Discussion of the World Wars

[Emperor Devon]

This thread is a split-off from machievelli's Return From Exile fan fic. After commenting on something he mentioned, we ended up having a completely off-topic discussion about the World Wars. Anyhow, this thread is where things related to the World Wars can be discussed. Things such as:

 

Was it Kursk or Stalingrad that marked the turning point in the eastern front? (I am of the opinion that it was Kursk)

 

How do you think the war in the Pacific would have gone if the Japanese had completely destroyed the ships in Pearl Harbor and won the battle of Midway?

 

What do you think the most bloody, miserable, hellish and unpleasant battle in all of WWI was?

 

How do you think WWII would have gone if Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin?

 

What country do you think was the most powerful one?

 

Do you think Spain having a smaller list of demmands and joining the Axis would have made a difference?

 

And all other things about the World Wars you can think of discussing...

[TheGreenGoblin]

 

Was it Kursk or Stalingrad that marked the turning point in the eastern front? (I am of the opinion that it was Kursk)

 

Stalingrad, even if the Germans had won the battle of Kursk, they wouldn't have had enough resources or manpower to push their advantage very far before Russia recovered.

 

How do you think the war in the Pacific would have gone if the Japanese had completely destroyed the ships in Pearl Harbor and won the battle of Midway?

 

 

If the attack on Pearl Habor had been a success, the Japanese would still have lost the war but it would have taken much longer for the tide to turn in favor of the Americans. The same goes for Midway. Admiral Yamamoto himself had repeatedly told his superiors that the United States' industrial power was simply too much for them to try and fight against.

 

 

 

What do you think the most bloody, miserable, hellish and unpleasant battle in all of WWI was?

 

How do you think WWII would have gone if Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin?

 

What country do you think was the most powerful one?

 

Do you think Spain having a smaller list of demmands and joining the Axis would have made a difference?

 

And all other things about the World Wars you can think of discussing...

 

1. The Battle of Somme. Thousands of British dead within a single day because of a poorly planned out and implemented battle plan.

 

2. I think Germany would have been able to launch a ground invasion against Britain and they probably would have been successful. Although, I think their second biggest mistake was to ally with Japan in the first place (and by extension declare war on the U.S.)

 

3. Early WWII-Germany, late WWII-Russia

 

4. Spain imo might have proved a hinderance, but they weren't a fearsome enough power to make a real difference, ala Italy.

[Snafu7]

Was it Kursk or Stalingrad that marked the turning point in the eastern front? (I am of the opinion that it was Kursk)[/Quote]

Imo it was Stalingrad. It gave the Russians the momentum they needed to continue the war, and it left the Germans exausted, and it dwindled their supplies.

 

How do you think WWII would have gone if Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin?

 

It definately would have made the war much harder on the Allies. Firstly, it would've lost them an ally(at least for a little while), and it would've allowed Hitler to focus on the Western front(because there would've been no eastern front).

 

What country do you think was the most powerful one?

 

It depends on what year of the war, in the beginning years of the war it was definately Germany, but after 1944 invasion I would say it was either Russia or the United States.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Was it Kursk or Stalingrad that marked the turning point in the eastern front? (I am of the opinion that it was Kursk)

 

Stalingrad. It definitely is the turning point of the war in Europe. It broke the myth of invincibility of the German war machine, boosted the morale of the Soviets and saw the destruction of many of the best German divisions.

 

Why you say Kursk is unknown to me. It is true that it was the last German large offensive on the eastern front, but Kursk simply did not have the morale effect or significance of Stalingrad.

 

How do you think the war in the Pacific would have gone if the Japanese had completely destroyed the ships in Pearl Harbor and won the battle of Midway?

 

Japan could not win a war of attrition. While the US citizens lived a decent life back in the States, japanese citizens were starving for the war effort. The production capabilities of the US, despite having weaker equipment at the start of the war and some would say weaker soldiers, was and is simply too great.

 

 

How do you think WWII would have gone if Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin?

 

I've read what some historians have said about this and just retelling it. Rommel would have had the ressources needed to defeat Great Britain in North Africa (which at the time, had a very sucky ground force). With Britain out of North Africa, Germany would have an easy path to access the arabian oil fields. Simply, if Hitler didn't decide to divide his forces, we'd be speaking german everywhere right now.

 

What country do you think was the most powerful one?

 

Powerful? Hard to quantify. Some say the US, some say the Russians but I say the Germans. They had the technology, the fanatics and the soldiers to wipe out any army in their path. Still to this day, I believe they had the best army of the entire war. They simply didn't have to economy or the judgement to use it to its full potential.

The only one, in my opinion, able to directly face the Germans were the Russians. They had good firepower (T-34 anyone?) able to confront the mighty german armored divisions and enough cannon fodder to throw at them.

On the other hand, the US had very crappy tanks, relying on their numbers to overcome the german panzers. Seriously, when your standard Tiger destroying tactic consists of sacrificing 3 Shermans for one enemy tank, your tanks suck.

When there are records of Tiger tanks taking as much as 31 shots before simply stop functioning, you need better firepower.

The US' strength, like Britain, was in their superior air force (then again, near the end of the war, Germany didn't have enough fuel for their own). It is said that when Göring saw the american P-51 escorting their bombers, he was persuaded that they were going to lose the war. That and well, you're isolated and you can outproduce your enemy in every way.

 

 

Do you think Spain having a smaller list of demmands and joining the Axis would have made a difference?

 

Maybe, by adding some cannon fodder for the Germans. I don't think they would have done better then Italy.

[Emperor Devon]

Why you say Kursk is unknown to me. It is true that it was the last German large offensive on the eastern front, but Kursk simply did not have the morale effect or significance of Stalingrad.

 

Stalingrad was a staggering loss for the Germans, though it was inevitable. If they won there, they would have lost somewhere else eventually. Germany's troops were not prepared to occupy Russia during the winter. I'm curious as to what the Germans would have done with an extra army if it hadn't been needlessly lost as Kursk.

 

Surely other people have things about the World Wars they wish to discuss? Like whether the treaty of Versailles was needlessly harsh or not?

[machievelli]

Was it Kursk or Stalingrad that marked the turning point in the eastern front? (I am of the opinion that it was Kursk)

 

I am of the opinion (Shared by most Historians) that it was Stalingrad. I agree Kursk was important, but like Nagasaki, it primarily proved that the Russian victory was no fluke

 

How do you think the war in the Pacific would have gone if the Japanese had completely destroyed the ships in Pearl Harbor and won the battle of Midway?

 

The Japanese had extended as far as they wanted to into Us Held territory by March of 1942. It was the Doolittle raid that forced them to extend toward us, because as long as we had any fleet remaining, we were a danger. Remember that there were only 4 carriers on the West coast in June but by the time of Operation Pestilence (September 42) there were seven. As long as the us had a coastline we would have been able to build faster than the Japanese could.

 

What do you think the most bloody, miserable, hellish and unpleasant battle in all of WWI was?

I have to agree the Somme was it. The idea of English troops marching into battle as if it were a century older was absurd and the 60 thou+ casualties was even worse.

 

 

How do you think WWII would have gone if Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin?

Plans were already underway even as France fell for Barbarossa (Russian Invasion) and Hitler had stated several times to the British and French that if they had sat out the first part of the war, allowed them to attack through Poland and destroy the Russian, he would have been happy.

 

But Hitler couldn't beat England by invasion because A: Goering had failed in his ‘defeat from the air’ plan, and Hitler, a n army corporal in the first war, had an unreasoning hatred of his navy.

 

 

What country do you think was the most powerful one?

Define powerful? IN numbers of troops they could feel China was first, followed by Russia. If you mean raw resources you have England, who even in the worst part of the war had the resources, but couldn't get them to the factories.

 

If you mean Technical know how, it was Germany, which developed new wepons so efficiently, that a lot of what we’re using now is based on it. High-speed cannon such as the M1 tanks use, Jet technology (Their designs were used by the Russians, the French (Under the name ATAR) and were the basis of the designs of the American Jet industry. The V1 is the direct predecessor of the Tomahawk and the V2 the direct father of the SCUD. The German Type XXII lives even now in the most recent U boats.

 

If you measure raw production, it was the US. We started with 9 battle ships in the Pacific fleet, eight in the Atlantic fleet, eight carriers spilt evenly. We ended with strikes from over 100 carriers on the home islands, covered by twenty battleships, an at the same time we supplied 14,000 aircraft the Russians, just about every transport aircraft the British used, and upgraded the Russian air force from a nation with hand signals to ones with radios and radar.

 

We spent over 90 BILLION dollars keeping all of our allies afloat, on top of the 25 billion spent in WWI which had never been paid back.

 

Do you think Spain having a smaller list of demands and joining the Axis would have made a difference?

 

To quote Spider Robinson, the Spanish and Portuguese, the two strongest European Nations of the 15th century had destroyed their economies so efficiently that they couldn't beat France in a fair fight today, and ANYONE could beat France in a fair fight.

 

 

Surely other people have things about the World Wars they wish to discuss? Like whether the treaty of Versailles was needlessly harsh or not?

 

Be warned:I was working on a book about war crimes, and I did research into what was and is not in the versailles treaty. I have a copy downloaded and know how to use it. Especially all of you British and expatriate Brits here' one for you;

 

Who violated the laws of war regarding submarines first?

[CountVerilucus]

If I was Hitler there would be goose stepping all over Europe right now.

 

The Germans had a pretty big war machine, and advanced weapons too. Their tanks, planes, and blitzkrieg was kick ass. All they needed to do was take their time, instead of Britain, America, and Russia at once. Also, they should have left the Jews alone. Instead of wasting time, effort, money, people in establishing and running those death camps. There were a lot of intellectual Jews that could have contributed greatly to the war effort.

 

The Germans also have the coolest looking military uniforms I have ever seen in my life, especially the SS ones.

[TheGreenGoblin]

Well, I will say that even if Germany hadn't attacked Russia when it did, the two countries would have fought eventually. When that would have happened would have been critically important. Too early and Europe would have fallen into Soviet hands, too late and Germany imo would have had the time they needed to complete some of their more advanced projects (jets, rockets, atomic bomb, though I hear they were far from completion on the latter)

[machievelli]

If I was Hitler there would be goose stepping all over Europe right now.

.

 

There is a game I loved named Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic. A Game I no longer have because I loaned my discs to a friend and neither the originals nor the dups he made work.

 

But when I played it as the Germans, I wrote Hitler out of the equation. I looked at the force under my command, and raided. By 1942 the British had no battleships that could be sent on convoy duty. I'd sunk them all. By 1943, they had no remaining cruisers. By 1944 convoys wwere unescorted. I was blowing entire convoys away with pairs of destroyers.

 

Hitler did more to push the German war machine to the heights than any sane man would have. At the same time he took the most efficent navy of the time and the best equipped airforce and drove them straight into the ground.

 

Well, I will say that even if Germany hadn't attacked Russia when it did, the two countries would have fought eventually. When that would have happened would have been critically important. Too early and Europe would have fallen into Soviet hands, too late and Germany imo would have had the time they needed to complete some of their more advanced projects (jets, rockets, atomic bomb, though I hear they were far from completion on the latter)

The problem with nuclear physics is people like Albert Einstien and Edward Teller were Jews. They ran away from the Nazis. Enrico Fermi was a catholic and anti facist, so he couldn't stay in Italy. By the time the germans understood that they need to develop the bomb, they found themslves working not on the Fission bomb, but the fusion trigger I.E. the key to the H bomb However without a fission initiator, I.E. an A bomb, it's worthless.

[Emperor Devon]

I have to agree the Somme was it. The idea of English troops marching into battle as if it were a century older was absurd and the 60 thou+ casualties was even worse.

 

The Somme was miserable, though have you read any accounts of Flanders or Verdun? At Flanders they were fighting amidst mud deeper than horses and men were tall. Awful. And at Verdun the bombardment and fighting afterward was so terrible people had difficulty distinguishing between the surface there and the surface of the Moon. But then again, that wasn't uncommon during WWI.

 

Define powerful? IN numbers of troops they could feel China was first, followed by Russia. If you mean raw resources you have England, who even in the worst part of the war had the resources, but couldn't get them to the factories.

 

A combination of factors that makes it the most capable nation of fighting any other.

 

@CountVerilucus, the Germans had some good uniforms, but in my opinion, you just can't beat the uniforms generals or other high-ranking people wore during WWI. Plumed helmets with elaborate medals and other ceremonial regalia looks the best. A good example of that would be General Sukhomlinov.

 

Edit: On a side note, machievelli, the moderators frown upon double posting outside of your fan fiction threads.

[CountVerilucus]

 

This guy should have had Hitler's job.

[Emperor Devon]

Rommel had a high enough rank as it was.

[machievelli]

Edit: On a side note, machievelli, the moderators frown upon double posting outside of your fan fiction threads.

 

Double posting what?

 

Double posting means having multiple posts in a row. I combined the ones you did above. While it is acceptable in some threads most other places it is frowned upon.

 

I think I may be able to help you, as I did this myself initially when responding to multiple posters. What I do to reply to multiple posters posts is right-click on the 'quote/reply to this' link and open each of them in seperate tabs or windows and then use the copy and paste functions to combine them all into one post. I hope this helps. -RH

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by Emperor Devon:

Was it Kursk or Stalingrad that marked the turning point in the eastern front? (I am of the opinion that it was Kursk)

 

Originally Posted by lukeiamyourdad:

I am of the opinion (Shared by most Historians) that it was Stalingrad. I agree Kursk was important, but like Nagasaki, it primarily proved that the Russian victory was no fluke

 

 

Stalingrad was the turning point and Kursk the point of no return. While Hitler had the benefit of catching all his enemies off guard/unprepared, his "brilliance" was in taking a top notch military organization and squandering it in fairly short order. Still, even when you look at how difficult it was to defeat the Nazis, it's amazing they hung in as long as they did. But Kursk proved that the Germans no longer had the ability to mount an eastern front offensive. By the numbers, both sides lost roughly equal numbers of armor, but the Germans couldn't sustain such attrition.

 

In the realm of whatifs, had the Japanese not been crushed by the USSR (under Zhukov) at Nomanhan in the late 1930's, would the Japanaese have felt it more opportunistic to move south? Had they tied down all those divisions in the Far East, would Staliningrad have survived, let alone Stalin? Manchuria and Siberia could've provided the Japanese with plenty of resources, while more importantly keeping an isolationist USA at bay, at least till it might have been too late.

 

Hitler, like Hirohito, got off to a good start, but lacked the resources and leadership to take it to the finish. I believe that WW2 probably proved that high tech, high maintainence equipment (Tiger 'n Panther) was no match for sheer numbers and simplicity (T34 'n M4). Of course, modern warfare proves that explosive yield trumps numbers (so long as one side has a virtual monopoly on the weapons in question, let alone the backbone to use them in a crunch).

[machievelli]

Still, even when you look at how difficult it was to defeat the Nazis, it's amazing they hung in as long as they did.

 

The German's have always been the most innovative when it comes to military operations. The British military Historian James Dunnigan in His 'How to make War pointed out that while the Germans have not won a war in the last Century, they are still considered the most efficient army in Europe. They are also willing to try those new weapons in the field as soon as they had operational numbers.

 

In the realm of whatifs, had the Japanese not been crushed by the USSR (under Zhukov) at Nomanhan in the late 1930's, would the Japanaese have felt it more opportunistic to move south? Had they tied down all those divisions in the Far East, would Staliningrad have survived, let alone Stalin? Manchuria and Siberia could've provided the Japanese with plenty of resources, while more importantly keeping an isolationist USA at bay, at least till it might have been too late.

 

You forget that Stalingrad was won because some little known General was shipped from the East to command. The same Zhukov. Up until his arrival, too many of the Generals were party flunkies who walked the walk and talked the talk, but had little or no military capability. Sort of like the Republic military before the Jedi arrived. When I was describing how the Mandalorians felt fighting them, I remembered the Russians. The Russian enlisted man is strong, tough, and even when not properly led, suicidally brave. But the resources no known to be in Mandchuria would have made it unnecessary to attack the US Britain and the Dutch.

 

Hitler, like Hirohito, got off to a good start, but lacked the resources and leadership to take it to the finish. I believe that WW2 probably proved that high tech, high maintainence equipment (Tiger 'n Panther) was no match for sheer numbers and simplicity (T34 'n M4). Of course, modern warfare proves that explosive yield trumps numbers (so long as one side has a virtual monopoly on the weapons in question, let alone the backbone to use them in a crunch).

 

If the war had started in 1946 as Hitler had originally told his military, his fleet would have been twice as big, the type XXII u-boats would have been in fleet production, the jets he still had on the drawing board would have beaten anything they faced, and the tanks would have knocked out everyone. The one thing Germany had that everyone else was the knowledge that being in the interior position (Surrounded) you have to be innovative.

[machievelli]

Double posting what?

 

Double posting means having multiple posts in a row. I combined the ones you did above. While it is acceptable in some threads most other places it is frowned upon.

 

I think I may be able to help you, as I did this myself initially when responding to multiple posters. What I do to reply to multiple posters posts is right-click on the 'quote/reply to this' link and open each of them in seperate tabs or windows and then use the copy and paste functions to combine them all into one post. I hope this helps. -RH

THanks for the tip. Actually, you're only the second person to complain in over a year here. My problem is i keep treating it like a conversational circle at a party. I address A, then turn and Address B.

 

So you go and double post again?

 

This is because I and others were simply combining the posts silently hoping you would take the 'hint'. Only in your fic threads and critic thread is double posts allowed, everywhere else is a no-no. This is basically because it has the opposite effect and is more confusing for people to try to read when people have a bunch of posts in a row. Thanks. -RH

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by machievelli:

You forget that Stalingrad was won because some little known General was shipped from the East to command. The same Zhukov.

 

Actually, no, I wasn't forgetting that. My point was that if the same Zhukov w/his far eastern divisions had been tied down in Siberia, what would have become of the famed (or infamous, I suppose) "Eastern Front"? Stalin had purged his military of most of its capable leadership in the purges of the 30's. Almost (if not) ironic that it is from that group that Stalin's ass was saved from himself (rather than being purged in a coup).

 

Now, if the rest of the world were in a vaccum and depending on the whims of Der Fuhrer, the 3rd Reich may or may not have had the weapons you mention. By starting his holocaust, Hitler deprived himself of key scientific resources. Also, Hitler was rather like Napolean in that he was focused more on land assets/strategy than those at sea. Had he produced more Uboats (and they produced quite a few) and been a little less benign about England (flat out conquer, rather than attempt to woo) he would have made it much harder for the US to get involved. There were probably as many (if not more as a percentage of pop.) appeasement monkeys in the US at that time in America as today and the US was isolationist as well. Had Hirohito and company not been shellacked by Zhukov, there would have been no PH and likely no entrance in the war by America (beyond attempts by FDR to help the Brits). And given the expansive nature of communist regimes and their accompanying paranoia (justified or not in their own view), it's unlikely that Hitler would've had the time to wait till 1946. Given that the vast majority of the German army WAS NOT motorized and lacked the resources (and perhaps in leadership, ie Hitler himself), it was inevitable that Germany would fail.

 

Seems to me that the only way Hitler could've won "his war" would've been to put his antisemitism on the backburner after rising to power and focusing all his rosources on wonderweapons (atomics, missles, etc..) and possibly by turning east first (doubt the west would've helped the commies in USSR). Once in the USSR (assuming his ersatz allies in Japan played along by keeping Russia's FE assests tied down), Hitler couldv'e won over portions of the USSR (Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia, etc...) by keeping his SS goons on a tight leash. Remeber, Stalin was a mfer, so many of these people had no particular allegiance to the USSR. With the breathing space he would have had on his "western front", his Nazis could've built a potentially more powerful army. But.... there was that whole racism thing which made any of the above scenario virtually impossible. Still, had the Germans managed to build a few A bombs, it would've been an even uglier war (maybe even on both fronts).

[machievelli]

There's a problem with that anti-semetism;

 

Hitler had them as someone to blame for the failure of the first world war, but if he could have relocated them, they wouldn't have been killed. The Balfour Delcaration of 1912 had said the jews had a right to return to their homeland, but the English had been very leery of letting them descend wholesale on Palestine. The population of that region had begun a sharp demographic curve to about 10% Jewish from the five to seven under the Ottoman Turks. But even that small influx was causing problems. So the English refused to allow the Jews to relocate. The Plight of the luxury Liner Bremen didn't help because anti-semitism is still linked to Christianity. Too many believe firmly that it was the fault of the entire race that less than a hundred called for Barabas rather than Jesus. So When Bremen left Kiel, even the Americans were unwilling to give them visas. That pretty much sealed the fate of the German Jews.

 

if you look at his expansion before Poland, everything he had grabbed had been land shorn away by the five treaties the original Central powers had been forced to sign. He was trying to reunite the German speaking peoples. The only areas that were German speaking that he had not grabbed was western Poland, and the Alsace Lorraine. While the Allies sat and watched, thousand of people and four nations fell to his sway. Any idiot could see that he had to either attack France, or Poland. The Russians jumped on the bandwagon because Eastern Poland had been Russian before WWI. They wanted it back as their failed invasion of the 1920s proved.

 

But if the Allies had held their hands, pulled an other 'peace in our time' with Chamberlain agin giving away land that wasn't him, the stage would be set.

 

His two biggest enemies in his mind were the Jews, and the Communists. He had one under his thumb for later disposal, but Russia was still there. Russia was allied to no European power at that time, and if Hitler had first thrown everything at Stalin in later 1939 early 1940, and second listened to his generals, Moscow would have fallen.

 

But no one would have cared! Russias exportation of revolution ticked everyone off and the Comintern (Communist International) was a wholly russian contolled organization, regardless of what language they spoke.

 

But Roosevelt was the fly in this ointment. He had been anti Fascist since Hitler took office. There was a large isolationist movement, and the opnly way to get us into the war was the bloody shirt. In 1940 he signed the Lend Lease act, pledging American support of the Allies even before the US geared up for it. He ordered American ships to occupy Iceland, and split the Atlantic in half, and dared the germans to attack. Three Amrican ships were fired on. USS Greer, Kearny, and Jones. The last sank.

 

But Greer was in violation of International law because the American ship was actively stalking a German U-boat, and had already made one depth charge attack on them. But when these ships we're attack, the Pro New-Deal press screamed about the 'unprovoked assaults'. Too many of the more intelligent people however knew what had happened, so the Republicans in the Government were able to damp it down.

 

So Roosevelt set us up for an attack at Pearl Harbor.

[Emperor Devon]

Actually, no, I wasn't forgetting that. My point was that if the same Zhukov w/his far eastern divisions had been tied down in Siberia, what would have become of the famed (or infamous, I suppose) "Eastern Front"? )

 

That is an interesting point to consider, but I think all Zhukov's Siberians did was hasten the inevitable. Hitler's troops were not prepared for a prolonged campaign in Russia's terrible winter, and would have been forced out eventually. History has proven that the Russians can lose Moscow but still win the war. Despite all the millions of Russians his troops killed, I think Germany simply had too few troops to conquer such a vast nation.

 

Stalin had purged his military of most of its capable leadership in the purges of the 30's. Almost (if not) ironic that it is from that group that Stalin's ass was saved from himself (rather than being purged in a coup).

 

Specifically, 90% of the generals, 80% of the colonels, and countless other officers. I'm amazed his army was able to do so well.

 

it's unlikely that Hitler would've had the time to wait till 1946. Given that the vast majority of the German army WAS NOT motorized and lacked the resources (and perhaps in leadership, ie Hitler himself), it was inevitable that Germany would fail.

 

His generals actually thought 1950 would be a better date. I imagine he could've won the war if he did that.

[machievelli]

That is an interesting point to consider, but I think

His generals actually thought 1950 would be a better date. I imagine he could've won the war if he did that.

 

1946 was the date he gave his General Staff. The German Navy knew all they could do was die well when it began in 39

[Emperor Devon]

1946 was the date he gave his General Staff. The German Navy knew all they could do was die well when it began in 39

 

Hitler refused to accept the idea that civilian leaders shouldn't meddle in the affairs of the military. Why he hadn't the sense to let go of the idea from '39 till '45 I'll never guess. At least Stalin let his generals take charge of the war when he realized how bad it was getting. But Hitler was an insane megalomaniac and had problems with his health toward the end of the war, and I imagine his ego refused to back down to common sense.

[Palpatine_dc]

Was it Kursk or Stalingrad that marked the turning point in the eastern front?

 

I'd say Stalingrad. That battle stopped the second large scale offensive of the German Wehrmacht directed at the Caucasian oil fields and the Volga river. At that point the Germans were still thinking offensive: conquer resouces and whilst denying them to their enemy. Stalingrad changed that. Not only did the Germans lose about 750,000 men (Axis allies included) there and most of their gains since the start of the offensive, they lost their offensive intent. The conquered German territory would only shrink from then on.

 

Kursk broke the spine of the German Army, but Operation Zitadelle had actually a defensive intent: shortening the lines by elimenating the Kursk Salient. The idea was make a strong defensive line upon which the Soviets advances would be shunted and followed by a counter offensive, defeated. It was an important battle, but not a turning point.

 

How do you think the war in the Pacific would have gone if the Japanese had completely destroyed the ships in Pearl Harbor and won the battle of Midway?

 

Japan would have been defeated anyhow. As an island, one of the most important objectives in war is to keep your sea lanes open, at which they failed miserably. US submarines thoroughly wrecked Japanese merchant shipping, crippeling the Japanese economy. It's strange that Japan never initiated a convoy system like the Allies did. It's one of the least remembered aspect of the war in the Pacific, as it lacked the "glory" of large naval engagements like the battles of Midway and the Philipine Sea.

[machievelli]

Hitler refused to accept the idea that civilian leaders shouldn't meddle in the affairs of the military.

 

YOu forget, the policy of most nations except for juntas is that the Political being, I.E. ,the government has utimate control of what their military does. That authority is vested in the government. It needs that authority to operate.

 

If you had said Hitler over-did it, micromanaged and interfered, I would agree, but in the last 4 decades so did Johnson, Nixon, Ford, The entire Carter goverrnment and Clinton.

[Emperor Devon]

YOu forget, the policy of most nations except for juntas is that the Political being, I.E. ,the government has utimate control of what their military does. That authority is vested in the government. It needs that authority to operate.

 

I didn't mean that. I mean actually having civilian leaders in the war room with the generals, deciding how to deploy the troops, where to send what division, deciding whether to retreat or advance, etc. Hitler did that, and look where it got him. He wanted to advance and take Moscow within the year, which was foolish. I'm no general, but it's obvious that things could've gone better if he'd stopped advancing when the winter arrived, and solidified his gains rather than biting off more than he could chew.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Seems to me that the only way Hitler could've won "his war" would've been to put his antisemitism on the backburner after rising to power and focusing all his rosources on wonderweapons (atomics, missles, etc..) and possibly by turning east first (doubt the west would've helped the commies in USSR).

 

Interesting as Hans Guderian thought that killing the jews and stopping them from helping their country was a huge waste. Many jews were veterans and very competent fighters that could've added quite a bit of "umph" to the Wermacht.

 

 

Rommel had a high enough rank as it was.

 

You forget that Rommel never had the ressources he truly needed. The Afrikakorp was underpowered compared to the British forces. They were only sent there to help out the Italians who were taking quite a beating. Hitler was too focused (even obsessed) on invading Russia so he did not care much for Rommel and his Afrikakorp.