Originally Posted by samneanderthal

I think Chalons is one of the best examples of propaganda. First of all, there were Goths, Romans, Franks, etc,
If Attila was defeated, why did he and most of his generals survive, the Goth king die in the battle, Aetius was executed and Rome pay ransom to avoid destruction by Attila a few months after Chalons? A true Roman victory usually resulted in obliteration of the enemy and Chalons certainly does not seem to be the case.
Chalons was the only large battle in which Attila relied on a large, slow foot army instead of elite horse archers.

The Italian army kicked the Brits out of Somalia and fought quite well with Rommel in Gazala, etc,

The Franks infantery charged Attila's Hunnish cavalry which had to retreat. The Franks couldn't chase them because they were on foot. But Attila was defeated because he had to retreat and the "allies" stood their ground.

The Italian victory in Somalia (the British were hugely outnumbered and inflicted a lot of casualties) was short lived, only a couple of months. And at Gazala the British (looking for a better way to retreat) broke through the Italian ranks.

Accounts of the battle of Chalons vary widely, some include Attila dismounting and then withdrawing on horse to his supply train where he resisted an attack, etc, However, the facts are that he and his generals survived, etc, the Goth king died, Aetius was executed and Rome bribed Attila out of attacking a few months later.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

In 1939 Japan, Italy, the USSR and Germany were an unbeatable force. Their combined navy, airforce and ground forces were formidable and their strategic location invaluable.

You know I read this over and over and for a while it made sense but then in a more lucid moment I realised a couple of things:
1) Yes it was a powerful air force but at best a short range one, not one of those listed had figured out the advantages of a long range, heavy strategic bomber.

2) In 1939 Japanese, Russian, German and Italian armour was crap, had it not been for superior tactics and a lot of luck the Germans would have had no where near the success rate they did.

3) The navy's of Russia and Italy (Christ every time they left port the RN sunk them and even when they surrendered the Germans sunk them) may as well have been non-existent, the Japanese for all of their "awesomeness" lost every single naval engagement it fought with the exception of the Battle of Savo Island and in every single case it bravely ran away even from the battles it could have won (Battle of Samar and Taffy 3 ring a bell) which leaves the Kriegsmarine and in 1939 was far too small to take on the Royal Navy and in the only case where significant numbers met the Royal Navy it lost (Norway 1940).

So what you have is essentially a large and fragmented land locked force on the European continent just like Napoleon.

4) This is probably the biggest point of them all, go read "Mein Kampf" and if at the end of it you can honestly tell me that one major aim of German expansion was not going to be eastward into Poland and Russia I will eat your sombrero.

So any agreement with Russia was always only going to be one of convenience and I would suggest Stalin and Hitler knew this along with every other world leader hence the level of surprise when the agreement was announced.

On top of this I suspect that had Germany not attacked Russia in 1941, Russia would have attacked Germany in 1943.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I find it rather funny that here in the Allied camp we are taught that the great German generals/leaders of WW2 were Rommel and Guderian ask anyone one about WW2 and you are left with the impression that had it not been for that pesky Hitler these two would have won the war on their own (although I think the medal for actually believing he could have won the war on his own should go to Erhard Raus).

Yet the more I read about them the more I am left with the impression that Guderian while no doubt competent constructed his own fame though his post war writings and Rommel just seems to have become the poster child for the anti-Hitler movement and people have developed somewhat "romanticised" views perhaps less based on his abilities and more on the myth.

I think you are absolutely right.
Guderian promoted himself quite sharply after the war. The myth as the father of Blitzkrieg is one he has created himself.

The truth is that Guderian can not be said to be the father of Blitzkrieg. He studied and translated the works of Basil Henry Liddell Hart and Charles de Gaulle and most specifically John Frederick Charles Fuller which is considered as the inventor of mechanized warfare techniques. Fuller collaborated with Hart in developing these ideas. These ideas were not implemented in England but ironically they did in Germany notably by Heinz Guderian. His book Achtung - Panzer! is largely based on the theories of Fuller. Not a direct copy (he refined some of these theories) but much of his work is strongly based on Fuller, Hart and also to a lesser degree on Charles de Gaulle.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Guderian was not a tank engineer...

The word engineer has many meanings in English.
In this connection it should be understood as a pioneer.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Guderian was a communications officer since WW I...

He joined the army in 1907 as a cadet in no. 10 Hanoverian Jäger Bataillon. Transferred in 1911 to the 3rd Telegraphen-Battalion of the Prussian Army Signal Corps. He served as a Signals and General Staff officer until he was transferred to army intelligence where he stayed until the end of the war.

Originally Posted by MontyB

On top of this I suspect that had Germany not attacked Russia in 1941, Russia would have attacked Germany in 1943.

Many high-ranking German staff officers were also of this conviction.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

The Italian army kicked the Brits out of Somalia and fought quite well with Rommel in Gazala, etc,

Maybe the newsreel of thousands of Italian POW's being escorted by one British soldier is British propaganda?

Originally Posted by Der Alte

I think you are absolutely right.
Guderian promoted himself quite sharply after the war. The myth as the father of Blitzkrieg is one he has created himself.

The truth is that Guderian can not be said to be the father of Blitzkrieg. He studied and translated the works of Basil Henry Liddell Hart and Charles de Gaulle and most specifically John Frederick Charles Fuller which is considered as the inventor of mechanized warfare techniques. Fuller collaborated with Hart in developing these ideas. These ideas were not implemented in England but ironically they did in Germany notably by Heinz Guderian. His book Achtung - Panzer! is largely based on the theories of Fuller. Not a direct copy (he refined some of these theories) but much of his work is strongly based on Fuller, Hart and also to a lesser degree on Charles de Gaulle.

I would agree I tend to lean toward Ernst Volckheim and Hans von Seeckt as the "father" of the Panzer forces but the likes of Wilhelm Brandt and Fritz Heigl also played major roles.

I believe you are right in saying that Guderian refined the work of many armoured theorists to come up with Blitzkrieg in its final form.

Originally Posted by Der Alte

John Frederick Charles Fuller which is considered as the inventor of mechanized warfare techniques.

No, it can not be!
We Englishman are too stupid to wage war. We have never invented anything that can be used in war. Our generals were incompetent and our leaders alcoholic. We stood on the sidelines while Uncle Sam Saved our ass.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I would agree I tend to lean toward Ernst Volckheim and Hans von Seeckt as the "father" of the Panzer forces but the likes of Wilhelm Brandt and Fritz Heigl also played major roles.

I am impressed.
These people are not very well known outside of Germany.
You are absolutely right. You have a good understanding of German military history.

Originally Posted by 42RM

No, it can not be!
We Englishman are too stupid to wage war. We have never invented anything that can be used in war. Our generals were incompetent and our leaders alcoholic. We stood on the sidelines while Uncle Sam Saved our ass.

Ha ha ha!
So I understand.

Originally Posted by 42RM

No, it can not be!
We Englishman are too stupid to wage war. We have never invented anything that can be used in war. Our generals were incompetent and our leaders alcoholic. We stood on the sidelines while Uncle Sam Saved our ass.

Yes,and you were defeated by Italy that had a very good Army:well,that's what Sam is claiming,and,we know what we can do with Sam's claims ?