Thanks for letting me know. I was considering watching it, but now I’m scratching that off my list of things to watch. Now I feel bad for Leslie Odom Junior for doing this.
WW2 Article: Advanced German Technology
-
Ok IR score one for the US Yeah! Score a whole **** more for the Germans for getting Jets, Assault Rifles, Rockets Etc.!!!
-
Ok IR score one for the US Yeah! Score a whole **** more for the Germans for getting Jets, Assault Rifles, Rockets Etc.!!!
The first jet to enter full Squadron Service was the Meteor……
Score what for an army that to the end used horses for transport?
Not very good at this are you?
-
Forgive me but the term “first saw service” and “full squadron service” are two COMPLETELY different things. Also where in the name of George Patton did you come up with horses? Thats a horrible slam at the German army. Horses were pretty common and it didn’t help that the Americans bombed all the German factories. Please leave irrelevent things out of the conversation.
-
Please leave irrelevent things out of the conversation.
So sayeth the man who believes the Stealth Bomber was a German invention!
-
. In addition, Germany achieved the below list of developments–developments which were significantly ahead of their time.
Wartime jets + axial flow jet engines --> postwar axial flow jet fighters.
Wartime advanced jet designs (Me 262 HG III) --> postwar efforts to break the sound barrier
Wartime stealth bomber design --> 1980s era B2 stealth bomber
Wartime type XXI U-boats --> postwar nuclear submarines
Wartime air-to-air missiles --> postwar air-mounted weaponry
Wartime guided air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles --> postwar guided missiles
Wartime cruise missile (V1) --> postwar cruise missiles
Wartime V2 rocket --> postwar ICBMs
Wartime assault rifle --> postwar assault rifles
Wartime infrared vision equipment for tanks --> postwar night vision equipment
Wartime handheld anti-tank weaponry (Panzerfaust) --> postwar handheld anti-tank weaponry
Wartime Fritz guided bombs --> postwar smart bombs
Wartime Wasserfall surface-to-air missiles --> postwar SAMsAh I see. If Germans had something then it follows that all post-war development stemmed from them.
This is silly.The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable. It is long shown to be a history channel invention.
Let us take one example above. The claim Germany led in IR development.
Is that so? How then did the US develop and deploy a rifle with IR scope when Germany failed?
IR was not a German invention and even the Soviets had a pre-1939 version.I’ll address your bolded statement first. I did not state nor imply that “If Germans had something then it follows that all post-war development stemmed from them.” I listed German “developments which were significantly ahead of their time.” Please do not misrepresent my statements.
Secondly, you wrote that “The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable.” You didn’t cite any source to support that claim. Germany developed a prototype of a flying wing bomber during WWII. Back when Germany was under the Versailles Treaty, prohibitions against powered aircraft caused a lot of German aeronautical talent to be diverted into gliders. The Germans learned a lot about aerodynamics as a result–learning which helped considerably with the subsequent invention of the Horten Ho 229’s flying wing design.
The shape of the Horten Ho 229 was not its only stealthy characteristic.
After the war, Reimar Horten said he mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb electromagnetic waves (radar), which he believed could shield the aircraft from detection by British early warning ground-based radar known as Chain Home.[5] . . .
Northrop-Grumman built a full-size reproduction of the V3, incorporating a replica glue mixture in the nose section. After an expenditure of about US$ 250 000 and 2 500 man-hours, Northrop’s Ho 229 reproduction was tested at the company’s classified radar cross-section (RCS) test range at Tejon, California, where it was placed on a 15-meter (50 ft) articulating pole and exposed to electromagnetic energy sources from various angles, using the same three frequencies in the 20–50 MHz range used by the Chain Home in the mid-1940s. RCS testing showed that a hypothetical Ho 229 approaching the English coast from France flying at 885 km/h (550 mph) at 15–30 metres (50–100 ft) above the water would have been visible at a distance of 80% that of a Bf 109. This implies an RCS of only 40% that of a Bf 109, from the front at the Chain Home frequencies.
The Wikipedia article to which I’ve linked provides some pictures of the Horten Ho 229. (Though unfortunately, another picture of a complete Ho 229 is no longer included in the article.) But lest you continue to think that this aircraft was some fabrication of the History Channel, I suggest you examine a photograph of the aircraft from the Smithsonian Institute’s website. The Smithsonian also provides a longer description of the aircraft here.
I would also like to address your comment about the German Army’s reliance on horses. The German Army relied heavily on horses because horses don’t require gasoline, and Germany had no extra gas to spare. Using coal-powered trains to ship supplies most of the way toward their intended destinations, and horses for the remaining distance, was logical for a nation rich in coal and utterly lacking in oil.
-
I’ll let Kurt take over as he’s one of the forums history buffs but first I’d like to say this. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A GERMAN INVENTION! THAT WAS KURT! If you can’t even argue with the right person then leave the forum! (I had a better response but the mods wouldn’t have agreed with me :evil: )
-
I’ll let Kurt take over as he’s one of the forums history buffs but first I’d like to say this. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A GERMAN INVENTION! THAT WAS KURT! If you can’t even argue with the right person then leave the forum! (I had a better response but the mods wouldn’t have agreed with me :evil: )
If you want my help, you’ve got it! I’ll start with jets. Lazarus was inaccurate to state that the first jet was the Meteor. The Me 262’s first flight (with jet engines) was in July of '42. The Gloster Meteor’s first flight was in March of '43. The Me 262 was introduced in April of '44. The Meteor was introduced in July of '44.
Far more important than the minor differences in introduction dates is the fact that the German Me 262 used an advanced form of jet engine (axial flow jets), as opposed to the more basic and limited centrifugal flow jet engines employed by the Meteor. In addition, the Me 262’s design demonstrated a significantly more advanced understanding of aerodynamics than did the design of the Meteor (let alone the U.S. Shooting Star). A planned improvement to the Me 262–the Me 262 HG III–would have had wings swept back at a 45 degree angle.
-
Secondly, you wrote that “The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable.” You didn’t cite any source to support that claim. Germany developed a prototype of a flying wing bomber during WWII. Back when Germany was under the Versailles Treaty, prohibitions against powered aircraft caused a lot of German aeronautical talent to be diverted into gliders. The Germans learned a lot about aerodynamics as a result–learning which helped considerably with the subsequent invention of the Horten Ho 229’s flying wing design.
It seems I am not permitted to link anything so I can not give you the page where this was posted in National Geographic Magazine.
I wrote a letter to a curator at the facility inquiring about the rumored stealth properties of the Ho 229 aircraft and received a detailed response: “I have examined the aircraft and many primary and secondary sources of information about the Hortens’ work, and I have found no reliable evidence to confirm this idea. Reimar Horten described these low RCS [radar cross section] techniques during the early 1980s as news reports began to appear that described the stealth qualities of the Northrop B-2 bomber. I have examined the Ho 229 V3 numerous times and found no evidence of a “mixture of charcoal and glue” applied to the skin that would lower the RCS. I believe Horten ‘invented’ the notion of the stealthy Ho 229 to draw attention to other interesting and innovative aspects of his work.”
.
-
If you want my help, you’ve got it! I’ll start with jets. Lazarus was inaccurate to state that the first jet was the Meteor
Oh dear. Fall at your first hurdle.
Please check back and tell me the dates the Meteor entered Squadron service and then give me the date for the first Me 262 Squadron.
Please do not confuse the issue by dragging other subjects in to it and just give the dates to prove I was wrong. -
You didn’t cite any source to support that claim.
Just a note: though everyone appreciates the linking of sources, wikipedia articles don’t always provide the most accurate information and should invoke some skepticism.
Ok IR score one for the US Yeah! Score a whole **** more for the Germans for getting Jets, Assault Rifles, Rockets Etc.!!!
The subject really isn’t that exciting. You must understand that a points-based competition based on rival technologies means nothing when you factor in the grotesque and disastrous realities of that conflict.
If these supposed German technological “wonders” had any effect on the war, it was to postpone an already bloody and lengthy war and cause the deaths of many more on both sides, civilians and soldiers. That’s hardly worth any kind of points.
Thats a horrible slam at the German army. Horses were pretty common and it didn’t help that the Americans bombed all the German factories. Please leave irrelevent things out of the conversation.
Um, the Germans lost the war and in the process perpetrated the most evil, disgusting and unforgettable atrocities in all the long and brutal history of mankind. Who cares if someone “slams” the German Army? Good God, man. You don’t wish the Nazis had won the war, do you?
Lazarus’ point isn’t that irrelevant. The German Army can hardly be considered technologically superior to the Allies when 90 percent of its forces were dependent on horses. Understand that even horses were running short by the end of the war. The big German horses of North European descent faired very badly on the Eastern Front and over 750,000 died during the first six months of the war. That meant most German soldiers had to travel by foot.
Perhaps you should look into Guy Sajer’s Forgotten Soldier, one of the best firsthand accounts of the German Army from 1942-on. The book details Sajer’s experiences fighting for the elite Grossdeutschland division on the Eastern and then Western Fronts. Sajer describes in great detail the desperation and material inferiority the German Army suffered during the second half of the war. When his unit surrendered to American GIs in 1945 and were forced to stand in the back of a deuce and a half, the American soldiers couldn’t understand why Sajer and his men were so happy. He eventually told them it was the first time he’d not been forced to march in a long time.
I’ll let Kurt take over as he’s one of the forums history buffs but first I’d like to say this.
I for one can say your infallible assertions will be missed.
-
Secondly, you wrote that “The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable.” You didn’t cite any source to support that claim. Germany developed a prototype of a flying wing bomber during WWII. Back when Germany was under the Versailles Treaty, prohibitions against powered aircraft caused a lot of German aeronautical talent to be diverted into gliders. The Germans learned a lot about aerodynamics as a result–learning which helped considerably with the subsequent invention of the Horten Ho 229’s flying wing design.
It seems I am not permitted to link anything so I can not give you the page where this was posted in National Geographic Magazine.
I wrote a letter to a curator at the facility inquiring about the rumored stealth properties of the Ho 229 aircraft and received a detailed response: “I have examined the aircraft and many primary and secondary sources of information about the Hortens’ work, and I have found no reliable evidence to confirm this idea. Reimar Horten described these low RCS [radar cross section] techniques during the early 1980s as news reports began to appear that described the stealth qualities of the Northrop B-2 bomber. I have examined the Ho 229 V3 numerous times and found no evidence of a “mixture of charcoal and glue” applied to the skin that would lower the RCS. I believe Horten ‘invented’ the notion of the stealthy Ho 229 to draw attention to other interesting and innovative aspects of his work.”
.
I had interpreted your earlier post to imply that you disputed the existence of the Horten Ho 229 itself. I now realize your earlier claim was far narrower; and that you are merely disputing whether charcoal dust had been mixed into the glue of the Horten Ho 229 for the purpose of reducing its radar cross section. I acknowledge that the evidence for the charcoal dust is weaker than the evidence for the existence of the flying wing German bomber itself. (The latter is beyond all reasonable dispute.)
Regardless of whether charcoal dust was or was not mixed into the Horten Ho 229’s glue, the aircraft still had stealthy characteristics. The flying wing shape produces a weaker radar signature than does a standard-issue aircraft shape. (Which is why the B-2 also employs the flying wing shape.) In addition, wood was used for a great deal of the Horten Ho 229’s construction; and wood is largely invisible to radar. Together, these two factors would have given this aircraft a stealthier radar profile than standard WWII aircraft, even without the charcoal dust. Understand here that “stealthier” does not mean completely invisible to radar–rather, it means the effective range for any given radar station would have been reduced when searching for this aircraft. It is also worth noting that the flying wing shape was chosen for aerodynamic reasons, not because of the desire to create a stealthy profile.
More important than the Horten Ho 229’s stealth characteristics is the fact that it met or came close to meeting Goering’s 1000/1000/1000 goal. Goering had demanded that any future twin-engined German bombers must be able to fly 1000 km/hour, and must be able to deliver a 1000 kg payload to a target 1000 km away. The Horten Ho 229 had a top speed of 977 km/h (607 MPH), compared to 703 km/hr (403 MPH) for a P-51 Mustang. It could deliver 1000 kg (2200 lbs) of bombs to a target 1000 km (620 miles) away. This aircraft therefore had strong potential as a fighter/interceptor, as well as a medium bomber that could deliver its payload without being shot down.
-
More important than the Horten Ho 229’s stealth characteristics is the fact that it met or came close to meeting Goering’s 1000/1000/1000 goal.
Goering was a fat, idiotic drug-addict. Those goals as you call them came about during some morphine-induced braggadoccio to Hitler to regain his favor after a number of Luftwaffe disasters. They don’t mean anything except tremendous amounts of diverted resources and another ultimately worthless design.
The Horten was no stealth bomber. Come on, the whole term is a misnomer even with today’s tech and is only used in the media and on history forums. In Air Force parlance, these type of aircraft (that is, B-2s, F22s and F117s - not Horten Ho 229s) are called low radar observance aircraft. We probably wouldn’t even be discussing this topic if everyone referred to the Horten as the Ho 229 low radar observance aircraft.
In any case, I suppose it should be mentioned again that Allied radar was supreme by the end of the war and would have easily and quickly detected the Horten despite and I guess because of its extraordinarily-modest ability reflect radar.
-
More important than the Horten Ho 229’s stealth characteristics is the fact that it met or came close to meeting Goering’s 1000/1000/1000 goal.
Goering was a fat, idiotic drug-addict. Those goals as you call them came about during some drug-induced braggadoccio to Hitler to regain his favor after a number of Luftwaffe disasters. They don’t mean anything.
I also have a low opinion of Goering. His braggadocio and false promises were largely responsible for a number of German problems and defeats. At Dunkirk, Goering had promised Hitler that the British force could be destroyed by air. Hitler therefore elected to preserve the strength of his own army with the thought that the Luftwaffe could finish off Britain’s troops.
Slightly over two years later, the German Sixth Army had become encircled inside Stalingrad. The German Army had paid a high price for the conquest of Stalingrad in the first place: Soviet soldiers were considerably more successful in killing German soldiers in house-to-house fighting than in open field combat. Considering the heavy price which had been paid to acquire this crucial city, Hitler was highly reluctant to abandon it to the Soviets. He felt that if the German Army abandoned the city, it would have to pay another high price in blood when it retook the city later.
Goering told him this was unnecessary. The Luftwaffe, Goering promised, would use cargo transports to deliver all the supplies that were needed. The German force could remain in place until the Soviet encirclement was broken.
The Stalingrad force never received more than a fraction of the daily supplies Goering had promised. As wholly inadequate as the transport effort was early on, it grew steadily and significantly worse as the weeks continued. Bad weather, losses of cargo transport planes to Soviet anti-air guns and fighters, and other factors caused the daily tonnage arriving in Stalingrad to continue to dwindle. When the remnants of von Paulus’s Sixth Army finally surrendered, its soldiers were starving, and almost completely bereft of ammunition and medical supplies.
Goering’s incompetence and lack of credibility should not be allowed to obscure the achievements of Reimar. Meeting the 1000/1000/1000 goal was a remarkable accomplishment, regardless of whatever thoughts (if any) that may have been going through Goering’s head when he formulated that goal. A medium bomber that could fly over 150 MPH (nearly 300 km/h) faster than a P-51 Mustang could have been very useful to the German war effort.
-
So only Germany had flying wings?
Northrop N-1M?
-
So only Germany had flying wings?
Northrop N-1M?
The Northrop N-1M was an experimental American flying wing design which first flew in 1941, and which had a top speed 1/3 that of the Horten Ho 229. Obviously that wasn’t good enough, so Northrop created another, slightly faster flying wing design in late '42. The N-9M was about 2/5 as fast as the Horten. By June of '46 Northrop had an experimental flying wing that was 2/3 as fast as the Horten. (The YB-35 had a much longer range and much larger payload than the Horten.)
By October of '47 Northrop had created a prototype jet version of its flying wing–the YB-49. This aircraft was 5/6 as fast as the Horten; while having a significantly longer range and much larger bomb load. But then
[In 1950], all Flying Wing contracts were cancelled abruptly without explanation by order of Stuart Symington, Secretary of the Air Force. . . .
[In] a 1979 videotaped news interview, Jack Northrop broke his long silence and said publicly that all flying wing contracts had been cancelled because Northrop Aircraft Corporation had refused to merge with competitor Convair at Stuart Symington’s strong suggestion, because according to Jack Northrop, Convair’s merger demands were “grossly unfair to Northrop.”.[3] A short while later, Symington became president of Convair upon leaving his post as Secretary of the Air Force.[4] . . .
[In] April 1980, Jack Northrop, now quite elderly and wheel chair bound, was taken back to the company he founded. There, he was ushered into a classified area and shown a scale model of the Air Force’s forthcoming but still classified Advanced Technology Bomber, which would become known as the B-2A; a sleek Flying Wing. Looking over its all-wing design, Northrop was reported to have said: “I know why God has kept me alive for the past 25 years.”[8]
German designers and engineers deserve credit for using the flying wing design to create what would have been a highly effective fighter/interceptor and medium bomber. Northrop deserves credit for using the flying wing design to create what could have been an effective postwar heavy bomber. The German design employed two jet engines; the Northrop jet design of late '47 used six. This illustrates that the German and American aircraft were intended for different roles: the Germans emphasized speed, maneuverability, and dogfighting ability, and the Americans focused on range and large bomb payloads.
-
If I had to rank the nations of WWII in order of their technological prowess, I would place them in the following order: the US, Germany, UK, USSR, Japan.
However, I wish to thank Lazarus for for pointing out the obvious discrepancy of the Germans utilizing both the most advanced form of transportation (V-2 and ME262) and the least advanced form (horses and feet) of all participants. Whereas the Allies, particularly the US, had a great deal of transporation, even to basic infantry, provided by gasoline powered vehicles such as the Jeep which gave the US and UK a very clear advantage of mobility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep
Jeeps were used by every division of the U.S. military and an average of 145 were supplied to every infantry regiment. Jeeps were used for many other purposes including cable laying, saw milling, as firefighting pumpers, field ambulances, tractors and, with suitable wheels, would even run on railway tracks.
This show the level of technology for the participating countries in WWII varied considerably both between nations and within individual nations.
One perfect example was the Jerrycan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JerrycanA simple, but effective technology that was eventually reverse engineered by the Allies. This alone might have enabled Rommel to do as well as he did in N. Africa as one of his big problems was a severe shortage of fuel. With the massive industrial production capabilities of the US and the clear need for this by the British colonies prior to the war, why didn’t either side develop an equivalent prior to the war as had the Germans? Its not as if this were a difficult thing to do.
I can point to dozens of similar accounts on both sides illustrating the spotty development of technology during the war. Why was the concept of drop tanks (greatly extending flight distance of fighters) developed so late in the war? Why did the Japanese, despite having perhaps the best submarines of the war, neglect to develop anti-submarine technology? Why were the Russian tanks, despite the low technology of the soviets (such as the poor quality of steel and poor erognomics and lack of radios) in many ways superior to the German tanks, such that the Germans copied the best features (such as sloped armor)? Why were the British, after having cracked the German enigma code, so lax in their own communications (they could have simply developed a similar code)?
Technological development for all sides was uneven and always in development such that the best technology was often obsolete before it could be mass produced . Not that mass production was always possible or even desirable. As an example of undesirable production, the German shortage of fuel precluded the use of “Jeeps” for infantry even had they decided to build these.
Note to Zukov; While I can appreciate wanting to use the best sources, I prefer to use wikipedia links (and other well known media sources) because these are fairly accurate and usually virus and spyware free. Some of the other links, while potentially better sources of information, are also not as secure and often of a more questionable quality than Wikipedia. If the link address looks odd, I generally won’t click on it…
-
Um, the Germans lost the war and in the process perpetrated the most evil, disgusting and unforgettable atrocities in all the long and brutal history of mankind. Who cares if someone “slams” the German Army? Good God, man. You don’t wish the Nazis had won the war, do you?
Like Zhukov, I’m wondering what larger point – if any – is being made in what might otherwise simply be a discussion of the state of German technology during the Second World War. Since this is Stanley Cup playoff season, let me use a hockey analogy to explain (in abstract terms) what’s puzzling me. Assume that Team X has just defeated Team Y in the last game of the playoffs and has won the Stanley Cup. The coach of Team Y is being interviewed after the game, and he tells the sports reporters something along these lines:
"Yes, well, it’s true that the other team won…but that’s an overly simplistic way of looking at the situation. Just look at the hockey equipment that our side was using, or was developing, and you’ll see that we were way ahead of the other team.
"For instance, we invented special high-impact helmets and shoulder pads. Those would have given our guys a huge advantage in body-checking: we could hit the other players much harder and dislocate their shoulders without being injured ourselves. It’s too bad that the development problems we ran into meant that they never advanced beyond the prototype stage because, by golly, if we’d ever gotten them into use on the ice we’d have flattened the opposition.
"Then there’s the super-advanced skate blades we produced. They gave our guys 10% more speed than the other team could manage on their old-fashioned conventional skates – or at least they did for the three players we were able to equip with them, because we only had time to manufacture three pairs before the playoffs ended. Think of the difference they would have made if all of our players had had them! It’s unfortunate that their production was delayed by the fact that our suppliers also had to work on all those other Advanced Hockey Equipment Initiative projects that didn’t turn out to be quite so useful – like the one to develop light-amplifying helmet visors, which would have allowed our guys to keep playing if the hockey arena lighting had failed, or the system to encrypt the player numbers on the back of their hockey jerseys, so that our guys would be able to decode the numbers of their team-mates while leaving the opposition unable to recognize anyone from behind.
"And we especially outclassed the other team with our hyper-polymer composite hockey sticks. Those were by far our greatest technological triumph! They could fire the puck faster and straighter than any normal wooden stick the opposition had. We would have gotten them on the ice long before the playoffs started, of course, if it hadn’t been for the fact that the owner of our team insisted that these sticks should also have the capability to shoot pucks along curved trajectories as well as shooting them straight. Our players thought that this additional capability was a waste of time and effort, when what they really wanted was just a simple straighter-shooting stick, but the owner firmly believed that a curve-shooting stick would fool the other side’s goalie a lot better.
"Anyway, we did manage to equip most of our players with these super-sticks in time for the final three games, so that was a big plus on our side. It’s only at that point, however, that we discovered how easily the super-sticks broke. They were a real headache to replace because they were so expensive and took so long to manufacture. But that’s the price you have to pay for quality. Just look at Team X’s equipment if you don’t believe me! Their old wooden sticks were so cheap that they broke even more often than our super-sticks! Okay, it’s true that for every stick they broke they had two dozen new ones ready to replace it, but that’s just because they were so cheap to manufacture. And anyway, that’s also partly because Team X had ten hockey-stick factories working for them, in contrast to our single factory – so that was a grossly unfair advantage on their part, and if you ask me it shouldn’t really count in the final analysis.
“I just wish the playoffs had lasted longer because we were really on our way to solving those problems. Our general manager got the owner to drop his requirement that our super-sticks shoot curves, so the second-generation models would have been a lot simpler to produce. We also persuaded our owner not to launch a brand-new program to develop a new dual-function stick which could be used both by our goaltenders and our skaters. And as coach, I was starting to put much more emphasis on coming up with a solid game plan for a change. I’ve always believed that my priority should be training the guys physically, to make sure they were the fastest and strongest players on the ice, and I’ve always felt that as long as my boys were well-trained physically they didn’t need a game plan any more complicated than ‘Put the puck in their net and keep it out of ours’. My assistant coach got me to try to be a bit better-organized at tonight’s final game, however, and I must say it did seem to make a difference, so that goes to show that we could have turned things around in that department too if we’d just had a little longer to make use of all our terrific technological advantages.”
This little imaginary monologue is exaggerated, of course, but it’s not fundamentally different from what sports teams (and sports fans) sometimes say when they’ve been knocked out of their game’s playoff series. I’m just curious about the fact that essentially the same thing is being argued in this thread about Germany’s technological developments during the Second World War.
-
Alright boys don’t bring politics into this. I really don’t have time to type a massive response to your answer because I’ve got a life outside of board games and history. Saying that I wish the Germans had won the war has nothing to do with the conversation. I’m glad they didn’t. Hitler and his Nazis commited acts more horrible then perhaps anyone in history. However what about the German people? If I had a German grandfather in the Heer are you calling him a sick inhuman bas***d that deserves to be shot? What if the US or Australia or the UK or wherever your from, invaded a poor defensless country? Then another nation declared war. What would you do? In my opinion anything other than defending your country, family, and home is unacceptable. Not all these men fought because they hated Jews, Blacks, and other “different” people. They did it to protect everything they held dear. So I don’t want any arguing or complaining about how this is completely irrelevent (because it is). I have only one question . Would you do the same?
-
Alright boys don’t bring polotics into this. I really don’t have time to type a massive response to your answer but I’ve got a life outside of board games and history. Saying that I wish the Germans had one has nothing to do with the conversation. I’m glad they didn’t. Hitler and his Nazis commited acts more horrible then perhaps anyone in history. However what of the German people. If I had a German grandfather in the Heer are you calling him a sick inhuman bas***d that deserves to be shot? What if the US or Australia or the UK or wherever your from invaded a poor defensless country? Then another nation declared war. What would you do? In my opinion anything other than defending your country, family, and home is unacceptable. Not all these men fought because they hated Jews, Blacks, and other “different” people. They did it to protect everything they held dear. So I don’t want any arguing or complaining about how this is completely irrelevent (because it is). I have only one question . Would you do the same?
Oh, man. For one thing, I was born in Germany, the same as my mother and father, their parents before them, their parents before them, and down the line for some generations, and I like to think I’ve shed my bias. My great-grandfather, an NCO in a Waffen-SS panzergrenadier division, was killed during the Battle of the Bulge (my dad’s grandfather moved to the U.S. when he was young and fought for the U.S. in the same battle - I like to think he shot my German great-grandfather :lol:).
Before this topic gets any more off topic, I would like to say, Pvt. Ryan, that the German people are not as innocent as you seem to believe. They watched as their Jewish neighbors were hauled off and they cheered like schoolgirls every time Germany invaded another country. No matter what German apologists say, the German people were arguably just as responsible for the atrocities their leaders committed.
Oh, CWO_Marc, I for one greatly appreciate the analogy. Not a huge hockey fan myself, but I couldn’t stop laughing when I read that.
-
@CWO:
Um, the Germans lost the war and in the process perpetrated the most evil, disgusting and unforgettable atrocities in all the long and brutal history of mankind. Who cares if someone “slams” the German Army? Good God, man. You don’t wish the Nazis had won the war, do you?
Like Zhukov, I’m wondering what larger point – if any – is being made in what might otherwise simply be a discussion of the state of German technology during the Second World War. Since this is Stanley Cup playoff season, let me use a hockey analogy to explain (in abstract terms) what’s puzzling me. Assume that Team X has just defeated Team Y in the last game of the playoffs and has won the Stanley Cup. The coach of Team Y is being interviewed after the game, and he tells the sports reporters something along these lines:
"Yes, well, it’s true that the other team won…but that’s an overly simplistic way of looking at the situation. Just look at the hockey equipment that our side was using, or was developing, and you’ll see that we were way ahead of the other team.
I’d like to address the points you’ve made in this post, beginning with Zhukov’s quote from the first paragraph. He asserted that the Nazis perpetrated “the most evil, disgusting and unforgettable atrocities in all the long and brutal history of mankind.” While those terms are fairly subjective, it is worth noting that during WWII, the Allies were responsible for a far greater number of illegally/immorally perpetrated deaths than were the Axis. These deaths include, but are not limited to, the millions which were caused by the Anglo-American food blockade of Germany, the various genocides the Soviets perpetrated during and after the war, and the bombing raids directed against German and Japanese cities and their people. The Allies were not the knights in shining armor that their propagandists worked so hard to portray them as. This is not to suggest that the Axis nations had avoided illegal killings–they most certainly had not. Examples of unjustifiable Axis actions include the following.
-
The Anglo-American food blockade had created a food crisis in Germany. To prevent starvation of its own people, the German government gave a higher food priority to its own citizens than to the residents of occupied Poland and other territories. This was legal. A government has a greater moral responsibility to feed its own citizens than the non-citizen residents of territories it occupies. The millions of Poles who starved to death as a result of the food shortage were the sole responsibility of the Allied governments whose actions had caused starvation. In addition, the Nazis decided that Jews were less deserving of scarce calories than anyone else. Therefore, Jewish caloric consumption was to be eliminated. This singling out of the Jews was illegal and unethical.
-
Communist guerrillas in France and in some Eastern European countries would appear, kill some German soldiers, and then fade into the general populace. This habit of fighting out of uniform was illegal. The reason this behavior is forbidden is to avoid creating an incentive for the victim of such attacks to retaliate against local civilian populations. Germany did engage in such retaliatory behavior: it killed large numbers of local civilians for each of its soldiers who had been illegally killed. The theory was that such retaliations would turn the local populace against the communist guerrillas. But whether that theory was correct or inaccurate, the retaliation killings were still illegal.
-
The Japanese behavior in China was clearly an Axis atrocity.
-
The German bombing of civilian targets in Britain and elsewhere was illegal. (Though the German raids were on a much smaller scale than the Allied bombing raids.)
None of the above, however, even comes remotely close to justifying the Allies’ atrocities during WWII. The communists in particular were murderers, and showed no hesitation about mowing down columns of German refugees, or raping and killing German women and girls during and after the war. The Soviet occupation of Germany has been described as the largest mass rape in human history. It is also worth noting that the British forbade significant Jewish entry into Palestine or their other colonies, even while adopting a food policy designed to starve Germany. Just which group did the British expect Hitler to select as the first victim for the starvation the British had chosen to create?
Prior to WWII, the Soviet communists were responsible for tens of millions of mass murders. These include the Ukrainian famine, the murder of non-communists and anti-communists, random killings of “enemies of the people” intended to weed out potential opposition, murders of kulaks and others based on economic class, the murder of the Russian intelligentsia, the murder of Christians and Christian clergy, the murder of a large number of Red Army officers in a Purge, and more. In contrast, the Nazis’ pre-war illegal killings included (and were more or less limited to), the non-judicial execution of a few hundred SA members in order to prevent a coup. Despite these track records, the major Western democracies consistently sided with the communists, and against the Nazis, in the cold war that had developed between Germany and the Soviet Union. The pro-communist atmosphere which existed inside FDR’s administration, in the American media, in France, and elsewhere strongly influenced the course of events. This pro-communist attitude was not based on concern about past mass murders, as shown by fact that the communists had a much worse pre-war track record than did the Nazis. Nor was it based on concern for avoiding future mass murders, as demonstrated by the fact that, in 1938, both Chamberlain and Daladier rejected Hitler’s offer to relocate Germany’s Jewish population to some remote British or French colony. (Hitler personally favored French Madagascar, but indicated he wasn’t picky.) The pro-communist policies of the Western democracies were not the result of sound moral conviction: they were the result of complete moral failure. This same moral failure would lead to resistance to anti-communism in the postwar era, a lack of concern for the victims behind the Iron Curtain, and a general willingness to look the other way while the communists committed whatever atrocities they felt like.
The statement has been made that the Germans did nothing while the Jews were being gathered up and placed in concentration camps. What, precisely, did the American public do to stop the Japanese living in the U.S. from being gathered up and placed in American concentration camps? It could be pointed out that, while conditions in both camps were very bad, and produced skeletal people, the concentration camps for the Jews were significantly worse even than those for the Japanese. But it is not exactly as though the average American personally visited (or was allowed to personally visit) the concentration camps for Japanese to see the conditions for himself. Therefore, it’s hard to blame the average German for having failed to have done the same with respect to his own nation’s camps. Similarly, the British people did not prevent their government from building concentration camps, or using them against the predominately Dutch settlers of South Africa, during the Boer War. These camps also resulted in living skeletons for people. The idea that the German people are uniquely and collectively guilty is Allied propaganda; and has about as much truth and justice as you’d expect from propagandists at their very worst.
Having addressed the first point, I’ll move onto the second. “Like Zhukov, I’m wondering what larger point – if any – is being made in what might otherwise simply be a discussion of the state of German technology during the Second World War.” That is a fair and legitimate question.
In the early 1930s, the international communist party regarded fascism as the penultimate in a series of steps which would ultimately lead to communism. Therefore, the German communist party did not align itself with the mainstream parties in an effort to keep the Nazis out of power. But the rise of the Nazi Party did not help move Germany towards communism. Instead, communist leaders were placed in concentration camps, sources of communist influence were dissolved or taken over by the Nazi government; and the German people gradually became united. Jails were empty, unemployment was largely eliminated, the workforce had decent wages and a decent standard of living, and patriotism was strong. Germany was proving largely immune to the communist virus.
Therefore, the international communist party would change tacks. In the future, it would focus on “anti-fascism,” which in practice meant encouraging the Western democracies to oppose Germany. Stalin regarded both the Nazis and the democracies as equally enemies. He hoped for a long war between the two sides–a war which would bleed them both white, and cripple both Nazi and Western democratic resistance to a Soviet move westward into the heart of Europe. His hope was therefore to remain neutral in the sought-after war between Germany and the western democracies.
Communist and pro-communist influence within major western democracies was very strong. Thus, the Nazis could not necessarily hope to maintain their government through diplomacy alone–at least not over the long term. If a solid core of influential people pushes in a specific direction long enough–as the French Communist Party and other like-minded organizations could be expected to do–that group can often achieve its objective over the long run.
In 1935, France signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia also sided with the Soviets. These developments meant that the Soviets’ diplomatic policy was picking up steam; and that the Western democratic governments were becoming increasingly pro-Soviet and anti-German in policy.
The Nazis had relatively little control over political forces in France or elsewhere–much less influence than, for example, the Soviet Union had. If the Soviet Union was pursuing a war against Germany by proxy (using or influencing Western democracies to achieve its own ends), Germany would respond by becoming militarily and economically stronger. This strategy involved the building up of Germany’s military (so as to increase its negotiating influence), the re-acquiring of territory taken by the Versailles Treaty, and other tactics. In 1938, Germany successfully annexed Czechoslovakia–an act which both strengthened Germany’s industrial base and sent a message to other Eastern European governments which might otherwise have been tempted to side with the Soviets.
In 1939, Poland adopted a foreign policy that was both anti-German and anti-Soviet. It did so largely because of France’s (false) promise to launch a general offensive against Germany if Germany went to war with Poland. Polish foreign policy therefore reflected the wishes of France (which wanted to foster disagreements between Germany and Poland), rather than the best interests of Poland.
Once the war began, Germany found itself at a severe disadvantage to Britain and France, especially in terms of access to raw materials and industrial capacity. Also, Britain and France could rely on weapons purchases from American factories. Initially, Germany was able to offset this strategic disadvantage with good tactics, and the skill and courage of its military. But the fall of France did not solve Germany’s problems. Germany was still at a disadvantage to Britain in terms of military production capacity–especially when the Lend-Lease Aid was added in. Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union was (among other things) a bid to rectify that imbalance–to gain for itself the manpower, raw materials, and industrial capacity necessary to balance out the aircraft being built in British and American factories.
However, Germany did not have the same weapons manufacturing capacity as did the Soviets. Moreover, its prewar population was 69 million people–as compared to 169 million for the Soviet Union. Germany could only field an army a fraction the size of its Soviet counterpart. Initially, Germany made up for this by a very one-sided exchange ratio. But at the Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets succeeded in killing or capturing almost as many Germans as they themselves lost. While the Germans later returned to attaining one-sided exchange ratios–Kursk is a good example–it was not enough to protect the German homeland against the strength of the Red Army.
Prior to WWII, the Western democracies and the communists were each stronger than Germany. The major Western democracies liked the communists much more than they liked Germany. (Though it is worth noting that the democratic government of Finland was not pro-communist, and fought against communism during WWII.) The story of the war in Europe is therefore a story of Germany’s ultimately unsuccessful efforts to overcome the economic and military weakness which Hitler’s government had inherited from the Versailles Treaty. Pre-war, those efforts involved sacrifice–Germany spent 20% of its GDP on its military. Early in the war, Germany’s efforts for survival revolved around quick conquests–on starting and ending wars quickly, before the other side’s economic advantage could force a decision against Germany. Blitzkrieg allowed Germany to quickly conquer Poland, France, and the western portion of the Soviet Union.
But blitzkrieg could only achieve so much. By the fall of ‘41 it had become clear that the German plan of quickly destroying the communists’ military strength had failed. Everything which occurred from '42 onward–and especially from '43 onward–represents a subsequent phase of the Nazi government’s attempt to survive.
In 1942, the Allies produced four times as many military aircraft as did the Axis. While both sides increased military aircraft production over the next two years, the Axis increased it more. In 1944, the Allies produced only twice as many military aircraft as did the Axis. (Military aircraft production is a somewhat reasonable proxy for overall military production.) Germany produced nearly three times as many military aircraft in '44 as it had in '42. But at no point after it invaded the Soviet Union could it have hoped to achieve victory by outproducing its enemies. Even before Barbarossa, the large numbers of U.S.-made military aircraft and other weapons being sent to Britain meant that it would have been virtually impossible for Germany to match the Allies on quantity.
While large-scale production increases had to be part of any successful German strategy for victory, Germany would face large numerical disparities no matter how successful it was in mobilizing its own industrial strength. Therefore, a substantial qualitative advantage was also required. Its infantry had such an advantage: a study I saw indicated that German infantry were, on a man-for-man basis, three times as combat-effective as their Soviet counterparts. American and British infantry were 80% and 50%, respectively, as effective as the Germans.
Assuming the Allies were able to maintain their 2:1 - 4:1 advantage in weapons manufacturing, German weapons would have to be twice to four times as effective as their Allied counterparts to give Germany a chance. The fact that Germany was in the process of developing a number of such wonder-weapons when the war ended is therefore highly interesting. Had those weapons been developed two to three years earlier, and had Germany’s production increase also occurred earlier, a plausible Axis victory scenario could be created. Once Germany was at war with both Britain and the Soviet Union (with American industrial strength turned against it as well through Lend-Lease), the only plausible Axis victory scenarios absolutely require Germany to attain a significant qualitative advantage over its enemies. The fact that so many advanced forms of weaponry were being developed in late-war Germany means that a significant qualitative advantage could have formed the basis for a German war strategy. However, that advantage would have needed to be attained soon enough to matter. (Or, conversely, the war would need to have been delayed to give Germany enough time to put that qualitative advantage into effect.)
I realize these are history forums, and that they will tend to attract people who wish to discuss what did happen (the Allies won), and not necessarily what could have happened. The larger point of any technology-based “what if?” scenarios may or may not interest you personally. I enjoy such discussions, in large part because of how they tie in to the question of the larger strategic options available to the Axis.
-
Suggested Topics
