stalingrads capture could imho happened.should have been bounced,the volga that is.the germans would have been in complete control of the whole southern ussr.lee.
I agree with many on this that the biggest mistake of the war would have to be Hitlers invasion of Russia. But to put the cat amongs the pigeons if i am correct the biggest mistake could be that the western allies did not go for Russia straight away. Was it not Churchill that wanted this? I am sure i read this. that act would have saved the world 40 years of the Cold war. As a child of the "if they press the button you have 4 minutes to live " era, i think that mistake may come somewhere in a league table.
No mistake at all to my mind, if such an insane & illegal 'Pattonesque' proposition had been followed then god knows how much longer the fighting could have continued, or the eventual outcome. Besides that, try motivating populations that had endured the loss of life, both public, and to people they knew, economic collapse, social privations, camp revelations, nuclear weapons etc. etc. of up to 6 years of war to join an attack on a recent ally and continue the joys of warfare. It'd be beyond Political and ethical suicide. The cold war was a mess, perhaps an inevitable one, but as in all Politics, something of the 'least worst compromise'. I hope that doesn't read too harsh a reply . I have something of a Pavlovian response to the old "Now we start on the Russians". Your cat made my pigeons flutter . Cheers, Adam.
Not too harsh a reply at all Adam. I should may be have added to the line "i think that mistake may come somewhere in a league table" with hindsight by many of the more modern western allies goverments. But it has been the suffering of those 6 long years and the FEAR of what was to come that has kept the world in relative calm.
It's funny, the more I think of the cold war it's almost something of a golden age compared to the uncertainties that seem to be building up now it's gone. A potential for horror, but a reasonably well balanced avoidance of it.
... I think of the cold war it's almost something of a golden age compared to the uncertainties that seem to be building up now it's gone... hmmm... you say: ''uncertainties''... i, for one - since the day the Cold War was over, have been thinking of Russia and the West as of partners; so, what else ''uncertainties'' ?...
Nice to see you around T34. War in the Middle East. Building kindling for war in various states no longer clearly aligned to (or even 'controlled by') one side or the other. Mercurial 'terrorist' organisations. Growing conflict along religious lines. Etc. etc. Nothing in that comment specifically aimed at the former 'Sov-Block' mate, more a general feeling that things are somewhat up in the air regarding world relationships, much as yet unsettled in what feels, to me at least, a period of great flux, with no obvious timescale indicating it's end. An observation that even though the cold war was a mess, it at least became a largely balanced, and to a great extent self-regulating, mess in contrast to the myriad of possibilities to be found the current climate. Cheers, Adam.
Nice to see you around T34. thanks; good to see you too. War in the Middle East. Building kindling for war in various states no longer clearly aligned to (or even 'controlled by') one side or the other. Mercurial 'terrorist' organisations. Growing conflict along religious lines... but the Power Elites and TransNational Corporations will sort it all out, won't they ?...| at least, they control the world - not to just let it slide into the mess like WW1/WW2; right ?...
War in the Middle East. Iran is a likely area for trouble over the next few years, what with nuclear weapons (or power stations!?) and the fact they are helping insurgents with training and weapons to attack coalition forces in Iraq. BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iran leader plays down war talk
It's funny, the more I think of the cold war it's almost something of a golden age compared to the uncertainties that seem to be building up now it's gone. A potential for horror, but a reasonably well balanced avoidance of it. True that. In the Cold war era, the real danger was actually much lower than the one percieved by the public. [jab]And contrary to most beliefs, Historical data shows that the Americans were much more agressive than their Russian counterparts.[/jab] Nowadays, there seems to be a Global escalation everywhere in terms of conflict. I think we're living WWIII a long time ago. People just don't seem aware of it. What is the definition of a Global conflict? In the last ten years (no need to go further back) we had several confrontations in Europe, America (South that is), Africa, Asia, and particularly, the Middle East. I believe the history books of the future will refer to our times as the "never-ending war". Just my thoughts on the subject. As for the subject in question, the worst mistake was probably Hitler being allowed to take Austria and Checkoslovakia without opposition except some angry letters saying "we are very disapointed with you! If you keep this up, in a few years time we won't stand for it!". Cheers...
Miguel...Interesting thoughts RE: Living in WWIII now. I for one have never thought of it like that. Cheers Andy
What do u think the biggest mistake of WWII was? personaly i think there are 2 1.Russia Invasion-After germany lost the battle of britian they should have halted there offenceive and rebuild and invaded britian and not bomb it..but they instead invade russia unprepared for winter and lose costing them many lives..they still had a chance 2 win if the USA was not in the war..thus read on 2.Pearl Habor-Im not saying Pearl Harbor wasnt a good attack but it came too soon..if japan would have waited for germany 2 win over europe w/o usa they could have attacked and had germanys navy help w/ theres and beaten the usa.. You forget one thing. Before Pearl Harbour on 7th December 1941, The USA was not strictly neutral. Had they sold us 50 destroyers? Also they were providing US Navy troopships to transport British troops out to the Middle and Far East.
For the Axis: Strategic: Barbarossa. Operational: Bagration. For the Allies: Strategic: Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was rather small. Operational: Operation Mars.
For the Axis: For the Allies: Strategic: Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was rather small. Okay guaporense, I'll take the bait. In what areas were Lead-Lease small? What level should they have been at?
For the Axis: Strategic: Barbarossa. Operational: Bagration. For the Allies: Strategic: Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was rather small. Operational: Operation Mars. I should say :LL was important,but not decisive :it could not,the scale of the war was to big
For the Axis: Strategic: Barbarossa. Operational: Bagration. Damn! And I who thought that Bagration had been an offensive initiated by the Red Army in June '44, not a German mistake!
Okay guaporense, I'll take the bait. In what areas were Lead-Lease small? What level should they have been at? Second to my copy of The Economics of WW2, lend lease to the USSR totaled 5% of the USSR's GNP in 1942 and 10% for 1943 and 1944. I think that 20% of GNP would have helped a lot more the poor Soviets, with had to face the totality of the fighting power of the wehrmacht alone for 3 years, particularly 1942, the most critical year of the 20th century.