Discussion in 'General' started by Bob Wilton, Oct 26, 2014.
Hi Geoff, will not use capitals again mate.LOL Fair comment!
Because it looks ugly. And if you want to post on the threads I made feel free to do that.
Bob if you already want to ask questions like this one please can you first explain in details your own opinion, not just who do you think that contribute the most but also why do you think that. And why do you think that others, like the Royal Nave for example, contributed less than those mentioned in your list from first post. Do you think that their blockade of European ports and keeping UK and others in combat by providing protection for ships of the Merchant Navy is less important for final victory than lets say RAF Bomber Command campaign over Europe.
Sol, I do not appreciate your opinions.And please do not dictate to me what I must put in my posts.I would not do it to any member on here,so what gives a young lad like you the authority to tell me what to do.Have I made myself clear son!!
army ?..so you rule out the Air Forces and Navy ?
That is a biased question..
Above said; the stubbornness of Britain kept the war going 1940-1941 until SU and USA were dragged in.
Had UK settled for peace in 1940 , then the UK was off the hook, SU was the next who'd bear the full nazi brunt (and they WOULD be crushed), and USA never had to supply UK , nor felt obligated to help SU or occupied France/Benelux/Norway, or bombard german cities. Probably USA and Nazi germany would improve relationships (versus the Japan attacks) .
Thanks to UK/Churchill Germany came to its knees.
Fascinating! I can't wait to read about the Americans killing Patton. Please provide the sources you have so I can read all about it.
Past experiences tells us that juniors focus too much on Soviet ground forces...and forget the achievements of (western allies) air forces and navies.
Just because the soviets did not use them well, or effectively, doesn't mean it was not vital to victory.
Thanks Andreas. That sure was a lot of divisions to have on one front.
Well it's generally the army that does the killing in significant volumes, and in a war of attrition that does come in handy. I am also not aware how Germany was brought to its knees by defeats at sea, but happy to learn. The air war waged from the UK of course had a material impact, by sucking up vast volumes of Luftwaffe and air defense resources. If all those AA guns had been turned into AT guns in the east...
But I would really like to borrow that crystal ball of yours, which tells you that the Red Army would be crushed if the UK had settled for peace in 1940. They seemed to be doing okay in December 1941, and that was before any significant help had kicked in. Once they had survived 1941, there was no crushing them anymore, in my view. The best the Germans could hope for was a stalemate.
All the best
Germany as it experienced in the Great War could not continue the war against the Allied Powers whose overall war economy proved to be greater and unrelenting, coupled with the blockade imposed on Germany.Germany in the end lacked the military manpower to wage war on multiple fronts,its war economy was severely stressed by bombing.Then throughout the war Germany had to prop up its wartime economy with forced labour from its overrun territories
Hitler engaged on his aggression with the premiss that his wars would be of short duration and the defeated would pay for his occupation costs and he gambled on the oil reserves he had in hand when he went to war
But overall to get back to the discussion,the defeat of Germany came about from the input of the Allied Powers in a coordinated effort, if sometimes difficult with Stalin having his vision of what would be left after Germany's defeat.Given that the Allied Powers had agreed that the priority was to defeat Germany first and follow up with the defeat of Japan,the main contribution in the bleeding of German military manpower was the Red Army.
I have seen many claims as to the number of equivalent German divisions which went through the Red Army "mincemeat machine" ranging from 400 to 500...certainly a huge loss of military manpower.Having said that, this view should not belittle the efforts to wage war against Germany from western Europe.Indeed there was the era of 1939 until 1942 when the British could only carry the war to Germany with inferior bomber aircraft and it was not until mid 1942 that Bomber Command were able to deliver an increasingly adverse effect on Germany and its war economy.Then, it was only after defeating the U Boat threat and the completion of thorough preparations were the Western Allies able to invade Europe in June 1944.
My topic specifically mentioned army Harry,not navy or air force.
I made that clear as posted in my 3rd paragraph....no mention of naval or air power but it has to be said that superior air power has a direct relationship with the success of those involved in the ground conflict.
Some elaborations on a few focus points before:
1) Air Force and Navy can't crush a nation.
1a) Yes they can, and they did: End of WW1 crushing defeat of Germany came because of the Navy blockade of Germany led to starvation and deprivation at Motherland.
And that whilst german troops were still in Belgium and France and russia....
Also in ww2 with increasing allied Navy strength..this was becoming the german prospect.
1b) the most vital commodity was oil. There is a earlier poster about Hitler interview with mannerheim in which he (righfully) expressed his fear about the Ploesti oil fields in Rumenia.
Bomb that away..and nazi warmachine comes to standstill.(despite start up of synthetic oil from coal)
Again, this was in the process from 1943 onwards.
It takes time and resources, but so did the Soviet progress.
Throwing in more human bodies to slaughter doesnot make it more efficient to enhance defeat.
"Dead men on its own doesn't count."
2) If Britain were to make peace in august 1940..how would Stalin have fared ?
Simple: No more Nazi war effort in the west ..a LOT OF nazi air force fleet would have remained intact and be put to use in russia.
With its VAST distances, THE CRUCIAL killing machine in Russia (1941) were the Nazi bombers. More soviet tanks were destroyed by air force than by antitankguns or tanks in 1941 (either directly by stukas, or by attacking supply convoy = no fuel for t34/kv1 tanks = deadstill = kill).
Also, Stalin would not get help from USA or UK via convoys or Persia.
Plus Nazi germany and Italy would gain access through Suez Canal (! ding dong) and get access to purchase oil from middle east.
Italy would not have invaded egypt and greece, so Germany wld have invaded SU earlier in 1941.
Thereby taking Moskou before the autumn rains, thereby disrupting logistics within SU to transfer factory machines behind the Urals.
Once Nazis were to reach Baku..then Stalin would be caught by the same oil balls.
3) with USA confronted with Empire of Japan (and no-one in USA felt that it would be a walkover!! USA seeking all the help from other partners such as Australia, UK , NL, Russia) they would not like to interfere with Nazi Germany. Despite rumours of maltreatment of Jews or Slavs or socialists (all of which started since 1933.. what did Roosevelt do about that ?).
So , one might cynically say that the "european common market project" would have started in 1940 if not for the British.
Thus the British army , in all its inadequacies (whose 1940 army wasn't ?) was effectively most responsible for bringing Nazi Germany down.
Flap of butterfly, hurricane elsewhere....
We have lived in SW France for quite a while, and several times I've been surprised that French people don't see the big picture of WW2. They don't seem to appreciate at all the sacrifices and contributions of British people and their forces, maybe because of the extent of their own suffering.
They give some credit to the Americans, but otherwise their survival was due to their Resistance and De Gaulle.
With apologies to any French forum members, this view might only apply to some people in SW France.
Basically I would agree with you - they have little knowledge of the Africa and Middle East sector of WW2 and none on what happened in the Far East.
TD (Brittany) - just in case someone thinks otherwise :P
You are missing my point.
1) I didn't say they couldn't. I said they didn't. I am aware of what happened in WW1. As an avid student of history you have no doubt noted that the same did not happen in WW2. Germany ran out of food only when it had lost. It didn't lose because it ran out of food.
1b) the question here was not about efficiency but about impact. The two are unrelated. Also, what happened in 1943 has no bearing on the defeat itself, but simply on the time and manner of it. The Germans lost the war in December 1941, outside Moscow, and by declaring war on the USA.
2) I pretty much disagree with that alternative history scenario. But thanks for outlining it, it's not outlandish.
All the best
Well said Andreas I agree with you fully.
Separate names with a comma.