You May Be A WWII Junkie

Well as I said before, Italy shot Germany in the foot that lead to Axis defeats years later and Hitler already knew this, that is why he began to reject Italian help whenever it was sent.

Look at it like this, Italy invaded Greece because Muso wanted to restore the Roman Empire hence his attack on Greece plus he just defeated two nations prior without help so in his mind, he thought Greece would be cake. Attacking Greece and being counter attacked by Greek/UK forces lead to the Wehrmacht being sent in to help the Italians which leads to Greek defeat. That lead to the pyrrhic victory that became Crete. Axis looked at paratroopers as being cancer and that lead to the Allies learning why paratroopers are useful which that bit the Axis in the A$$ in the end.

Of course as for Africa, I am sure Germany didn’t mind helping Italy because I figured Germany taking Egypt would cut of the UK navy from India as well as link Axis forces in the Middle East gaining oil reserves and possibly a secondary front against USSR. I don’t know if Germany would have the balls to attack India in this situation.

Obviously Germany had virtually no respect for the Italians. I think Rommel was the only one who spoke favorably about the Italian soldiers, hated their officers. After Italy surrendered and about half of the Italian military joined the Allies, Germany had no problem going from defending their allies to suddenly occupying a nation as well as engaging their former allies.

Part of the problem that the US Navy ran into when it went to war was that – like many military forces before or since – it had to learn some things for itself before it believed them.  The British had over two years of experience fighting the Battle of the Atlantic at that point, but the Americans didn’t feel that they needed any advice from them on the matter.  It didn’t help that Admiral Ernest J. King was an Anglophobe, in addition to having a generally abrasive personality.  (His wife reputedly once said: “Ernie is the most even-tempered man I’ve ever met.  He’s always in a foul mood.”)  As a result, the Americans made mistakes in their early ASW methods of operations which could have been avoided.  In fairness, the US Army had similar learning-curve problems in North Africa, notably at Kasserine Pass if I remember correctly.

at the start of the battle, the german OKH had two options. Both where considered. They had a very limited capacity to transport vital supplies to the front. They had enough to send the ammunition and fuel for a drive on Moscow without winter equipment. Or, they could send the  winter equipment, fuel and ammunition that was needed for defensive operations. They chose to send ammunition and fuel, but no winter coats. This resulted in the disaster in front of Moscow, and the loss of a lot of the elite leadership of the german army. I believe the only reasonable choice would be to realize that the campaign could not be won in 41 and plan for a 42 campaign. Instead they decided to launch a battle with the potential to lose to war.

Maybe the website I got the French DOW on was wrong, or just listed the allied ones - since many times they reciprocate a dow even though they don’t need too…

Anyway, Germany was perfectly happy sitting there and doing nothing before Russia decided to stick it’s big fat nose in things, then France and England decided to fight Germany (DOW or not, they did cut off transport and trade with them, so in effect, they did declare on Germany even if it wasn’t on paper)

It’s clear that the side that supported the rebellion against the law abiding, peace loving states of Germany and Austria-Hungary are the aggressors, Germany and Austria-Hungary just defending themselves from unwarranted and unwanted attack. :P

And Belgiums a country?  Sheesh, I thought it was a truck stop on route to Paris!  Next you’ll be telling me Rhode Island is a state in the United States of America and not a gas station with delusions of grandeur!

Hehe - good point Miami
No one had mentioned the Italians in this thread yet

Here’s a weapon which could more properly be described as “low-profile” rather than underrated: the proximity-fused anti-aircraft artillery shell.  Proximity fuses were essentially miniature radar sets, built small enough to fit in a shell and tough enough to withstand the tremendous kick of being fired from a gun.  They were quite a technical achievement and they increased the chance that a shell would bring down an airplane even if it didn’t hit it directly.  The Americans kept the proximity fuse very hush-hush; if I recall correctly, it was restricted to being used at sea, where unexploded shells couldn’t be recovered by the enemy and studied for their secrets.

Another effective weapon whose details were kept secret from the American public was the shaped-charge warhead.  I own a laminated WWII magazine advertisement page which tells Americans about a revolutionary new anti-armour weapon called the bazooka; it makes the point that GIs are finding it very effective against German tanks, but it adds that the exact details of how it works and what it looks like can’t be revealed.  As it happens, the Germans knew all about the Munroe Effect (discovered as far back as the 19th century) and had their own shaped-charge anti-tank weapon: the Panzerfaust.  An amusing example of the public on your side being kept in the dark more than the military people on the enemy side.

@strategic:

I may would have been a proponent of continuing the war to Moscow to obliterate Stalin after 1945, so communism would be nothing but a fad and dead.

If I remember correctly, the USSR had something like 300 divisions in Eastern Europe at the time of the Potsdam Conference – a rather large figure compared to what the Anglo-Americans had in Western Europe.  I doubt the Americans and the British could have beaten those kinds of numbers.  I also don’t imagine that a radical move like expending one of America’s rare and priceless A-bombs on Moscow would have done anything other than get those 300 veteran Soviet divisions (who had just helped whip the Wehrmacht) really, really angry at them.  The US and the UK being democracies, they would have also found it a trifle hard to convince their war-weary voters and servicemen to start a whole new war against the country which had just helped them defeat Nazi Germany, and which was getting ready to help them finish off militarist Japan.

At any rate, if you exclude Cuba and China and North Korea, Communism today is in fact pretty much a dying fad…espcially when you consider the amount of free-market capitalism with which China has been flirting for the past decade or so.

Germany because of the SS’s elite training and morale stemming from their admirable mission to defend Europe from Bolshevism. Kurt is absolutely right about the Soviets planning to invade Europe, and yes, including Germany. This is why the Germans had such success at first by attacking a mere 2 weeks before the Soviets. All The Soviets’ airfields and other pertinent facilities and equipment was DIRECTLY behind the front lines in preparation for supporting the advancing army proceeding kilometers ahead. See Operation Groza(Thunderstorm). http://defence.pk/threads/operation-groza-soviet-invasion-of-western-europe-july-6-1941.293859/
Btw, the Germans would have won if they had implemented “total war” production practices that the British had done in 1940 and Soviet Union had done at the outbreak of hostilities with Germany. They did not do so until 1943 because they cared about citizens’ well-being and morale. This is why they were so far behind regarding equipment totals.