Why the Allies won WW2
simon_says wrote:
There are of course dozens of reasons but I'd say Barbarossa was pretty decisive.
Without that Germany would have had a full strength, high quality German army fighting on the defensive, with more time to prepare for a wider war. Hard to beat. If they'd stayed out of the Japanese-US war? Better still.
Sometimes it's best to walk away with your winnings.
Without that Germany would have had a full strength, high quality German army fighting on the defensive, with more time to prepare for a wider war. Hard to beat. If they'd stayed out of the Japanese-US war? Better still.
Sometimes it's best to walk away with your winnings.
exactly another thing to put on the Hitler's not a bright bulb list.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
JakobVirgil wrote:
simon_says wrote:
There are of course dozens of reasons but I'd say Barbarossa was pretty decisive.
Without that Germany would have had a full strength, high quality German army fighting on the defensive, with more time to prepare for a wider war. Hard to beat. If they'd stayed out of the Japanese-US war? Better still.
Sometimes it's best to walk away with your winnings.
Without that Germany would have had a full strength, high quality German army fighting on the defensive, with more time to prepare for a wider war. Hard to beat. If they'd stayed out of the Japanese-US war? Better still.
Sometimes it's best to walk away with your winnings.
exactly another thing to put on the Hitler's not a bright bulb list.
Also he was a zealous man with little patients for waiting to strike at the right time he rushed into things to soon.
DreamLord
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 72
Location: Manchester, UK
Raptor wrote:
The Sturmgewehr series in its various forms (MkB-42, MP-43, StG-44, etc.) were groundbreaking small arms designs that were still in development during the course of the war. If I’d been a grunt in the Wehrmacht or Waffen SS I would have much preferred one over the more common K98k, MP-40, or even the G43.
The assault rifles used now are all descendants of the work of Hugo Schmeisser and associates.
Some of the others were actually simplified from their over engineered predecessors; e.g. the relationship of the P-08 (Luger) vs. the simpler Walther P-38 or the MG-34vs. the MG-42 are a few examples of small arms improvements by way of simplification via modernization.
The assault rifles used now are all descendants of the work of Hugo Schmeisser and associates.
Some of the others were actually simplified from their over engineered predecessors; e.g. the relationship of the P-08 (Luger) vs. the simpler Walther P-38 or the MG-34vs. the MG-42 are a few examples of small arms improvements by way of simplification via modernization.
I may have fluffed that out using small arms as examples. But they did fail to produce enough STGs, if they had them as the standard small arm by 1943, the war would have been very different. I don't blame Hitler for stalling their production, how could he ever think imagine that kind of weapon would exist.
Raptor wrote:
There were Jewish scientists (Otto Frisch, Klaus Fuchs, and maybe a few others) that fled the Reich and its holdings and ended up working with Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project. Had it not been for the anti-Semitism of the regime they could have gone to work for Germany.
Looking at it strictly in practical terms the anti-Semitic policies and actions of the Third Reich were a waste of valuable resources. Of the two, Hitler would have been better off focusing his wrath on communism and just forgotten targeting Jews all together. Why waste resources by killing another resource???
Looking at it strictly in practical terms the anti-Semitic policies and actions of the Third Reich were a waste of valuable resources. Of the two, Hitler would have been better off focusing his wrath on communism and just forgotten targeting Jews all together. Why waste resources by killing another resource???
I think the Germans made a mistake in blaming the whole Jewish race for Germany's problems, no doubt they were overepresented in the banks, the communist movement, the media and such but the majority are ordinary people. I stand corrected about that, lets just say science has never been my favourite subject.
Raptor wrote:
Volumes have been written praising Nazi Germany’s great military leaders.
Germany lost the war but the leadership and brilliance of some of its better military leaders stand on their own merit.
I wouldn’t go too far praising Dirlewanger or Eiche, though, because of their other darker activities and that’s putting it very mildly.
Germany lost the war but the leadership and brilliance of some of its better military leaders stand on their own merit.
I wouldn’t go too far praising Dirlewanger or Eiche, though, because of their other darker activities and that’s putting it very mildly.
I agree, at least about Dirlewanger anyway. Why they let him out of prison I don't know but he fought bravely enough.
Raptor wrote:
Maybe "the cause" lives on but it’s a weak cause at best. Not because of the left wing whiners but because the neo-Nazi movement at least in the United States has failed to entice enough of the public to achieve any real influence.
It’s a spent cause due to the lessons learned from the failure and tragedy of the Third Reich and enough other reasons, especially the genocide thingy, for me to write several pages on.
Hitler came at the right time in the right country and with the right message to move mountains THEN but that time has passed and I don’t think it’ll ever present itself like that again.
It’s a spent cause due to the lessons learned from the failure and tragedy of the Third Reich and enough other reasons, especially the genocide thingy, for me to write several pages on.
Hitler came at the right time in the right country and with the right message to move mountains THEN but that time has passed and I don’t think it’ll ever present itself like that again.
On the contrary I think they will succeed, probably under a new banner. The 'neo-nazis' are irrlevant. The National Socialists who run things in far-right parties are a different animal. I know a few, they blend in with everybody else, lead double or triple lives even. All they need is an opportunity to gain public support, like perhaps a big economic disaster. The main factor on their side (and the reason that white supremacists in the US are classed as being as dangerous as al-qaeda) is the fact that they are usually clever and unrelenting
Saying that I think America is safe, its much too big and the far-right there is practically non-existant. Compare that with France, Germany, Sweden, Italy or the ex-soviet block and it is a very different story. Belarus' government has a system similar to fascism, yet it is rarely talked about.
ruveyn wrote:
Read the Farm Hall transcripts. Heisenberg and his group never even figured out the correct critical mass of U235 to make bomb go boom and they never mastered the technology of making plutonium. Heisenberg and his buddies who were interned at Farm Hall were totally astonished when they learned the Allies got a working nuclear bomb. The German theoretical physicists were world class but they never got even close to the practical technology.
Do you know who patented the Uranium chain reaction? It was that pudgy little Jew Leo Szilard. He also got Einstein to write the famous letter to FDR that got the Manhattan Project started.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3_Szil%C3%A1rd
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Epsilon
ruveyn
Do you know who patented the Uranium chain reaction? It was that pudgy little Jew Leo Szilard. He also got Einstein to write the famous letter to FDR that got the Manhattan Project started.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3_Szil%C3%A1rd
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Epsilon
ruveyn
I was told different. My mainobjective was to show up the pillock claiming the Germans were stupid/bad. Is that the key thing they were missing?
@Dreamlord
My point was that Hitler was incompetent and Nazi's were dumb to follow him.
I never said Germans are stupid.
did you know German != Nazi?
So you masterfully "proved" your "point"
A guy that never said Germans are stupid was Arrogant to say Germans are stupid.
Unless you are a German then I think we may have a datapoint to begin such a thesis.
My theory is that under nearly any other leadership the Germans would have won the war.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
Vigilans wrote:
Had Mussolini not decided to try and take Greece on, resulting in his Italian Forces being pushed back into Albania, the Germans would have launched Barbarossa much earlier. Instead they were forced to help their largely ineffective ally. Also Hitler was the biggest obstacle to their military success. Guderian would have taken Moscow if it hadn't been for political interference. Hitler was almost more of an asset to the Allies than the Axis . Don't get me started on his poor choices in technological development/weapons development
Yeah you NEVER want any commander-in-chief obstructing military operations unless they're been Generals. This is the same mistake Stalin and Saddam made. I guess tyrants are too arrogant to stay in their lanes and let the high ranking officers do their jobs.
AceOfSpades wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Had Mussolini not decided to try and take Greece on, resulting in his Italian Forces being pushed back into Albania, the Germans would have launched Barbarossa much earlier. Instead they were forced to help their largely ineffective ally. Also Hitler was the biggest obstacle to their military success. Guderian would have taken Moscow if it hadn't been for political interference. Hitler was almost more of an asset to the Allies than the Axis . Don't get me started on his poor choices in technological development/weapons development
Yeah you NEVER want any commander-in-chief obstructing military operations unless they're been Generals. This is the same mistake Stalin and Saddam made. I guess tyrants are too arrogant to stay in their lanes and let the high ranking officers do their jobs.Ideology corrupts strategy.
This is way Hitler, il Duce are crap at winning wars and even getting the trains to run on time.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
JakobVirgil wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Had Mussolini not decided to try and take Greece on, resulting in his Italian Forces being pushed back into Albania, the Germans would have launched Barbarossa much earlier. Instead they were forced to help their largely ineffective ally. Also Hitler was the biggest obstacle to their military success. Guderian would have taken Moscow if it hadn't been for political interference. Hitler was almost more of an asset to the Allies than the Axis . Don't get me started on his poor choices in technological development/weapons development
Yeah you NEVER want any commander-in-chief obstructing military operations unless they're been Generals. This is the same mistake Stalin and Saddam made. I guess tyrants are too arrogant to stay in their lanes and let the high ranking officers do their jobs.Ideology corrupts strategy.
This is way Hitler, il Duce are crap at winning wars and even getting the trains to run on time.
AceOfSpades wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Had Mussolini not decided to try and take Greece on, resulting in his Italian Forces being pushed back into Albania, the Germans would have launched Barbarossa much earlier. Instead they were forced to help their largely ineffective ally. Also Hitler was the biggest obstacle to their military success. Guderian would have taken Moscow if it hadn't been for political interference. Hitler was almost more of an asset to the Allies than the Axis . Don't get me started on his poor choices in technological development/weapons development
Yeah you NEVER want any commander-in-chief obstructing military operations unless they're been Generals. This is the same mistake Stalin and Saddam made. I guess tyrants are too arrogant to stay in their lanes and let the high ranking officers do their jobs.Ideology corrupts strategy.
This is way Hitler, il Duce are crap at winning wars and even getting the trains to run on time.
This is not an endorsement of the rejection of ethics in times of war
Just pointing out that the deep seated belief that your soldiers are worth 100 of the enemy
is not the math you should use when you calculate necessary force strength.
Thinking that you are the "master" race may be great for enlistment not wonderful
for making rational decisions.
The Nazis where arguably the most ideological regime hence the one with the weakest grasp of reality.
This lack of understanding lead to the inevitable failure of their program.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
JakobVirgil wrote:
The Nazis where arguably the most ideological regime hence the one with the weakest grasp of reality.
This lack of understanding lead to the inevitable failure of their program.
This lack of understanding lead to the inevitable failure of their program.
The leadership of Japan between 1926 and 1945 was extremely racist and they too believed their own b.s. about how soft and indecisive Americans were or could be. Pearl Harbor in 1941, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Lesson taught, Lesson learned.
ruveyn
Tequila wrote:
The Allies won World War II because the combined efforts of the Soviets, the Americans and the British Empire were bigger than the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese. SImple really.
Courageous opposition plus America's industrial muscle did the job. We beat the Axis primarily because we outproduced them. The Japanese and to some extent the Germans believed that Will was primary and not material factors. A bad assumption, as it turned out.
ruveyn
JakobVirgil wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Had Mussolini not decided to try and take Greece on, resulting in his Italian Forces being pushed back into Albania, the Germans would have launched Barbarossa much earlier. Instead they were forced to help their largely ineffective ally. Also Hitler was the biggest obstacle to their military success. Guderian would have taken Moscow if it hadn't been for political interference. Hitler was almost more of an asset to the Allies than the Axis . Don't get me started on his poor choices in technological development/weapons development
Yeah you NEVER want any commander-in-chief obstructing military operations unless they're been Generals. This is the same mistake Stalin and Saddam made. I guess tyrants are too arrogant to stay in their lanes and let the high ranking officers do their jobs.Ideology corrupts strategy.
This is way Hitler, il Duce are crap at winning wars and even getting the trains to run on time.
This is not an endorsement of the rejection of ethics in times of war
Just pointing out that the deep seated belief that your soldiers are worth 100 of the enemy
is not the math you should use when you calculate necessary force strength.
Thinking that you are the "master" race may be great for enlistment not wonderful
for making rational decisions.
The Nazis where arguably the most ideological regime hence the one with the weakest grasp of reality.
This lack of understanding lead to the inevitable failure of their program.
AceOfSpades wrote:
I know what you mean dude. Battlefield conduct should definitely be ethical but when it comes to strategy one shouldn't be blinded by stupid ideological restrictions. Arrogance is one of them and it is the blind spot that caused Hitler to underestimate his enemies.
And the Japanese to under estimate their enemy, especially the United States. Admiral Yamimoto disagreed with the negative estimation that the Japanese leadership made of American resolve. He warned them. I do not know if he really said "You have awakened a sleeping giant" but he did say thing equivalent to that.
The Confederates made the same mistake in their estimate of the Union. They really believed that the Union could not possibly field an army that could tangle with them, and the early battles of the Civil War bore out their low estimate. However, once Lincoln put Grant in charge that changed within a year. The Rebs found out just what they were up against. Again they lost to an opponent who could not only fight on the battle field, but could outproduce them 10 to 1.
ruveyn
Tequila wrote:
The Allies won World War II because the combined efforts of the Soviets, the Americans and the British Empire were bigger than the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese. SImple really.
Another plank for the Nazis are stupid platform.
It is dumb to incite folks that can't beat you into a fight.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
Last edited by JakobVirgil on 02 Oct 2011, 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JakobVirgil wrote:
Another plank for the Nazis are stupid platform.
It is dumb to incite folks that can beat you into a fight.
After Chamberlain came to Germany, practically on his knees, it was not at all apparent that Britain could stand up to Germany. And it was not apparent that the U.S. was even willing to do so. Britain was vulnerable because it is an island. If Donetz had gotten his 300 U-boats early on, the outcome might have been quite different. Britain could have been starved into settling with Germany.
Britain and France were scared sh*tless by the carnage of the Great War. There was very little stomach for the fight until Churchill roused the nation. And the French showed just how valiant an fierce they were. You could get an army rifle in France real cheap. Never been fired and dropped only once.
ruveyn
Raptor wrote:
Hitler picked a very good time in history to attack Russia because the people were disillusioned with Stalin’s purges and his other heavy handed methods of governing. The Red Army had been purged of a lot of its officer corps and wasn't at its best in terms of anything.
The Russian peasants saw the invading Germans as liberators at first but then the atrocities began against captured Russian soldiers and the civilian population. From that point on the Russians were fighting for Mother Russia against an invader and not for Stalin. Of course, when winter came that made things all the much worse for the Germans.
If the order of business had been to win the hearts and minds of the Russian citizenry, and the time was ripe for that, the whole campaign in the east would have turned out differently.
The Russian peasants saw the invading Germans as liberators at first but then the atrocities began against captured Russian soldiers and the civilian population. From that point on the Russians were fighting for Mother Russia against an invader and not for Stalin. Of course, when winter came that made things all the much worse for the Germans.
If the order of business had been to win the hearts and minds of the Russian citizenry, and the time was ripe for that, the whole campaign in the east would have turned out differently.
If 20th century history has ever taught us anything, it's that you don't mess with Commies. Rarely have we ever won a war against them.