Let's talk about World War II

[TheMan]

You must binge on the History Channel.

I used to be way into WWII history but lately been into the Great War, WWI

[JohnnySic]

It actually seems as though Barbarossa was winnable for the Nazis, they just made a series of terrible blunders. That, and the Soviets had the tactical advantage of being more afraid of their own dictator than they were of the Germans.

EDIT: Also, Sea Lion would have probably been even more disastrous than Barbarossa. Britain's navy was extremely dominant, and the logistical problems involved with attempting to invade the island likely would have been insurmountable. Don't forget, the Germans AND Italians (lol) both went the entire war without ever building a single aircraft carrier.

Pearl Harbor though... yeah. Very very stupid decision. Like shooting a sleeping polar bear with a bb gun.

Barbarossa was only winnable if the Soviet Union collapsed from within after the initial attack (this was what the Germans hoped for). Once it became clear this wouldn

[Prometheus]

[QUOTE=JohnnySic]Barbarossa was only winnable if the Soviet Union collapsed from within after the initial attack (this was what the Germans hoped for). Once it became clear this wouldn

[Prometheus]

You must binge on the History Channel.

I used to be way into WWII history but lately been into the Great War, WWI

Not so much History Channel, moreso free online lectures and just lots of reading. History Channel docos are not often very clear and concise, and they prefer to just dramatize everything with lots of footage and anecdotal interview content. I prefer concise breakdowns of numbers and timelines.

As far as WWI, I feel you. I've been so fascinated with the second war for so long because of its massive scope and devastation... but it does seem that WWI was a more pivotal turning point in history. Almost as if everything that happened in WWII was just a natural evolution of geopolitical factors which had been building, whereas WWI seemed like a crucible in history which could have gone in so many different directions. In terms of understanding historical developments, WWI is probably the more important phenomenon to understand. And I barely understand it.

[SomeBlackDude]

Not so much History Channel, moreso free online lectures and just lots of reading. History Channel docos are not often very clear and concise, and they prefer to just dramatize everything with lots of footage and anecdotal interview content. I prefer concise breakdowns of numbers and timelines.

if you haven't already, check out 'wwii in colour'. think it's still on netflix.

[JohnnySic]

Not convinced of that. I haven't read anything which leads to those conclusions. Splitting the front three ways was not necessary, preparations for winter outside Moscow were insufficient, and Hitler refused evac of the 6th army after operation Uranus completed encirclement. Those are just a few basic, obvious blunders which needn't have happened. If any one of Leningrad, Moscow, or Stalingrad had fallen, the Eastern front would have turned completely. And they came damn close to taking Stalingrad.

Nah. The Germans suffered over a million casualties by the end of the winter fighting ‘41/42. They never really made up those losses. The Soviets lost even more men but they still had massive reserves and were just starting to get their production potential in order. By mid ’42 they were outproducing the Germans 2 to 1 (tanks etc) and the gap would widen from there; by ’44 it was 4 to 1. Even if the Germans had taken Moscow, it would have been a setback for the Soviets as Moscow was the center of communications but wouldn’t have changed much long term as most of the Soviet industry had been moved further east. The whole drive to Stalingrad and the oil fields was a waste of manpower and resources; the Germans should have fallen back on the defensive and tried to fight the war to draw while it was still feasible. As it was, everything that happened after ’41 was just playing out the string.

[Prometheus]

if you haven't already, check out 'wwii in colour'. think it's still on netflix.

Prob seen every episode at least twice already. tho it's mostly got the same qualities as the docos i mentioned. check out the hillsdale college free lectures

[bladefd]

This is not true at all. If you're talking about 1939 when fighting began in Europe, Britain and Germany both had very strong airborne forces, but British bombers and fighters had far superior range and load capacity. If you're talking about the war as a whole, the allies air advantage was absolutely staggering... 90% of all the aviation fuel and more than 90% of all air force personnel in the entire war was on the side of the Allies.

The myth of the Luftwaffe's supremacy was a result of their early succes vs. Poland, Denmark, Holland, Yugoslavia, etc... countries which were all surprise attacked, had little-to-no mobilization or preparations for war, and were neighbors within range of German air bases. They never built a four-engine bomber, and therefore never had the capacity to effectively cover the distance and deliver the loads necessary to cripple British production. They couldn't threaten Moscow, a thousand miles from Berlin, without first conducting massive ground operations to establish proximity. They were not remotely close to having any ability to reach America.

At no point in World War II did Germany have air or naval superiority to Britain alone. They were behind in technology from the start, and were matched and quickly exceeded in numbers.

At the beginning of ww2 and entering into the war, quite a few people considered the Luftwaffe arguably the best air-force in the world. Japanese too were up there. Yeah, they both lacked multi-engine long-range bombers so you could say they were always limited compared to the US/British. But if we are talking about single and dual engine fighters/small bombers, they were deadly as hell. They were never built for long-range assaults, which became their biggest achilles heel as the war progressed. They were focused on hitting fast and hard and then pulling out - essentially to support the ground troops and to cover their air zone defensively. They were unstoppable while focused on ground assaults/blitzkrieg, capturing ground territory alongside the Panzer/Tiger units, but that came to an end once they had France/Eastern europe by end of 1940.

The Brits had Spitfire and Hurricane, but at the start of the war, they were not in full production. Probably not until after the start of ww2, when they were shocked Hitler broke the "agreement" with Neville Chamberlain by invading Poland. By then, the Nazis had been building up their air-force for years! So the bold portion is not exactly correct.

As the war progressed and once the US came into play, the Germans realized they couldn't touch Britain and US without long-range bombers. So alright, you are right that Luftwaffe was no longer the best airforce once we reach 1941-42. US went into full production with the legendary p51 and British had the Spitfire in full production. Before that point, I would argue the Luftwaffe was the best air-force. Limited in versatility, yes, but lets not forget what they did to the french. Too many people think France did not have a powerful military due to the damage they took in ww1, which is false. France had a top 5 air-force in the world before the Germans destroyed them. Germany, Britain, Japs, France, and probably USSR had the top 5 air-forces in 1939 imo. The problem became the English channel - blitzkrieg was out of play once Nazis rolled down the Champs-Elysse in 1940 so the limitations in the Luftwaffe came into play. They tried to fix that with Messerschmidt but it was too late.

I do believe though that had Germany built a few aircraft carriers, Luftwaffe would have been perfect for it. You don't need long-range fighters if you have a moving airfield. You need to hit hard & fast and pull out, which would maximize their Luftwaffe. I believe that was my overall point, and it still stands. Even if Luftwaffe was not the best from 1941 to 1945.

[pastis]

1. the risk of an allied invasion in western europe was a permanent threat for the german high command. This was the reason why over 300.000 soldiers were deployed in Norway ( also protection of the important ore mines) and over 500.000 in France. Then you have round about 400.000 men in southern Europe, the balkans and Greece. And from mid 43 onwards over 20 germn divisions fought in Italy. All these troups could not be thrown on the eastern front. Add to this the Lend and lease contract, which gave russia millions of winter clothes, thousands of tanks and hundred thousands of cars and trucks to fully motorize their divisions. Furtheremore, because of the allied bombing terror, big parts of the german luftwaffe were needed to protect the cities and the war industry and could not attack on the eastern front

2. Stalingrad: Like Feldmarschall von Manstein said in his book "lost victories", from a strictly military point of view, the sacrifice of the 6th army was "necessary" - as hard as it sounds - to hold the southern front. the 6th army with its 300.000 men held 3 month against nearly 1 million soviet soldiers. this time was needed to retreat troops from the caucaus and to get reinforcements from France to build a new front at the river Don.
BTW: the soviet casualties were much more important during stalingrad and basically at every battle there was in WW2


btw: my grandfather, born in 1924 was drafted in 1942 and was selected as an officer cadet . after 15 month of officer training he was promoted second lieutenant on the 30 1.1944 and platoon commander on the eastern front at the Army group North, near Leningrad. His older brother was KIA in april 45 on the western front in the Ruhr-Kessel as a Feldwebel ( sergeant first class) after surviving 6 years of this war

[Prometheus]

1. the risk of an allied invasion in western europe was a permanent threat for the german high command. This was the reason why over 300.000 soldiers were deployed in Norway ( also protection of the important ore mines) and over 500.000 in France. Then you have round about 400.000 men in southern Europe, the balkans and Greece. And from mid 43 onwards over 20 germn divisions fought in Italy. All these troups could not be thrown on the eastern front. Add to this the Lend and lease contract, which gave russia millions of winter clothes, thousands of tanks and hundred thousands of cars and trucks to fully motorize their divisions. Furtheremore, because of the allied bombing terror, big parts of the german luftwaffe were needed to protect the cities and the war industry and could not attack on the eastern front

2. Stalingrad: Like Feldmarschall von Manstein said in his book "lost victories", from a strictly military point of view, the sacrifice of the 6th army was "necessary" - as hard as it sounds - to hold the southern front. the 6th army with its 300.000 men held 3 month against nearly 1 million soviet soldiers. this time was needed to retreat troops from the caucaus and to get reinforcements from France to build a new front at the river Don.
BTW: the soviet casualties were much more important during stalingrad and basically at every battle there was in WW2


btw: my grandfather, born in 1924 was drafted in 1942 and was selected as an officer cadet . after 15 month of officer training he was promoted second lieutenant on the 30 1.1944 and platoon commander on the eastern front at the Army group North, near Leningrad. His older brother was KIA in april 45 on the western front in the Ruhr-Kessel as a Feldwebel ( sergeant first class) after surviving 6 years of this war

I would love to ask you a million questions about your knowledge of the war. I can only know so much, reading in my free time here and there - it is such a source of fascination. Do you agree with the crude statement I made earlier about D-Day?

[sick_brah07]

a lot of Germans, Italians and Croatians got away with a shit load of murder then ran off to south america and Australia lol

Jasenovac concentration camp
Extermination camp in Croatia

[sick_brah07]

too many people died for no reason basically

[fiddy]

Murica helped the communists.

[Derka]

The Allies came in because the US, UK and France needed to have a say in shaping post-war Europe so as not to let the continent be overrun by Soviet Communism. France and Britain were in ruins and in no position to defend themselves against whatever aggression Stalin wanted to undertake. He'd have had all of Germany from whence to stage the westward expansion of communism.

World-wide socialism was the Soviet endgame and Marxist-Leninist theory taught that it wasn't just probable, it was inevitable.

[Prometheus]

The Allies came in because the US, UK and France needed to have a say in shaping post-war Europe so as not to let the continent be overrun by Soviet Communism. France and Britain were in ruins and in no position to defend themselves against whatever aggression Stalin wanted to undertake. He'd have had all of Germany from whence to stage the westward expansion of communism.

World-wide socialism was the Soviet endgame and Marxist-Leninist theory taught that it wasn't just probable, it was inevitable.

quick someome tell this to the poster above you