We’re not sure. Admiral Canaris was the head of the Abwehr, and he was staunchly anti-Hitler. At times it’s clear he fed Hitler, etc with bad info on purpose. Hard to tell how much and how often, and how much was just due to crappy intelligence. Of course, other than the Allies code-breaking, intelligence was pretty crappy over-all.
Adm Canaris strongly advised Franco to stay out of WWII, for which act there should be statues of Canaris all over Spain.
So, the Polish army was exceptional in their fight against Germany, and to prove that Poland resisted only one week less than France
AND
France didnt really fight at all.
You need to make up your mind.
Oh piffle, you’re hunting for what’s not there. I said France didn’t fight at all during the phoney war period, when whatever damage the Poles had managed to do to Germany was still fresh and might have helped France.
France fought later, after the Germans had been given time to recover and analyze lessons from the Polish campaign. But the miscalculation of France’s aggressive move into the low countries, their dismissal of the Ardennes front, and their famous dispersal of their superior tank strength into “penny packets” to bolster the “continuous front” defense were too many mistakes to overcome.
Ok, thx for the clarification. I think there’s another recent thread here (Ill check later) where that was debated.
I mean the only opportunity window France had was during the Poland invasion. Many posters argued that even with Germany’s forces busy in Poland, there still was the Siegfried line and, as France tested it a bit, it was quickly assessed that it would be a massacre to try to take it. Better to let the Germans come (even though the German army was inferior in numbers, the pops of both Germany and France at the time meant that Germany could replenish its ranks, France could hardly do that. So the number advantage wasnt really in favor of France).
Despite popular belief, the Germans encountered heavy resistance in France. Over 60,000 Germans were killed, and scads of tanks knocked out. There was even an armored attack (let by an obscure colonel named DeGaulle) who almost knocked out a German armored column.
DeGaulle wasn’t particularly obscure at the time (and I know you’re being ironic). He was fairly well known in the French Army as, basically, “That jerk who won’t shut up about tanks.”
I know you’re being facetious, but the French Armee loved tanks- as infantry support, as was standard tactics at the time. In fact, they had more (iirc) and perhaps better tanks than the Germans- but the French used them poorly, DeGaulle being correct (on this, anyway)
Indeed, France did hold off Germany for a while, but as France was a World Power- and Poland not even close, Poland actually did better, all things considered.
My take on Göring from reading several books is that he was great at developing the air force but his greatest talent was in choosing very capable men to run the production sides for him (ala Howard Hughes and Noah Dietrich). He was more than a figurehead but less than fully hands on, and the strategy was too tampered with by Hitler and others to be fully credited or blamed on any one person.
Speer was mentioned earlier. Has anybody read the part of Inside the Third Reich where he mentions being summoned in the middle of the night by Göring late in the war? He arrives and Göring, drugged up and half out-of-his-mind and wearing baronial robes, tells him of the brilliant idea he has had to combat the Nazi steel shortage: make tanks out of concrete! True, you’ll still need steel for the wheels and engine and gun but everything else- concrete! And true concrete is less durable, but that’s okay- just make more concrete tanks!
This man was clearly not hands on. I doubt he even remembered that ‘idea’ or talk the next day. By this time of the war his hands were so tied anyway that he didn’t have much to do but overindulge himself.
A bit off-topic, but the two greatest depictions of Göring on screen (imho) are:
Joss Ackland in The Man Who Lived at the Ritz(the miniseries is mediocre but Ackland’s performance rises above it).
Brian Cox in Nuremberg- perfect performance, and he won some awards for it IIRC. It did take a few liberties, one of the biggest being Göring sitting with his wife and daughter at a table on visiting day (in fact he was separated by a pane of glass), but it also includes many factual details such as the “Deep in the Heart of Texas” singalong on the night of his arrest.
There was a docudrama called Nuremberg: Goering’s Last Standthat was also good, though the actor playing Göring was miscast. He looked a lot like Liam Neeson and was generally too tall, hale and hearty for the lead, though that said he acted it well.
I am interested in the German jet planes. I know that the ME-262 was pretty unreliable, but waht about the Arado fighter-bomber? Allied pilots who flew them after the war considered them to be pretty good aircraft.
“also President/Reichsstatthalter of Prussia, Minister of Forestry, Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan, head of the Forschungsamt, and for about a year, Minister of Economics.”
You left this part out.
Best wishes,
hh
Goering always brings to mind the saying that amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.
He failed at Dunkirk, failed to take out Britains radar chain which ultimately lost him the B of B, failed to resup Stalingrad, failed to protect the Reich from allied bombing raids, had virtually no fighter coverage over the European battle fronts after D day .
Its more a case of finding something that he didn’t fail at.
Also Reich Game Warden. He loved that position since it allowed him to hunt bison and keep pet lions. When he abandoned (and blew up) Carinhall he shot several of his favorite bison to keep them from the Soviets.
There are apparently some major archaeology projects going on around Carinhall now.
The aircraft were quite good, it was the engines that were the problem. They were less than reliable under test conditions and even more of a problem when used under operational conditions.
FWIW The thread on whether Dresden was a warcrime or not, led me to this quote from Goebbels following the attack
This is rich-after murdering millions of Jews, Poles, Russians, the great Herr Goebbles was upset about Dresden. It remids me of a quote by Galeazzo Ciano (Mussolini’s SIL): “the Germans weep about the bombing of their cities…they have always been dishing it out and now they have to take it”
How do you explain the German’s still using the obsolete JU-87 Stuka? It was barely adequate in 1939-totally obsolete by 1943. Yet the Luftwaffe kept buying them-maybe evidence of corruption in the contracts process?
Idiot? They did IQ tests at the trials and Hermann scored the second highest score, genius level. I do not admire the guy just getting historical facts correct. Like, he was against the invasion of Russia, tried to seek peace with Britain and tried on several occasions to achieve that. Once free from drugs he routinely made the prosecution at the trials look silly. Basically, he was a man who was consumed by drugs and greed. I think he would have been happy to sit around and get high than go to war. on that note he was aware of the destructive nature of war and like I said before was against many of Hitlers plans for war and invasions
It’s a late reply, but I’ll take advantage of the thread’s revivial to add my thoughts about the infamous “the bomber will always get through!” belief. The quote itself actually came from British politician Stanley Baldwin, although Douhet had promoted the same general concept.
They were essentially right…except for radar.
Douhet published his treatise in 1921, before the advent of radar. His point, as I understand it, was not that heavily-armed bombers could fight off interceptors (as the Americans were to struggle to prove), but that given the large expanse of sky, the huge surface area of countries, and the high speed of bomber aircraft, it would always be extremely difficult to predict when and where bombers would appear, and get a sufficient force of interceptors in place to stop them. Spreading out your interceptors increases your chance of finding the bombers, but results in only a few of the interceptors being in the right place at the right time; concentrating your interceptors for battle results in the rest of the sky being undefended. Keeping interceptors aloft uses up fuel and tires out pilots and imposes maintenance issues; keeping them grounded means you can’t get them into position in time when the raid comes.
The invention of radar changed all that. By giving warning of the impending approach of bombers, radar allowed economical use of interceptors; by giving direction (and later, distance and altitude) it permitted precise concentration of the interceptors against the bomber streams. This reversed the advantage bombers had once enjoyed.
I know that ground-based spotter networks tried to do what radar eventually did, but they were far inferior. Not only did radar (and concomitant close control of fighter resources) win the Battle of Britain, but German radars (although lagging behind Allied equivalents) were instrumental in giving the Allied heavy bombers such a hard time, eventually forcing the Americans to all but give up until the arrival of suitable escort fighters.
Supporting my analysis, as soon after the war as nuclear weapons could be miniaturized enough to be carried by smaller aircraft, air forces switched to development of very fast nuclear-armed bombers intended to fly in very low – to stay under radar. It was widely assumed that high-flying heavies would be toast.
And today, stealth bombers have fulfilled Douhet’s vision (for now, until some countermeasure arrives). So far, they always do get through – because there’s no radar in their world.
So “the bomber will always get through!” wasn’t nonsense, so much as that it had been overtaken by (technological) events.
Thanks for the informative post. Before radar was developed, Major Edwin Armstrong of the USA Signal Corps had an idea for detecting enemy bombers-by detecting the RF radiation caused by their spark plug arc emissions. Did that idea ever work? It would require a very high gain, low noise amplifier-something difficult to do in the 1920s.