Turning point of WW2 - Page 8

June 3rd, 2004  
Originally Posted by Armour
I do not believe that you know enough about Hitler to judge him in any respect. I almost feel like not writing anything else here but simply suggest that you go and read or re-read the books I've mentioned and then try to form an opinion on Hitler and his generals.
Mein Kampf was primarily written for the dumb german folk and you should be careful when you are trying to analyze it yourself...Hitler was quite good at controlling and brainwashing the crowds.
Generals like Guderian survived the war and spent years after it writing memoirs always portraying themselves as the truely brilliant commanders under the "delusional" "stupid" Hitler so I would be careful when I am reading anything from them either. Ever heard of a misnomer "Military Intelligence" ?
I've read enough about Hitler and his Generals to form a worthwhile, informed opinion, one which is shared I might add by the vast majority of military historians I've ever read or heard about. Please quote me from a respected source that states Hitler was a military genius and master strategist and I'll promise to view it with an open mind.

It's true that Generals in their memoirs will make themselves look to be always right and someone else (usually Hitler) to be wrong. That is the nature of reading auto-biographies. But it's kinda funny how all of them say the same things about Hitler don't ya think?

Or do you think all those Generals and military experts, not just from Germany but from other countries as well could all be wrong and Hitler be right. Gosh, gee maybe?? /sarcasm off

Originally Posted by Armour
"All Hitler did was to approve the plan and sit back and dance jigs of delight when he heard how far the Panzers had thrust deep into France in so little time."

How did you come with something like that?
Again, please provide some evidence that Hitler had any real role in 'Fall Gelb', other than approving it.

Originally Posted by Armour
As I understand Hitler couldn't care less for any ideology. I think his main goal was world domination. You should read how he joined the Social Nationalist movement and how he later transformed something that was meant to be just a "worker's party" into something entirely different.
What Hitler did in 1930's Germany was remarkable, you'll have no argument with me on that score. But this discussion is about military planning and strategy.

Originally Posted by Armour
Hitler did a lot more than just foster the environment, he WAS the main cause of WW2 and his generals were just submissive pawns in his hands.
It is a very common thing for generals to be boasting about some military achievements which they never had anything to do with. If you read Von Clausewitz you will be able to see that there is a lot more to war than just generals and their ability to successfully carry out military operations.
From Von Clausewitz "On War":
"24.óWar is a mere continuation of policy by other means.
We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the art of war in general and the commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception."
Of course he caused WW2! But to say his Generals were submissive pawns in his hands is just flat out incorrect. Of course some were afraid of Hitler but I think you'll find that the abler Generals stood up to Hitler and were definately not submissive pawns. That is ludicrious.

It's fair to say to begin with there was a great deal of love and admiration towards Hitler by most if not all of his Generals. After all, he had brought the Army from the humilating terms of the Versaille Treaty and turned it into a thoroughly modern mechanised force with no expense spared on it. Hitler actually gave his Generals a relatively free hand in the first couple of years of the war. It's when he assumed the CinC role of OKH and tried to do everything himself that things began to fall apart.

Guderian argued with Hitler in November 1941 when the latter told him no retreat and to stand and die where they stood.

Does 'stand and die' sound like the advice of a brilliant strategist? Had the German generals obeyed that order the Wehrmacht would have been severly mauled, perhaps fatally so.

Hitler was indirectly responsible for the destruction of the 6th Army and part of the 4th Panzer Army at Stalingrad, by not allowing it to retreat when it was in danger of encirclement. He allowed himself to be persuaded by Herman Goering that the Luftwaffe could supply the trapped forces by air. Frederick Von Paulus, the commander of 6th Army, knew that this was an impossibility but was constantly denied by Hitler to retreat. Hitler even promoted Paulus to Field Marshall because he knew that Paulus knew that no German Field Marshall had ever surrendered. Hitler did not care one iota for all those loyal German soldiers - all he cared about was his stubborn feud with Stalin.

Originally Posted by Armour
Hitler created a very strong politcal force in the country consisting of millions of germans...who later participated in the wars as soldiers under the generals that you mentioned. And he created it with one intention - to start a war. The generals were under exactly the same political influence as any common german. Any claim that the success of the german armies was brought about by a few charismatic generals I would rate as ludicrous and if you did put any one of those generals in command of the Reich...the life of the Third Reich would have been much shorter than it was.
Ok questions for you?

1. Who developed the German Panzer arm and came up with the notion of 'Blitzkrieg' ?

2. Who spearheaded the German Panzers in the Battle of France?

3. Who punched through the Soviet defences at the start of Operation Barbarossa and drove thousands of miles, capturing huge amounts of territory and hundreds of thousands of prisoners?

4. Who masterminded the vital recapture of Kharkov in early 1943 that saved Army Group South from destruction?

Was it Hitler?

Well, was it?

Originally Posted by Armour
This should prove my point : "...at that point Stalin ordered an all-out counter-offensive and the German front would certainly have collapsed if it wasn't for it's strong leadership in the face of Fuhrer...it was then that Hitler saved German armies only to come back and try to take revenge at Stalingrad and Kursk..."

It was Fuhrer who was in charge of everything and that was exactly what made german army so strong there was only one source of politics so soldiers (generals) rarely had to think too hard deciding which military action was right and which was wrong.

"The reason why the German Army held their lines in the face of a stiff Russian counterattack in the winter of 1941 had everything to do with the morale and spirit of the individual German soldier and the quality of their field commanders."

Sorry but that is just some mumbo-jumbo ... sounds like Mein Kampf had too much of a negative effect on you

"Dude you need to read some history and stop being so damm psychophantic towards Hitler! "

Ten times that back at you
Hehe BTW you need to learn what psychophantic means. You ARE psychophantic towards Hitler.

Originally Posted by Armour
"It was Hitler who did not allow the German industry to go onto a war footing in 1941 so that the German armies fighting in the coldest winter for 140 years were shivering and freezing to death in their summer uniforms."

Wow...I dont even know where to start...virtually irrelevant argument...yes "poor" german soldiers had to suffer the bitter cold... most likely because they didn't have enough trucks to transport all those coats to russia...it would have taken 10s of thousands of trucks for that task alone...they didn't have enough trucks for that...nor horses...they brought 700,000 horses with them remember? They ate them later.
Why is this 'virtually irrelevant'? There is numerous documented evidence of German soldiers freezing to death as a result of the inadequate summer uniforms they were still wearing. 'Bitter cold?' Dude, we are talking about the coldest Russian winter for 140 years where temperatures got down to minus 40 degrees. That is a big deal for an army in proper winter clothing never mind those still wearing light summer uniforms.

German industry was denied by Hitler to go onto a war footing because he wanted to spare the German people the harshness and rigours of war. That decision possibly cost him victory in 1941. Sounds like a pretty big deal to me and a rather unwise decision by Hitler.

Originally Posted by Armour
Anyway I am going to sum all of this up: the generals could have only retarded the success of German armies...the more they argued with Hitler the more they undermined their own moral and the moral of the army overall....
Uh but don't Generals have to like, lead, the armies? Or do you think that Hitler was gonna command every unit from Battalion level upwards.

BTW the word is moralE not moral, which means something entirely different. Perhaps if Hitler hadn't suggested courses of action that were clearly unwise his Generals wouldn't have argued?

Do you think attacking Stalingrad and then launching 'Operation Zitadel' were sound military decisions? Hitler obviously did as he approved them.

Originally Posted by Armour
"It was Hitler who ultimately cost his nation defeat in WW2 by virtue of his serious personality flaws that meant no-one else could be right and himself wrong. Not all of of Germany's military failures were Hitler's fault, but the major ones certainly belonged to him. If you're gonna attempt to defend Hitler please at least read up on some history first."

You will have to elborate on this one...it is all too easy to blame everything on one person...Germans lost because they never had enough resources/manpower for the task...one word: mission impossible. Hitler's genius at one point made it seem possible...yet he still failed.
Your opinion and totally wrong. I might have some more sympathy if you actually came up with some compelling reasons to support your claims. I at least have provided some facts (that can be verified by just a little searching on the internet) that Hitler was most certainly responsible for many of the mistakes that cost Germany the War in Europe.

Anyway nice debating with ya, even if you are utterly wrong on most counts
June 3rd, 2004  
June 3rd, 2004  
What about the US bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki

June 3rd, 2004  
Fall of Berlin,thats a "turning point" of WWII
June 3rd, 2004  
Mark Conley
1. would the two essay writers please report to the principals office? I will join you in a few minutes...with a tube of super glue, you two should join quite nicely..(they were good essays by the way, i did enjoy the points of view but....)

2. I think enough has been said about this topic. It will be locked untill someone can PM with a reason as to why it should be re-opened.

okay, that convinced me to re-open the topic. The topic is turning points of World War II. and if you want to essay, essay by all means, but lets keep it civil.

stay on the topic!
June 4th, 2004  

THIS ONE IS FOR DOODLEGRABBER ( did i spell that correctly?)


June 4th, 2004  
Mark Conley
SYCOPHANTIC [adj] attempting to win favor from influential people by flattery. Synonyms: bootlicking, fawning, insincere, obsequious, toadyish

Ok....So just what does this word have to to with the turning point of WWII?

You people really need to take it to personal messaging if you want to continue this bickering and word tossing. Not here. Not anymore.

Last Warning: Stay on the topic of the Turning Point of WWII...or the topic will not only be locked...but we will see if we can modify the offenders on-line behavior through isolation.
June 25th, 2004  
Young Winston
Definitely the Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point. When the Germans were halted in 1941 in the Battle of Moscow, was probably the most significant event in WW2. If the Soviets had completely collapsed in 41, it would have been extremely difficult to remove the Germans from Western Europe later on. I don't how the Allies would have done it without a greater loss of human life amongst the Western powers. The war would have dragged on for years. On an equal footing I think the German units, commanders and generals were more professional overall than us. General Patton still would have given the Germans a run for their money in Europe. Our overall industrial muscle probably would have made the difference in the end. Thank goodness Hitler stuffed things up on the Eastern Front.
June 25th, 2004  
i think it was the yanks coming into the war that was the turning point. they brought the biggest industrial power in the world behind them and had some great weapons (Springfield/.30 cal/thompson, etc)
which were massively effective against the enemy. they also brought great manpower, which really was the weapon to break the deadlock.
July 27th, 2004  
I'd go for Moscow, plus Stalingrad or Leningrad, any battle that stopped the Germans winning on the Eastern front. If Russia was knocked out of the war there would be no invasion of France.
If Russia went down before winter '41 and Japan running amok in the Pacific, it may have been a bit sticky for Britain and the U.S.