@ABWorsham4 probably still scared the starving civilians , carrying rifles and 2 bullets each, half to death at the time though .
How could Germany have won the war?
-
BJCard: Italy messed up the invasion of Greece and this dragged Germany into it. Do not think Italy was ever going to be prepared for WW2. Few Italians had the inclination for it either.
I wonder if Germany could have attacked Russia without safeguarding the Balkans first. (I think not.)
Not sure if they had planned on attacking Yugoslavia first anyway.Maybe someone can confirm if that was the case.
-
@wittmann:
BJCard: Italy messed up the invasion of Greece and this dragged Germany into it. Do not think Italy was ever going to be prepared for WW2. Few Italians had the inclination for it either.
I wonder if Germany could have attacked Russia without safeguarding the Balkans first. (IÂ think not.)
Not sure if they had planned on attacking Yugoslavia first anyway.Maybe someone can confirm if that was the case.
It was not planned but the Germans were forced to invade the Balkans.
Julius Cesar declared once, that the Balkans are like a Barrel full of Powder.
If it is possible ,you try not to engage in a conflict with the Balkans. (As it is still nowa these days) -
Hi Aequitas. That is what I thought.
Funny how nothing has changed vis a vis the Balkans.
I suppose a lot is to do with the terrain, but even in ancient times its people were a formidable mix of javelin throwing light troops and vicious heavy infantry.
Not sure they have ever been renowned horsemen, but again anyone correct me of I am mistaken. -
Wittman,
By no means did I mean not spread hatred at all, just not directed at people at home. Blame the commies for everything I say. I bet some gypsies could fire a rifle, But I really meant not wasting resources killing people in concentration camps, and using them for the war effort.As far as not attacking Russia, it was just an idea. Maybe they could have waited another year or hit the Balkans earlier. Just saying their timing wasn’t that great if the goal was Moscow before winter.
I also said the Germans could have helped Italy out earlier in the war with training and equipment. It could have helped…
-
BJCard: it was Razor who said that.
I liked your post.I did say I think Italy was a lost cause. (I am Italian. Have lived in the UK since I was one and have an English mother.) I think its military prowess was never going to amount to much. I wonder if the disaster at Caporetto was still being felt in the echelons of the Army High Command. There was too much aristocracy as generals and peasants as soldiers and no link between the two tiers.
It’s navy, especially the modern battleships, was great on paper, but badly led and lacking modern technology.
The midget subs and the brave frogmen were a different matter of course! -
Sorry wittman. I was using my phone and must have confused who said what. Good insight into the Italian army/navy. Maybe more German help wouldn’t have made a difference. That said, the navy may have faired a bit better if it wasn’t hit hard at Taranto. What is Carparetto? Is that the great war battle against Austria?
-
Caporetto was the battle that broke the back of the Italian army, routing it at last.
With German help(Rommel was a Captain and Battalion commander, I think) the mountain defences in NE Italy, which had held on against the Austrians since war began in 1915, caved in. it nearly took Italy out of the war. It was only a secondary line and help from the UK abd France that kept Italy in the war. It was autumn of 1917.The battle and Rommel’s part in it caused rancour in Italian minds when the two sides were allied in the desert from 40-42. The tension was not helped by Rommel’s insistence on prominently wearing the Pour le Merite medal he won in the battle. (It is a pretty medal.)
You gotta love Rommel! -
@wittmann:
Caporetto was the battle that broke the back of the Italian army, routing it at last.
With German help(Rommel was a Captain and Battalion commander, I think) the mountain defences in NE Italy, which had held on against the Austrians since war began in 1915, caved in. it nearly took Italy out of the war. It was only a secondary line and help from the UK abd France that kept Italy in the war. It was autumn of 1917.The battle and Rommel’s part in it caused rancour in Italian minds when the two sides were allied in the desert from 40-42. The tension was not helped by Rommel’s insistence on prominently wearing the Pour le Merite medal he won in the battle. (It is a pretty medal.)
You gotta love Rommel!Thanks for this- Interesting. Something else to read on wikipedia next time I’m bored at work. :-D
-
I only know a few details about that because of reading a biography of Rommel.
Except for an interest in WW1 Aces and aircraft(planes were my first passion) I know little of WW1. I am learning much more from others here. -
As far as not attacking Russia, it was just an idea. Maybe they could have waited another year or hit the Balkans earlier. Just saying their timing wasn’t that great if the goal was Moscow before winter.
But it was a bad idea to attack Russia. Thay had more than twice the population, it was the largest country in the world with lots of oil and resources, it have severe winter half the year, and at that time only dirtroads. The classic Russian defense stategi is the scorched earth tactic, and on top of that Stalin had used 60 % of the Gross domestic production for military outlays for 10 years, and had reached 4 times the tank production that Germany had.
Yes, they could have waited another year, but it was not in Hitlers nature to be prudent. He even startet the whole war many years before his military forces were ready, why should he wait to invade Russia ? He could have ignored the Balkans, since Greece would never let UK bomb the Ploesti oil field, and the alliance with Italy was not valid as long as Italy was the aggressor. And he could have startet Barbarossa in mai, but since Hitler figured it would take 3 weeks only to crush Russia, he was in no hurry.
I think Germany’s best bet to conquer Russia, would be to project all their available forces and resources to the campaign. They had half a million men based in Norway and Finland for no good use, and this men could be added to Barbarossa. The Africa Corps with Rommel could be added too, since Germany had no economic interests in Libya, and the 600 000 men from the Balkan Army. Since France surrendered they did not need a million men there just to chase jews. This 2 million extra men could have made a difference in Russia.
Since the German HQ knew the Russians would use the scorched earth tactics, the German army should be better supplyed by trucks. But Hitler wanted them to live by the land, wich means taking food from the local civillians, because he wanted the natives to starve to death so german settlers could later colonize Russia. A nice and evil idea, but the problem was that Stalin had scorched the eart, so there was no food, and since the German Army did not find any food in Russia, and Hitler refused to feed them by supply, then Hitlers Army were starving as a result. One of the rational to not use rail to send supply to Russia, was that Hitler needed all railways to send jews to Holocaust. This was more important then to supply the Army in the east. So basically the German Army in Russia was short of supply, short of food, short of winter clothes, short of gas, short of trucks etc etc and that was bad since the attack turned out to become a war of attrition, and not a 3 week long trip of triumph.
What Hitler could have done was let his generals do the job, but then he would not be Hitler.
-
As far as not attacking Russia, it was just an idea.� Maybe they could have waited another year or hit the Balkans earlier.� Just saying their timing wasn’t that great if the goal was Moscow before winter.
But it was a bad idea to attack Russia. Thay had more than twice the population, it was the largest country in the world with lots of oil and resources, it have severe winter half the year, and at that time only dirtroads. The classic Russian defense stategi is the scorched earth tactic, and on top of that Stalin had used 60 % of the Gross domestic production for military outlays for 10 years, and had reached 4 times the tank production that Germany had.
Yes, they could have waited another year, but it was not in Hitlers nature to be prudent. He even startet the whole war many years before his military forces were ready, why should he wait to invade Russia ? He could have ignored the Balkans, since Greece would never let UK bomb the Ploesti oil field, and the alliance with Italy was not valid as long as Italy was the aggressor. And he could have startet Barbarossa in mai, but since Hitler figured it would take 3 weeks only to crush Russia, he was in no hurry.
I think Germany’s best bet to conquer Russia, would be to project all their available forces and resources to the campaign. They had half a million men based in Norway and Finland for no good use, and this men could be added to Barbarossa. The Africa Corps with Rommel could be added too, since Germany had no economic interests in Libya, and the 600 000 men from the Balkan Army. Since France surrendered they did not need a million men there just to chase jews. This 2 million extra men could have made a difference in Russia.
Since the German HQ knew the Russians would use the scorched earth tactics, the German army should be better supplyed by trucks. But Hitler wanted them to live by the land, wich means taking food from the local civillians, because he wanted the natives to starve to death so german settlers could later colonize Russia. A nice and evil idea, but the problem was that Stalin had scorched the eart, so there was no food, and since the German Army did not find any food in Russia, and Hitler refused to feed them by supply, then Hitlers Army were starving as a result. One of the rational to not use rail to send supply to Russia, was that Hitler needed all railways to send jews to Holocaust. This was more important then to supply the Army in the east. So basically the German Army in Russia was short of supply, short of food, short of winter clothes, short of gas, short of trucks etc etc and that was bad since the attack turned out to become a war of attrition, and not a 3 week long trip of triumph.
What Hitler could have done was let his generals do the job, but then he would not be Hitler.
I did not say it was a ‘good’ idea to attack Russia, but listed things he could have done better. I also think that a better policy toward conquered peoples such as in the Ukraine would have made it easier, maybe even nudge Russia into another civil war.
Totally agree with you on the supply side. They should have known the Russians are experts at scorched earth policies, as evidenced 200+ years prior by Napoleon (really any war that Russia has been in). Additionally, I thought the train system in Russia had different grade tracks so the European trains couldn’t be used? Perhaps an earlier push towards the Caucasus oil fields and/or earlier research on synthetic fuels could have helped with supply lines (Or even trains designed for Russian tracks).
Agreed too many resources wasted on Jews and defending against a British invasion that did not come for 4 years after France/Norway were taken (and doubtful the UK could have done it without the USA, so why declare war? The Japanese were never going to fight Russia…).
-
The psychology of Hitler and his manipulation of his minions was both his strength and his weakness. Through his climb to power he was able to create a fanatical cadre, but the his downfall was his manipulation and schemes of his closest advisors. Which needed a huge beauracracy of red tape, too many ideas and thus sending Hitler’s already crazy mind in too many pet projects. Equally as detrimental was Hitler and his henchmen’s belief that somehow they had some supernatural power to influence fate thereby dooming Germany to superstition, and almost believing that Valkeries would swoop from the sky to destroy thier enemies.
Hitler was his own worst enemy, he had the power to make a man sacrifice his own life and in the end he took his own along with millions of others. My opinion was Hitler was suicidal and needed Germany to help him get the guts to do it himself.
-
The psychology of Hitler and his manipulation of his minions was both his strength and his weakness. Through his climb to power he was able to create a fanatical cadre, but the his downfall was his manipulation and schemes of his closest advisors. Which needed a huge beauracracy of red tape, too many ideas and thus sending Hitler’s already crazy mind in too many pet projects. Equally as detrimental was Hitler and his henchmen’s belief that somehow they had some supernatural power to influence fate thereby dooming Germany to superstition, and almost believing that Valkeries would swoop from the sky to destroy thier enemies.
Hitler was his own worst enemy, he had the power to make a man sacrifice his own life and in the end he took his own along with millions of others. My opinion was Hitler was suicidal and needed Germany to help him get the guts to do it himself.
I get that Hitler had his issues, but this thread was how he could have won the war, not why he lost it.
-
As I said, he could only won the war if he quit being himself and let his generals do the job and the thinking, but then he would not be Hitler
-
naw, his generals where to obsessed with the tactics of war, rather than the economics of war. This is why they wanted to go for moscow, rather than turn south and get the ukrainian ore, block the ukrainian factories and encircle 500k (i don’t remember the number) men around kiev.
the economics dictated going after the resources and building strategic bombers.
-
As far as not attacking Russia, it was just an idea.� Maybe they could have waited another year or hit the Balkans earlier.� Just saying their timing wasn’t that great if the goal was Moscow before winter.
But it was a bad idea to attack Russia. Thay had more than twice the population, it was the largest country in the world with lots of oil and resources, it have severe winter half the year, and at that time only dirtroads. The classic Russian defense stategi is the scorched earth tactic, and on top of that Stalin had used 60 % of the Gross domestic production for military outlays for 10 years, and had reached 4 times the tank production that Germany had.
Yes, they could have waited another year, but it was not in Hitlers nature to be prudent. He even startet the whole war many years before his military forces were ready, why should he wait to invade Russia ? He could have ignored the Balkans, since Greece would never let UK bomb the Ploesti oil field, and the alliance with Italy was not valid as long as Italy was the aggressor. And he could have startet Barbarossa in mai, but since Hitler figured it would take 3 weeks only to crush Russia, he was in no hurry.
I think Germany’s best bet to conquer Russia, would be to project all their available forces and resources to the campaign. They had half a million men based in Norway and Finland for no good use, and this men could be added to Barbarossa. The Africa Corps with Rommel could be added too, since Germany had no economic interests in Libya, and the 600 000 men from the Balkan Army. Since France surrendered they did not need a million men there just to chase jews. This 2 million extra men could have made a difference in Russia.
Since the German HQ knew the Russians would use the scorched earth tactics, the German army should be better supplyed by trucks. But Hitler wanted them to live by the land, wich means taking food from the local civillians, because he wanted the natives to starve to death so german settlers could later colonize Russia. A nice and evil idea, but the problem was that Stalin had scorched the eart, so there was no food, and since the German Army did not find any food in Russia, and Hitler refused to feed them by supply, then Hitlers Army were starving as a result. One of the rational to not use rail to send supply to Russia, was that Hitler needed all railways to send jews to Holocaust. This was more important then to supply the Army in the east. So basically the German Army in Russia was short of supply, short of food, short of winter clothes, short of gas, short of trucks etc etc and that was bad since the attack turned out to become a war of attrition, and not a 3 week long trip of triumph.
What Hitler could have done was let his generals do the job, but then he would not be Hitler.
Winter clothes and antifreeze would have made a difference.
Another point would be the constant change of priorities. I mean, just look at fall blau. Hitler first wanted to take the caucasus, and then he became obsessed with stalingrad.
Same with Leningrad. Could be taken easily, but he wanted the infantry to catch up. Why do you want to besiege a city when it could be taken and the forces there freed up for use elsewhere?
-
From some of my recent readings the Germans believed that in the Soviet’s were not capable of feeding the 4 million people in Leningrad after the beating the Red Army was taken in early 1941. A huge mistake on the Germans part.
-
@ABWorsham:
From some of my recent readings the Germans believed that in the Soviet’s were not capable of feeding the 4 million people in Leningrad after the beating the Red Army was taken in early 1941. A huge mistake on the Germans part.
In one sense, the Germans were correct: an awful lot of people in Leningrad died of starvation (and cold, due to lack of fuel) during the siege, a situation made worse by the fact that the Russians failed to evacuate the elderly and the very young while they still had the chance, before the city was cut off. But the Germans did make a serious mistake in not pushing their occupation line completely around the southern end of Lake Ladoga and up its eastern bank to join up with the Finns, who had captured the northern half of Karelia Ladoga. As a result, the Russians retained access to the eastern shore of Lake Ladoga, and were able to get supplies across the lake to Leningrad by truck and railroad in winter (when the surface was frozen) and by ship in summer. Leningrad got only a fraction of what it needed, but this trickle of supplies did nonethless help the city to hold out.
-
@CWO:
@ABWorsham:
From some of my recent readings the Germans believed that in the Soviet’s were not capable of feeding the 4 million people in Leningrad after the beating the Red Army was taken in early 1941. A huge mistake on the Germans part.
In one sense, the Germans were correct: an awful lot of people in Leningrad died of starvation (and cold, due to lack of fuel) during the siege, a situation made worse by the fact that the Russians failed to evacuate the elderly and the very young while they still had the chance, before the city was cut off.�  But the Germans did make a serious mistake in not pushing their occupation line completely around the southern end of Lake Ladoga and up its eastern bank to join up with the Finns, who had captured the northern half of Karelia Ladoga.�  As a result, the Russians retained access to the eastern shore of Lake Ladoga, and were able to get supplies across the lake to Leningrad by truck and railroad in winter (when the surface was frozen) and by ship in summer.�  Leningrad got only a fraction of what it needed, but this trickle of supplies did nonethless help the city to hold out.
I’ve read reports that over the course of the siege, Children were going missing during the night. Speculation and recent evidence suggests some of them were eaten.
Reports of cannibalism appeared in the winter of 1941–1942, after all birds, rats, and pets had been eaten by survivors.[52] Hungry gangs attacked and ate people.[53] Leningrad police even formed a special unit to combat cannibalism. This unit resulted in 260 Leningraders being found guilty of and put in prison for the crime of cannibalism
-
@CWO:
@ABWorsham:
From some of my recent readings the Germans believed that in the Soviet’s were not capable of feeding the 4 million people in Leningrad after the beating the Red Army was taken in early 1941. A huge mistake on the Germans part.
In one sense, the Germans were correct: an awful lot of people in Leningrad died of starvation (and cold, due to lack of fuel) during the siege, a situation made worse by the fact that the Russians failed to evacuate the elderly and the very young while they still had the chance, before the city was cut off.� � But the Germans did make a serious mistake in not pushing their occupation line completely around the southern end of Lake Ladoga and up its eastern bank to join up with the Finns, who had captured the northern half of Karelia Ladoga.� � As a result, the Russians retained access to the eastern shore of Lake Ladoga, and were able to get supplies across the lake to Leningrad by truck and railroad in winter (when the surface was frozen) and by ship in summer.� � Leningrad got only a fraction of what it needed, but this trickle of supplies did nonethless help the city to hold out.
I’ve read reports that over the course of the siege, Children were going missing during the night. Speculation and recent evidence suggests some of them were eaten.
Reports of cannibalism appeared in the winter of 1941–1942, after all birds, rats, and pets had been eaten by survivors.[52] Hungry gangs attacked and ate people.[53] Leningrad police even formed a special unit to combat cannibalism. This unit resulted in 260 Leningraders being found guilty of and put in prison for the crime of cannibalism
Never heard about this before. Horrible.
Suggested Topics
