OK. WWII time!! 

There have been a million (or so) post mortems and examinations of all the 'what ifs' and the 'maybes' regarding what Hitler did and did not do. Most people agree that one mistake or another led to his inevitable downfall.

I don't know, and I don't believe any of us ever will, whether the Reich could have lasted any significant period longer than it did, even if Hitler had not made the 'glaring' errors and misjudgements that he did.

However, I feel, apart from the fact that he may well have defeated the RAF if he had not turned to bombing citiies when he did. Apart from whether the Japanese had stayed away long enough for England to be brought down before the US became involved. There is one aspect that may have made a significant difference, at least to the length of the Reich's exisistence.  ???

I'm talking about the hypothetical success of the Invasion of Russia.
What would have been the Reichs position, strategically and politically, if they had attacked earlier (or later) and actually swept across 'Russia proper', before the winter set in, and of course, if they had had a reasonable 'supply' line option organised?? 
A situation where the Reich would not have had the 'Second' and very 'resource draining" front. Instead just a need for a reasonable sized occupaton force (and the inevitable SS and Gestapo operations).  ???

It's hard to say. The Germans certainly came very close, to all three major objectives.
I think a couple more weeks of good weather and maybe..................

But then, the Russians had a fantastic resilience. They also had huge numbers, even compared to the Germans. So they may well still have been able to recover, even after the loss of Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad and the Caucus's. The germans still had that huge supply line and one railway track!! 
I think the fuel in the Caucus's would have been a major factor on both fronts, had it 'changed hands'. 

And personally, I think the idea of not properly outfitting your troops when it becomes obvious the goal will take longer than expected for fear of damaging morale was insane.  I think more troops died from exposure to the Russian winter than the Russians themselves. 

Air - Geko.

Hmmm time to listen to WKSU and get my NPR fix....

This reminds me of a story a friend told me some years ago. He became friendly with a German family while on holiday. They got chatting one evening & the German told him he was on the Russian front in WWII. When winter came the German troops were very poorly equipped. mostly in summer gear. They had no greatcoats or decent boots for a start & to make matters worse, the cold affected their weapons. The high quality rifles would not fire due to the extreme cold. The only solution was to kill a Russian soldier & take his greatcoat, boots & rifle.

The only problem with this was that the Russian rifles had a distinctive sound, very different to the German ones. Apparently there were many instances of blue on blue when German troops clothed in Russian greatcoats & firing Russian rifles were naturally mistaken for Russians. It got so bad that an order was issued to the effect that any German soldier found wearing Russian clothing or possessing a Russian rifle would be shot on the spot. A classic Catch 22. Die of the cold or be shot anyway.

This particular soldier deserted & made his way back home. He finally arrived when the war was over. He was one of the lucky ones.

Stalingrad did have huge stratigic importance. If stalingrad fell then the Germans would be able to cross the Volga which was the last natural obstical between them and Asia. The russian oil fields would have been in german hands and so it would have been a huge blow to the russians. Not to mention the blow to moral that would have come from the fall of the city bearing stalins name.

Quote:

I'm sure the Germans had learnt from Leningrad that a surrounded city was not going to surrender. Stalingrad was an industrial city and could have lasted a long time in a seige. The stratiegic importance of such a city is massive. If the germans didn't capture it then they could have gone no further on that part of the front. And there were huge supplies of grain and other things to have in the city. Also factories and many other items of stratiegic importance.

I believe that Stalin would not have let Stalingrad surrender if it was surrounded. It was the only strongpoint on that part of the front and if it fell then the whole of southern russia and asia would be open to the germans. Blitzkrieg did settle for the bypassing of strongpoints however these were just things like bunker complexes etc and not entire citys. And when the city controls the stretch of front then you have no choice but to take it. Crossing the Volga would have been next to impossible if there was a Russian army sitting in stalingrad. Therefore the capture of the city was vital to the advance on teh eastern front.

Right oh. I'm not at my best at the moment. It is one in the morning after all. And its been two years since I read Stalingrad.

So a draw then. I can live with that.

Nice discussion, guys.

The World at War TV series devoted an entire hour episode to Stalingrad.  It was one of the best in the series. I have it on tape and if you ever get the chance to see it I strongly urge you to watch and tape it.

Quote:



I saw a program this morning on THC (History Channel) about all the "super weapons" programs that the Nazi's had going....it covered of course the V1 and V2, the jet fighters and the 163 rocket interceptor, long-range bombers (conceivably to hit the U.S.), helicopter development, remotely piloted flying bombs, etc. Probably the biggest danger was their eventual development of  the atom bomb; something that the maniacal Hitler would surely have used to wreak even more devastation on the world.

All that said, I think any malevalent regime that is bent on world conquest is doomed to fail. Germany just didn't have the numbers to do it; they didn't have the manpower or any overwhelming technological advantage for global domination. In those European countries they did conquer, they were always going to be dealing with resentful and hostile populations and resistance....if they'd ever managed to defeat the Russian army, they never could have really secured such a huge country. As for the U.S. and our industrial might.....well, world conquest just wasn't going to happen for the Axis powers.....they just weren't that powerful!

Quote:


Huh? ???

I'm not sure I get the distinction you're making between "the Reich" and the "regime"......I think they're pretty much synonymous. I do know that, ultimately, "The Reich", including the Nazi government (dictatorship) and the military that it controlled only collapsed because of Allied military force!

Hmmmmmmmmm...........

OK Woodlouse, thanks for the explanation!!

Yes, I read the "Rise and Fall" about 20 years ago. It was very 'heavy reading'. It was also extremely detailed from a 'political' point.

Still on the Russian Front, and more specifically, Stalingrad. I saw the History Channel Doco recently and also have seen "The World at War" series. Both very good Docos, and very much the same. I think because the reasons, at least those generally understood to be the 'primary' reasons for 'the first german defeat', are very much agreed upon by most people who have studied the battle and the logistical and tactical aspects that pertain thereto.

Firstly, there is the late timetable. Definitely the 'primary' undoing of the Germans, which ultimately resulted in the other aspects that have been mentioned. These being:

Firstly, the lack of proper clothing for the German troops and their perishing due to the cold.

Secondly, this time German 'precision' did not help them, as the extremely close tolerance of their equipment, from vehicles to guns, tanks and even the 'small arms' just refused to work. They relied on the close tolerances that they were designed to, and the extreme cold just completely stuffed that.

Thirdly, as I mentioned much earlier, the Germans were always going to be in trouble with their suplly line. Hundreds of miles, with much of their equipment (guns, fuel, food ammo etc) still carted by horses, who couldn't stand up to the winter any better than the Germans, (who ended up eating them, more often than not), much less travel the roads that had be 'quagmires'.

That, coupled with the single railroad that had to carry everything as all the roads became impassable.
On top of that, Goerings promise that he could supply the 800 odd tonnes of supplies required by the 6th army by air. He ended up, on his best day, getting 90 tonnes on the ground. After the first few days of the Luftwaffes pawltry effort, the Germans watched the Russians over-run what pitiful amounts of the supplies that did make it through the Russian AAA, because they lost two of the 3 airfields they held a week before and risked airdrops.

All in all, they really didn't have a chance in hell.

But as I said, but for a few weeks (as in the case of the French and Swedish before them), they were defeated by the Russian winter. (Not taking anything away from the valiant efforts and horrendous losses of the Russians).

Even as late as early January, Paulus could have gotten the majority of the surviving 6th army (some 250.00) to relative safety, through a weak line between them and Guderians forces (only miles away), but Paulus at that stage wasn't ready to defy Hitler.  He'd just been made a 'Field Marshall' (Where would they find a 'Baton'??...........lol)

Seriously though, both sides suffered terribly, in what was surely the 'dirtiest', most attritious fighting of the entire War.
To answer a previous question, more Germans did die from cold, disease and particularly starvation (and suicide, many actually!), than were killed by the enemy. 

Actually the blitzkrieg tactic worked wonderfully at the start of Barbarossa with well over a million russian soldiers surrounded and captured. But of course, that was before stalin let them retreat...

I've been recently watching a new History Channel series about WWII called 'The War of the Century'.  8)

It goes into quite some detail about many aspects. The latest installment dealt with the Russian campaign and more specifically the battle for and seige of Moscow.

The official figure quoted in the series regarding how close the Germans came was 40 kilometres (about 25 miles). Very close indeed! 

They gave some figures and info dealing with Russian POW's that I wasn't aware of.
Apparently Hitler decided, after something like 1.5 million Russians were captured during the first few weeks, that they would 'do away with them' by a kind of 'systematic neglect'. This included starvation, disease and freezing etc.

They quoted a figure of 4 million Russian POW's dying in German captivity. I don't recall if that was for the entire war, or just up till Moscow!

There were interviews from veterans of both sides. Stories of terrible barbarism on both sides and also very touching tales of individual acts of kindness among enemies.
One German was under orders to 'summarily' shoot all Russian 'commisars'. he came across one and rather than 'murder him' (as he put it), he directed him back to his own troops, as he knew if he took him in, someone would shoot him and he would probably in trouble anyway.

Anyway, the amount of Russian prisoners taken by the Germans was absolutely staggering. Blitzkreig definitely worked very well in the oonset. I think it was more the winter that affected the Blitzkreig tactic more than the Russians retreating.
The reasons why Blitzkreig worked in surrounding 'pockets' of thousands, was that they couldn't retret fast enough to get away from the fast advancing armour and 'aerial' artillery.

After having seen this series, I still believe that had the Germans had only 3 or 4 weeks more of decent weather, the result in the East would have been very different.
I think the numbers and manufacturing capacity of tyhe Russians, against the supply problems and manufacturing limitations of the Germans would still have seen a Russian victory, but it would have taken much longer (I don't dare hazard a guess at how long - I don't know how people can calculate how muich loger these thing could have lasted, had one thing or another happened). 

Also I still believe that the story in the West would have been quite different for a while, had the Germans captured and held onto the oil fields in the Caucus'. 

Quote:


Somewhat astray from the original topic, but where did you come by this information, pray tell?

Quote:

Quote:

Read this. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,500631,00.html

Please remember that war itself is the atrocity. It can & does de-humanise ordinary decent people of all nations.

I see no benefit in trying to turn this thread into a flame war. This would only serve to get it removed. PDQ

The reason I posted that link instead of many others I could have chosen is that it mentions British troops involved in atrocities. Also that it's about an old documentary (the article is dated 2001) shown on British TV so many people living in the UK will have seen it. I'm not sure it would have been shown in the US. The whole point is that no nation is exempt from this. It would be very naive to believe otherwise.

PS. It's worth remembering that the victors get to write the history books. The truth takes longer to emerge & sometimes never does. One side's hero could easily be the other's war criminal.

PPS. If you want the unbiased American perspective on this subject read this. http://www.skalman.nu/history/books-review-pacificrevisted.htm
Quote:


The same is true of all nations involved in WWI & WWII & most other conflicts before & since. The enemy soldier is often portrayed as brutal & subhuman in order to give the opposing troops & the general public an incentive to fight.

Hey Woody, how come Britain and America get a captal 'B' and 'A' but australia only gets a small 'a' ???

Eh???    Eh????

I know it's only a typo, mate!  - Someone has to try to inject a little levity into this thread, in our nice new History Forum. 

With reagrd to the atrocities business. Unfortunately, WWII is often portrayed in light of the terrible atrocities that occured in all theatres both in civilain and military circles.

That's sad, because albeit very true that this conflict was marred by terrible acts on all sides, I'll say for the 100th time, I feel that it was the last War in which their seemed to be a clear moral 'purpose' and justification for the involvemnet of the Allies. At least in terms of popular opinion. People were fighting for the very freedom of the world, both in the Pacific and in Europe.
And there was certainly no doubt as to who were the aggressors.

This is of course, all History now, good and proper, long gone. I don;t doubt that British, American and Australian troops did aweful things to the enemy and sometimes there own.
I recall the film, "Saving Private Ryan", when they reach the top of the hill and there are Germans surrendering, they are summarily shot, and the perpertrators laugh about it (Cpt Miller, the nicest man in the world, looks dissappointed but does nothing about it!).
These men have just gone thru the hell of Omaha. They have seen their friends and countrymen blown literally to peices. They have seen young boys mown down mercilessly, over a stretch of sand. Of course they wabted to kill the 'bastards' who were responsible for starting this whole thing!
On the other hand, the Germans were following orders and defending their country, whether right or wrong, that's all they were doing.
Another GI yells out "Hold your fire! Let 'em burn!" when the Germans jump out of the pillbox on fire.

It's terrible that otherwise normal people are reduced to this sort of inhumanity in war, but it happens and no-one is really immune, if they are pushed to there particular limit.

I saw those two 'scenes' in Private Ryan and I didn't think any less of Americans because of the portrayal, because common sense dictates that they are but a couple of examples of the things many on all sides did.

The real guilty ones are the "How I won the war - by John Wayne" movies that gave the world the original impression of what war was 'supposedly' like for the 'good guys' (not Mr Wayne himself, but the producers and directors etc).

Quote:


What I realize (and it's been for more than a few of my 40+ years now), is that it's more the time and place you're living in that determines the version of history you're exposed to.

Most rational people know that much of history, particularly earlier history, is full of half-truths, quarter-truths, exaggeration, outright fabrication, etc., etc. (without the mass-media that we have today.....who knows what the hell really happened!)....(and not that today's paparazzi always gets it right either, especially much of that tabloid crap!!).

Quote:


The John Wayne war movies served as 'healthy propaganda' for Americans during WWII; they've long since been regarded as anachronistic by most Americans (at least above the age of 10 or so). On the subject of 'The Duke', I'll never forget seeing some old WWII doco about the Pacific war....I think it was about Guadalcanal. It featured interviews with surviving veterans of the battle. One old vet recounted how after the battle, John Wayne showed up; apparently just to make a patriotic, morale-boosting type appearance. This old vet said that the troops instantly began to boo and razz him! Even at that time, most of those soldiers had seen his movies, and after experiencing the real hell of war themselves, they regarded Mr. Wayne's movies as pure BS!

I agree with hagar and Redwing on both their last posts.

Hopefully, because of the releasing of documents that until quite recently, show the Allies as 'not quite so heroic and wholesome' in certain instances, and of course the likes of Movies like 'Private Ryan, Thin red Line, Pearl harbour (to a lesser degree), people old and young are beginning to see that war is nothing like it has been portrayed for decades by the media (especially television and cinema).

I only hope that this realisation, if it sinks in at all, will affect our future leaders to an extent where they won't be so ready to commit the lives of young men (and sometimes innocent civilians) to solve a problem.

Although i am mindful of the fact, that whilever tghere are the likes of your Hitlers, Mussolinis and I suppose your Bin Ladens and Husseins, there are always going to be times when the only option left is 'force'.
This is the sad part. there are some in this world who love and/or thrive on conflict, power and confrontation in the extreme. Whilst ever they have acces the the powerful positions, there will be these difficult times.