I disagree regarding the lack of improvement on the German and Japanese fighting ability as the war progressed.
Despite total dominion of the air, artillery and sea and overwhelming equipment, supplies and numerical superiority in Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, the eartern front, Peleliu, the Philippines in 1944, Iwojima, Courland, etc, Axis defenses did not collapse like the allied defenses did in Norway, France, Greece, the Ukraine, Singapore, the Philippines in 1941-42. Even the Italians were fighting much better under Rommel in 1943 than alone against the British in 1940-41 and the Finns, Romanians, Lithuanians and Hungarians fought better late in the war, as they gained experience against ever more powerful forces.
I also disagree regarding the statement that Germany was better armed than its opponents at the beginning. German tanks in France were inferior in quality and number, the Ju-52, Stuka and He-111 were quite obsolete and the Bf-109 becomming so (compared to the Spitfire). The allies had excellent weapons and troops (many also with WW I experience), but lousy leaders who used them ineffectively. The Germans were very successful mostly because of superior leadership. Among the few allied leaders that I admire are the Poles and Greeks, which used well small, poorly equiped armies.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

I disagree regarding the lack of improvement on the German and Japanese fighting ability as the war progressed.
Despite total dominion of the air, artillery and sea and overwhelming equipment, supplies and numerical superiority in Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, the eartern front, Peleliu, the Philippines in 1944, Iwojima, Courland, etc, Axis defenses did not collapse like the allied defenses did in Norway, France, Greece, the Ukraine, Singapore, the Philippines in 1941-42. Even the Italians were fighting much better under Rommel in 1943 than alone against the British in 1940-41 and the Finns, Romanians, Lithuanians and Hungarians fought better late in the war, as they gained experience against ever more powerful forces.

I would argue that the Italians never fought well at any stage of the war but as for the Finns, Romanians, Lithuanians and Hungarians have you considered that they the reason their fighting ability improved towards the end of the war was partially due to them fighting on home soil, defending ones homeland and people brings about desperation that perhaps doesn't exist 1000 miles into enemy territory.

I really wish you would think about what you are saying, when you accuse people of being incompetent you are also effectively condemning both sides, the logical conclusion of your argument that Allied leadership was incompetent is that the Axis leadership had to be even more incompetent (after all they lost to an incompetent Allied side) and in doing so you are also saying that phenomenal number of men died for no real purpose and for those of who had family fight in WW2 that is rather annoying, I can only imagine how those that were there think about your comments.

** Sorry for the rather abrupt and poorly written post, I had 4 minutes before I had to be out the door**

Originally Posted by MontyB

I would argue that the Italians never fought well at any stage of the war but as for the Finns, Romanians, Lithuanians and Hungarians have you considered that they the reason their fighting ability improved towards the end of the war was partially due to them fighting on home soil, defending ones homeland and people brings about desperation that perhaps doesn't exist 1000 miles into enemy territory.

I really wish you would think about what you are saying, when you accuse people of being incompetent you are also effectively condemning both sides, the logical conclusion of your argument that Allied leadership was incompetent is that the Axis leadership had to be even more incompetent (after all they lost to an incompetent Allied side) and in doing so you are also saying that phenomenal number of men died for no real purpose and for those of who had family fight in WW2 that is rather annoying, I can only imagine how those that were there think about your comments.

I think it is useless to ask Sam to think .
One always must think the opposite of what he is saying .
There are a lot of exemples of collapsing Axis defenses :
AGB collapsing in Normandy
AGG collapsing in the south of France
Bagration
Rommel fleeing because of Crusader
etc
I also would like to remark that the US defense in the Philippines did not collapse :it was holding out for 5 months,while at Stalingrad,6th Army was holding out for ...10 weeks

There is a big difference between leadership incompetence on the German and British sides. On the German side, very competent generals and field marshals were neutralized by Hitler's and Göring's incompetence, whereas on the British side Churchill and most of his Generals and field marshals were incompetent.

The axis lost in spite of fighting much better, mostly because Hitler did not coordinate well the initial attack, always wasting the invaluable surprise factor.
Getting back to Sun Tsu.
As I said, it was absurd to invade Poland first and alone, with the certainty that France and Britain would declare war and may invade Germany (as France actually did with little opposition, but withdrew) and then to allow Britain almost a year to transfer troops and equipment to France and the French a year to prepare for war.
It makes far more sense to:
a) Attack the poorly defended and critical places (Malta, Egypt, Aden, South Africa, Abadan, Ceylon, etc,), paralyzing Britain and depriving it of Persian oil that on the other hand is invaluable to the axis. If coordination with Japan and the USSR is not possible in 1939, then:
b) Together with Italy invade Malta and France on Sept 1, 1939 (without attacking Holland) and using German planes and troops to support the Italian forces, so that the French air force and army are weaker and not yet mobilized (like the Polish army was not mobilized) and the RAF is absent and Germany loses a few hundred planes invading France, instead of 2,000. If Poland attacks Germany it will be rapidly immobilized by mine fields, artillery and the LW wiping out the supply lines and Poland would be exposed to invasion by Stalin. By the time Britain declares war on Germany it would be too late to mobilize significant forces to France. Once France falls, Holland can be left neutral, as a source of contraband (as in WW I), saving a large occupation force or invaded with little opposition. With France in the Reich there is plenty or iron ore, factories, shipyards, manpower, etc, to increase production considerably in 1940.

Another critical mistake in Hitler's policy was to always consider the Poles as disposable material, instead of as an invaluable ally against Stalin. Had Hitler provided obsolete armament to Poland and urged Stalin to attack Poland after France fell. Hitler could have gained Poland as an ally (just as he did with Romania, Hungary, etc,). The invasion of the USSR would have been even more successful with an additional ally and and additional year of French industry and resources.

Germany could have also used French troops in the USSR and the French fleet by reaching an arrangement to withdraw German troops from France as soon as Baku fell, provided a half million French troops took part in the invasion of the USSR. The USSR was Hitler's ultimate goal and far more valuable than France.

Another mistake was the signing of the non aggression pact with Stalin. The important part of the pact was secret, so Hitler should have simply agreed to let Stalin invade Poland, Bessarabia, etc, while Hitler attacked France, without any non aggression pact that ruined Germany's credibility.

Attempting to re-write history is a sad affliction - brought about by spending far too long sat on your brain. I suppose if we replace Hitler with Churchill, Germany wins; oh right.

Accept the fact being comprehensively snuffed out by a band of nincompoops is no recommendation whatsoever. So stop crying foul, live with it. To the victors the spoils - the Nazi regime beaten down & trodden under foot. No question, no excuses - losers.

Ah, but just a moment, what do we now see; rub your eyes and take a look at post war Germany, a fine democratic state that now rules Europe. Think about it. Has Germany risen again?

samneanderthal, why don't you write down all your theories. (maximise the defense/offence capabilities of the fighting forces). Then try to fill it in: where do I put my best leaders? (they can only be at one place), how do I divide my fighter planes, bombers (you don't have enough),etc. Then put yourself in the position of the enemy and look for the weaknesses. You'll find plenty.
There is no such thing as a perfect defense/offence. If you strenghten one place another will weaken. You must make choices. And no leaders were incompetent. All of them had advantages and disadvantages.

Churchill was not incompetent. He gave his people hope, do you know what that is to people who think it is all over?

A preacher or an orator provides hope with words, a leader with victories.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Hi 84RFK,
The Norwegian merchant fleet was quite large and could have certainly contributed to supply Dunkirk.

True, the Norwegian merchant fleet was large, and modern with about 62% of the fleet running on diesel-propulsion, it was the worlds fourth largest merchant fleet, and with 42% modern tankers it made up about 18% of the worlds total tanker-tonnage.
It did contribute, but at the time of Dunkirk about 85% of it was spread out all over the world.

In short, it couldn't have done much at Dunkirk.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

I disagree regarding the lack of improvement on the German and Japanese fighting ability as the war progressed.
Despite total dominion of the air, artillery and sea and overwhelming equipment, supplies and numerical superiority in Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, the eartern front, Peleliu, the Philippines in 1944, Iwojima, Courland, etc, Axis defenses did not collapse like the allied defenses did in Norway, France, Greece, the Ukraine, Singapore, the Philippines in 1941-42. Even the Italians were fighting much better under Rommel in 1943 than alone against the British in 1940-41 and the Finns, Romanians, Lithuanians and Hungarians fought better late in the war, as they gained experience against ever more powerful forces.
I also disagree regarding the statement that Germany was better armed than its opponents at the beginning. German tanks in France were inferior in quality and number, the Ju-52, Stuka and He-111 were quite obsolete and the Bf-109 becomming so (compared to the Spitfire). The allies had excellent weapons and troops (many also with WW I experience), but lousy leaders who used them ineffectively. The Germans were very successful mostly because of superior leadership. Among the few allied leaders that I admire are the Poles and Greeks, which used well small, poorly equiped armies.

I fought in that war but in your eyes war veterans are probably overrated.
War is not about guns or bombs, war is about people. War is a means to an end. It involves people and like people it cannot be stereotyped. Every conflict is different because the people and circumstances are different. War by its very nature is chaos incarnate. War is fought by people under pressure and people become very unpredictable under that pressure. People think differently, interpret orders differently, see the situation differently and are under pressure so they react differently than may be expected.

Although wars are different in respect to reasons and actions, the nature of war remains consistent and can be characterized by having the following different aspects.

Friction is what makes the seemingly easy tasks into difficult tasks. Digging a hole is usually easy and relatively stress free. Digging a hole while under fire and bombardment is not.

Uncertainty is the Fog of War. In a war zone one never knows exactly what the enemy is up to, where he is and why he is doing what he is doing. Uncertainty is about those secrets you don't know and uncertainty is not knowing exactly what your commander or subordinates are thinking or doing. It is so easy to make a mistake if you don't have all the facts and information but facts and information is frequently the last thing you have.

Fluidity is the constantly developing situation. Each situation is different and requires a different approach. Things do not just 'happen' they evolve. The enemy doesn't just attack from nowhere. They have to come from their base and they usually have a very specific goal, failing that goal they WILL try something else. The side with the best ability to adapt to the situation and shape it to their advantage has a powerful tool.

Disorder is what conflict usually becomes. The longer a battle is fought the more chaotic it will become. If a subordinate leader is killed or gets lost then the commander will have no idea what is going on with that sub unit. The longer a battle goes on the more chances are that the someone will get killed, wounded or lost. When that happens a link in the chain of information is removed.

The Human Dimension is the clash of opposing, violent wills. It is human nature that leads us to fight. It is lies and truths of others, tied together in a tapestry of confusion, that leads people to fight and kill each other.

Violence and Danger is also the nature of war. This causes a great deal of fear among the combatants. Fear of getting killed, fear of getting friends killed, fear of killing another man. Killing is the final option. You cannot apologize to a dead man and some people find that they are unwilling to use that final option. Others realize that if they do not use that final option then someone they know and care for may die. The violence and danger affect people in many different ways and everyone is different, and until they have received the baptism of fire, unpredictable.

You sit and clinically evaluate a profession you have never been part of and also has the audacity to contradict people who have a concrete knowledge. You demean an entire nation - the United Kingdom. A proud nation who paid in blood so you could grow up in a free world.

Honor and devotion means probably not a lot to you but for some of us it is the code we live by. It is a fine to be critical but there is also something called good manners and you Sir, have failed them both.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I really wish you would think about what you are saying, when you accuse people of being incompetent you are also effectively condemning both sides, the logical conclusion of your argument that Allied leadership was incompetent is that the Axis leadership had to be even more incompetent (after all they lost to an incompetent Allied side) and in doing so you are also saying that phenomenal number of men died for no real purpose and for those of who had family fight in WW2 that is rather annoying, I can only imagine how those that were there think about your comments.

I would call that person "Narcissistic".
Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal. In contrast, people who have healthy confidence and self-esteem don't value themselves more than they value others. The only thing you really can do is just not take him so seriously. Obviously he enjoys arguing, but nothing diffuses a person like this better than to treat them like the child that they are being. Don't let it annoy you, because that's exactly what he wants.

Originally Posted by Der Alte

Honor and devotion means probably not a lot to you but for some of us it is the code we live by. It is a fine to be critical but there is also something called good manners and you Sir, have failed them both.


I would call that person "Narcissistic".
Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal. In contrast, people who have healthy confidence and self-esteem don't value themselves more than they value others. The only thing you really can do is just not take him so seriously. Obviously he enjoys arguing, but nothing diffuses a person like this better than to treat them like the child that they are being. Don't let it annoy you, because that's exactly what he wants.

I am somewhat stumped in that I find myself in part agreeing with him but the way that he delivers the message makes it impossible to support or even develop a constructive argument around his views.

A good example is Churchill, I do not like the guy I think he was a warmonger and was very prone to "flights of fancy" operations that got people killed for no real gain but I also believe that it was his doggedness and spirit that motivated Britain and the Commonwealth to fight it out at a time that it would have been easy to just call it a day.

Essentially he was a great politician and a lousy General, he had his good and bad points and in the end came out on top, I am unsure whether there is anyone else out there that could have done better.