scale.

Also this does not explain the continuing animosity towards the Japanese soldier of the period because I am not entirely certain Japanese atrocities were any worse than the corresponding German ones, certainly the war in Russia was just as bad as anything the Japanese managed to do.

Originally Posted by MontyB

This explains the German psyche very well but what it doesn't explain is why today the German war effort is better known by most people than their own countries efforts, why is that in many cases German war "myth" (The atomic bomb etc.) is being accepted as fact when clearly it wasn't, it is almost as though there is a certain regret that Germany lost.

I find it incredibly strange that there is almost a glorification of the Wehrmacht while all that failed was "Hitler's incompetence", everything that went right was because of Rommel, Guderian or one of the half dozen socially acceptable Generals everything that went badly was Hitler, Goering etc.

This is not strange :it started with LIddell Hart,and it still is continuing :it is an anathema,social and political suicide to even suggest that Hitler could have some military capabilities .
Thus,every one is continuing the old and false theories that the victories were due of the generals and the defeats because of Hitler .

Originally Posted by Trooper1854

Once Hitler took over from the high command, he became too involved as a supreme commander.
The modern term is "Micro manage"
He wouldn't just give the orders for an offensive, but he would give orders down to a tactical level, such as the placement of machine gun position, troop tactics etc, reducing his field commanders to nothing more than messengers.
The only way for commanders to exploit situations in combat was to disobey direct orders, and hope his gamble worked.
The role of Ultra was vital, most historians agree it took two years off the war.
If you ever get a chance to visit Bletchley Park, its well worth it. Such a fascinatining place, and sadly very run down, needing as much financial input as possible.

The English are renowned for not preserving places or equipment of historical significance. Is there one WW2 battleship or cruiser preserved? The TSR2 a plane of great importance destroyed on orders from the Government.What other places have been destroyed?

Originally Posted by MontyB

You know what?
I think there is far too great a tendency to blame Germany's defeat on Hitler, there is no doubt he was a poor strategist but there were multiple reasons for Germany's defeat.

For example people refer to the Lotzen decision as the one that cost Germany the war in the East yet I personally can not find fault in Hitlers decision to send Guderian South rather than on to Moscow as the capture of Moscow would have left Army Group Centre in a huge salient with AG-North back at Leningrad and AG-South outside Kiev, if any mistake was made here is was Guderians insistence that he take all his forces South when they were not needed so there is a possibility that both objectives could have been reached.

The demise of the 6th Army at Stalingrad is another area Hitler takes the rap for, yet had the 6th Army withdrawn from Stalingrad while it could a sizable portion of Army Group A and B would have been trapped in the Caucasus and that would have been a far greater loss than that of the 6th Army, as it was they only just got back in time even with the sacrifice.
Once again in my opinion while harsh Hitler's decision was the right one with respect to the over all situation.

Overall while I do not consider Hitler a great soldier but the decisions people seem to attack him over are possibly some of the few he actually got right and had the likes of Goering been more realistic in their abilities, Paulus not stopped for a 2 week rest outside Stalingrad allowing the city to be defended and von Richthofen not thought it was a great idea to bomb Stalingrad to rubble prior to the assault on the city thus turning it into a defenders paradise things may well have turned out differently for the 6th Army.

You mention Guderan not going on to Moscow. Was Moscow the holy grail? Napoleon actually took Moscow and look what happened to him.The Russians would only have retreated east and waited and when the German supply lines were too extended, swooped and destroyed his supplies.No, the war was over when Hitler invaded Russia.

Originally Posted by asma18

You mention Guderan not going on to Moscow. Was Moscow the holy grail? Napoleon actually took Moscow and look what happened to him.The Russians would only have retreated east and waited and when the German supply lines were too extended, swooped and destroyed his supplies.No, the war was over when Hitler invaded Russia.

I agree completely yet there are a number of people here who believe that the Lotzen decision was the turning point of the war, their view is that Moscow was the heart of Soviet Russia as well as an indispensable communications and transport hub and that Moscow's capture would have led to Russia surrender.

I tend to agree with you that capturing Moscow without securing either of its flanks (Army Group North was back at Leningrad and AG South around Kiev) would in all probability led to AG Centres destruction at the end of 1941.

However there is also a school of thought that says both Moscow and the drive south (to surround Kiev which would have secured the AG Centres Southern flank) could have been achieved had Guderian not insisted on taking his whole force south but instead split them.

Originally Posted by asma18

The English are renowned for not preserving places or equipment of historical significance. Is there one WW2 battleship or cruiser preserved? The TSR2 a plane of great importance destroyed on orders from the Government.What other places have been destroyed?

HMS Belfast (Cruiser - London).
HMS ALLIANCE (Submarine - Gosport).
HMS X24 (X Class Submarine - Gosport).
HMS CAVALIER (Destroyer - Chatham).

Originally Posted by asma18

The English are renowned for not preserving places or equipment of historical significance. Is there one WW2 battleship or cruiser preserved? The TSR2 a plane of great importance destroyed on orders from the Government.What other places have been destroyed?

Its the British, not just the English.

I agree with you totally, it's a damn shame that not one battleship has been preserved. However, there is HMS Belfast moored on the River Thames. Not much I know considering Britain Naval history.

Ah the TSR2. She ticked all the right boxes apart from the political one. It can be laid at the feet of Churchill's idiot son in law Duncan Sandy's who stated in a white paper that piloted aircraft are a thing of the past. The TSR2 was scrapped as well as a crap load of other projects on the drawing board.

As I have said many times, politicians should stick to what they know, getting drunk, shouting abuse at the opposition and fiddling their expenses.

So much of British history has been lost because of idiotic British Governments always pleading poverty, yet can find millions to give to despotic leaders like Mugabe.

Originally Posted by MontyB

HMS Belfast (Cruiser - London).
HMS ALLIANCE (Submarine - Gosport).
HMS X24 (X Class Submarine - Gosport).
HMS CAVALIER (Destroyer - Chatham).

I was totally unaware of the last three.

The Battle of Britain flight has at least kept a few WW2 aircraft in the air, but there are still too many omission's, such as the Mosquito, the Wellington, Halifax and Sterling.

Originally Posted by asma18

The English are renowned for not preserving places or equipment of historical significance. Is there one WW2 battleship or cruiser preserved? The TSR2 a plane of great importance destroyed on orders from the Government.What other places have been destroyed?

Thats a bit unfair.
There are numerous museums such as Hendon, Cosford, Duxford, Imperial War Museums in London and Manchester, the Cabbinet War Rooms, the National Army Museums, the Mosquito Museum, the Shuttleworth Collection, the Muckleborough Collection etc.
HMS Belfast is a Cruiser preserved in the Pool of London and there are numerous other smaller private museums.
Nearly every regiment of the British Army have their own museums, all open to the public.

The UK was turned into a huge Airbase, Army camp, and Naval base during WWII. Farm land was taken and villages evacuated to build military instalations. When the war ended, people wanted their land and homes back.
I live in an area surrounded by old 8th Airforce bomber bases. These were all built on farm land. The airfields may have gone but magnificent memorials stand on the sites and in nearby villages.
Glenn Millar was based in my home town, there ar memorials to him there and at the site of the old Twinwoods airfield, where he took off from when he disappeared, there is a fantastic museum:
http://www.twinwoodairfield.co.uk/tw...on-museum.html

We have a museum to the 306th Bomb Group USAAF nearby too:
http://www.306bg.co.uk/history.html

Bletchley Park was closed down and Station X's existence hidden for so long because the Soviet forces were using captured Enigma machines and we were reading their messages and as they never knew we had cracked Enigma, we dismantled Station X and shifted it all to a pupose built location that became GCHQ.
It would have been daft to advertise we could read their codes by creating a museum to the work and efforts of Bletchley Park.

The UK had suffered greatly in WWII and wanted to get back to normal as soon as they could. They weren't thinking of preserving things for prosperity, but of rebuilding and the future, but there are a multitude of Museums, national and private collections, so I would say we are renowned for preserving places and equipment of historical significance.

By the way, TSR2 was cancelled by the government on political grounds. Two airframes exist in Duxford and Cosford, and to be honest, they were not that great an aircraft! AND don't forget the only airworthy Vulcan is based in the UK http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

And finally! There is a team building a full size replica of the Short Stirling as none survived intact after the war, while RAF Cosford is fully refurbishing a Wellington and, the privately owned Lancaster "Just Jane" http://www.lincsaviation.co.uk/ is being restored to flying status so there will be three airworthy Lancasters in the world! AND! there is a number of DH Mosquitos being restored to airworthy status.

The point is Trooper, the Vulcan for example should be kept in the air by government grants, not relying on public donations.

There shouldn't be just replica's of aircraft, there should be airworthy examples. The only Wellington that comes to mind is one that pancaked into a Scottish Loch, yes she was recovered but only being rebuilt to static display standard.

I must admit I am highly chuffed that another Lancaster is being made airworthy.

Once again though, I firmly believe that all of these projects should be funded by government including the Mosquito's.