Damn smiley faces.
On more thing. You guys remember, Germany declared war on the US first. Now that was a mistake.
Occam: You missed one thing though, Hitler’s wasn’t leading those actual troops. His strategy, i.e. the big picture, was flawed. If he had of waited longer, or really done a whole lot of thing differently from a big picture perspective, things could have gone rather differently.
Occam,
So basically, Hitler was not a tactical moron because he took advantage of one tactical (dare I even say strategic, in these cases) opportunity? OK Upgrade him to an imbecile, then.
Japan’s leadership was obviously gifted intellectuals too, because they decided to strike a blow below the belt when no-one was looking. (Or, perhaps more intriguing, when it was to their advantage to look the other way) I can’t even remember if it was in direct violation of international treaty… but Germany’s moves certainly were.
So lets keep bringing it up intellectual levels… to be tactically adept (I keep thinking strategic, thats the reading kicking in), one should (a) establish treaties of non-violence with full intention to disregard it when its to your advantage (ie. lie) and (b) go for the throat; blindsiding is desirable (this approaches strategic doctrine! WOW)
Hitler was a leader of men, and popular no doubt. He might even have been able to get all of Europe… but Russia stood in his way.
Alongside your claim “Constantly out numbered, Germany defeated the better part of Russia with TACTICS!” How far, exactly, did Germany advance into the USSR? Within so many miles of Moscow… outskirts of Leningrad… whatever. General’s Frost and Cold did the job on them though, didn’t they? So they were tactically brilliant to outfight the Russians (even with Russia’s tendency to cause trouble with scorched earth tactics)) but it was certainly not Hitler’s direct tactical know-how that did it, and in the end it was his strategic blunder that lost it for them.
Questions: (1) Who ordered the men to advance on Russia so late in the year, confident it would only take a couple months?
(2) Why no winter gear? Who’s order?
(3) Who designed blitzkreig? (co-ordinated, “lightning fast” strikes by land, air and sea if possible)
regarding America and where her thumb was located… So? I miss your point there. But I’m obtuse anyhow.
===
“And now, for something Completely different”
“Can the panel tell us what they would do if they were hitler?”
-“Well, Speaking personally, I’d annex the Sudetenland.”
-“Hmm… well, ahh, I’d pay some people to set fire to Lord Sn…” [click!]
-Liberal rubbish, from Dead Bishop on the Landing, Monty Python’s Matching Tie and Handkerchief.
Jai Pey
I’m not a military expert, but given what we knew of Hitler in 1941 (Austria, Czecholovakia, Poland, the Low Countries, France, the Eastern Front, and the Battle of Britain)does anyone in the forum feel that he would not have tried to establish some sort of dominance over the U.S. if he had the means?
And do the people in the forum agree or disagree that if the U.S. had not intervened against Hitler he would have had more time to develop an atomic bomb and a delivery system? Furthermore, since the U.S. would not have been fighting Hitler, would it even have begun a Manhattan Project at that time?
I could project that without the U.S. entering the war, a nuclear strike on London in late 1944, followed by at least a threat to drop a bomb on New York or Washington sometime in 1945.
Is that enough of a threat?
Trying to stop a dictatorial asshole once he is knocking at your door is like trying to dam up the Mississippi after the levy has already broken and the water is seeping into your livingroom. Repair the breech before the water is at your door; stop the dictator well before his ships are off your shores.
I personaly feel that Roosevelt and the Congress waited to damn long in the first place before putting a stop to Hilter and Hirohito. Also, if Truman would have had the balls to listen to MacArthur and do what he suggested we would never have had the Korean or Vietnam war.
Hindsight is always 20 20!
How high is up?
Kelly said:
Huh?
I assume that you mean dropping nukes on China (MacArthur’s main proposal which Truman refused to go along with). Sure, that would have helped the international situation. It’s not like that wouldn’t have horrified all of our allies and gotten them to seriously rethink their commitment to the Korean War. And it certainly wouldn’t have convinced China to respond with unfettered warfare against U.S. holdings. And it certainly wouldn’t have convinced the Soviet Union under Stalin that World War III had just started and that it was time to nuke South Korea and Western Europe in response.
What the hell are you talking about?
kunilou- From what I’ve read, Germany never really invested much in the atom bomb. They putzed around with it in '39 and '40, but they didn’t really accomplish much and soon decided that there were bigger fish to fry. After all, most of Europe’s star physicists- Einstien, Bohr, Fermi, etc.- fled the Nazis for the greener pastures of the U.S., so I don’t believe the Nazis would have had the know-how or equipment to develop an atomic bomb. As for the U.S. building one, it’s still likely- we were willing to continue the Selective Service enlistment and send destroyers to support Britain even when we weren’t willing to jump into a war, and even without a war situation I believe the Roosevelt administration would have been just as scared by the idea of the Germans developing a nuclear weapon before the U.S. did.
JMCJ
Curmudgeon Of The Day Winner, 1/19/00
As Selected by RTFirefly
What I’ve heard about it is that the Germans did continue to work on an atomic bomb throughout the war, but only halfheartedly, because, as you pointed out, the best minds had already fled the continent.
IIRC, records on Nazi progress on a nuclear weapon were discovered after the war, and it seems that they were way off – trying to use “heavy water” and deuterium, stuff which is more along the lines of a fusion weapon than a fission weapon like the US developed, but far more complicated. Some sources (again, IIRC) think that Germany was at least 20 years from having a working prototype atomic bomb.
Glitch, Occam missed a couple more things, too:
-
In fact, Germany’s army was larger than the allied armies put together. In 1940 Germany had 157 divisions, 136 of them for the invasion of the Low Countries & France. France had only 94 divisions, all of which were very poorly equiped (many with WWI weaponry). Belgium had 22. Britain had 10 in Europe. The Dutch had only 9. Plus, France had no air force of any significance while the Luftwaffe numbered some 4,000 planes. France was very outnumbered.
-
Sort of right. Operation Yellow (low countries and northern France) started on May 10 and France had fallen by June 22. You were correct in a way though, because Operation Red (Battle for France) took a little over two weeks.
-
Germany did not defeat the better part of Russia.
-
I agree.
Surprise had very little to do with anything. For months, if not years, France, Netherlands and the rest of the Allies knew Hitler had eyes on Europe. 1936, when Hitler occupied the Rhineland and was training the largest airforce in Europe, was the year most of Europe started looking the other way, hoping for the best. Apathy, not surprise, allowed Hitler to dominate early on.
Jai Pey brings up a good point, Hitler (& co)was NOT a tactical moron. The early strategies of non-aggression with Russia, invasion of Norway, and taking of the lowlands to avoid the Maginot line were all brilliant.
Hell is Other People.
Yes, Occam, Hitler was far from being a military genius. Among his significant mistakes:
1.) Not destroying the British Army at Dunkirk, allowing the UK to get 300,000+ men to safety to England and claim one of the few moral victories that has meant anything. Granted, some historians blame his generals for this mistake, but it was still an error not to destroy an army when the chance presented itself.
2.) If you read William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” you will find that the Nazi leaders agreed, circa 1937, to engulf Europe in war. Had Hitler an understanding of grand strategy, he would have postponed the war at least a couple of years to build up the German fleet. The lack of a big-enough fleet (and I am talking about battleships, cruisers, destroyees and transports, not just wolfpacks of submarines) was the major reason Germany’s chances of invading England in 1940 were slim.
3.) Ordering the invasion of Norway when it was no longer necessary. Although the German army suffered relatively few casualities, the British were able to sink or damage a large number of German ships, greatly reducing the chance of an invasion.
4.) His handling of the Battle of Britain, although this is a mistake that Goring bears at least as much responsibility for. In the early stages of this air battle, the Luftwaffe was doing a good job of gradually destroying British fighters and radar stations. However, because British planes bombed Berlin during a visit by Molotov, Hitler and Goring ordered the Luftwaffe to begin terror bombing of London and other cities. As terrible as this was for the English people, it did allow the RAF and those precious radar stations to survive the Battle of Britain.
5.) Not destroying American and British planes operating out of or around Malta. These planes destroyed a significant amount of materiel destined for Rommel in North Africa and may have pulled out the Allies’ bacon in North Africa.
6.) Not fully supporting Rommel in North Africa. Hitler apparently failed to grasp the significance of Egypt. Had the Germans been able to take this country, the Middle East oilfields would have been wide open and they would have been able to open a second front against Russia. In TRAFOTTR, Shirer quotes a letter from Churchill to Roosevelt in which Sir Winston seemed to think Britain would have had to surrender with the loss of Egypt.
7.) On a related note, I believe some historians have criticized the Axis military for not being more aggressive in Africa during the very early part of the war.
8.) Postponing the invasion of Russia just to take out Yugoslavia. Hitler learned what Napolean learned: Old Man Winter always fights on the side of Holy Mother Russia.
9.) Declaring war on Russia while Britain was still an active force.
10.) Honoring the treaty with Japan and declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Had Hitler not declared war, Roosevelt would have had a hard time persuading Congress to declare war on Germany, especially considering the huge number of isolationists at the time.
11.) Ignoring Rommel’s advice on how to respond to the June 1944 Normandy invasion. Because the Allied battleships were pounding the hell out of the Germans, Rommel wanted to pull the Nazi forces back out of range and prepare a better, more organized defense. Hitler had this maniacial insistence that Germany would not give up one inch of soil, so he ordered his commanders to throw their forces piecemeal against the Allies. When you consider how narrow the margin of Allied victory was at the French beaches, you have to wonder if the Allies would have carried D-Day had Rommel’s advice been followed.
12.) The battle of Stalingrad. This defeat, coupled with the British victory at El Alamein and the American victory at Midway, effectively sealed the Axis’ fate.
13.) I also note that Hitler failed to persuade Franco to bring Spain in on the Axis’ side.
The Germans defeanted France because of that country’s overreliance on the Maginot Line, the invention of blitzkrieg tactics (these were developed as much by Guderian as anybody, although to give the devil his due, Hitler understood the importance of tanks much sooner than many professional generals) and the fact that large numbers of the French were either synmpathetic to Fascism or were demoralized. Shirer wrote another book, “Mid-Century Journey,” in which he details how the Nazis corrupted French politics AND the French media in the years leading up to WW2. This is a fascinating work, and I highly recommend it to all Dopers.
Furthermore, in war as in love, size ain’t everything. I suggest you read sometime about the battle of Cannae, in which a Carthagian force under Hannibal Barcus, destroyed a Roman army about four times its size, or about the battle of Chancellorsburg (1863), in which
a Confederate army under Robert E. Lee defeated a Union army twice its size.
Germany did record some key victories in the early part of the Russian campaign. However, if you read histories of WW2, you will find that Stalin seemed not to have expected Nazi treachery (I find this incredible, too) and had hampered the Red Army by imprisoning or executing too many competent officers. Also, the Communists’ insistence that enlisted men be treated the same as officers hurt the Russians in the war’s early going.
As for your comment about German production, Germany’s economy was second only to America’s at that point in history. The world did not declare war on the Third Reich
The Coyote gnaws …
but he does not swallow.
While I’ll agree that politically Hitler was pretty smart, I won’t give him an ounce of credit for any of the military moves made during the war. He had a brilliant staff, and experienced military commanders (the Spanish Civil War was a great proving ground – anyone remember Guernica?).
Also, going around the Maginot line was a strategy developed before World War I, and was called the Schlieffen Plan. Hitler’s General Staff just updated it a bit to include blitzkrieg manuevers on a tactical scale.
I think Ursa Major makes a helluva good case for why Germany could have been a significant threat, in the absence of U.S. aid to Britain/entry into the war prior to Britain’s defeat. I’d add one small detail, often overlooked:
A pro-Nazi regime was already in place in what is for all practical purposes North America: St. Pierre and Miquelon, which was broadcasting Germanophile propaganda to Canada and our Northeast. It was run by the Vichy French until deGaulle landed some forces and took it over (and was taken to task by Cordell Hull, U.S. Secretary of State, for his troubles!).
Check out this scenario: We adopt an “America First” policy and stay out of the war. Germany chokes off Britain and eventually forces a surrender, leaving it more or less independent under a Mosley-led government. Canada remains free.
Evading the few “Free British” ships still opposing them, U-boats land a couple of battalions on St. Pierre, openly. In a commando-style operation, they take Newfoundland, whose armed forces were about equal to repelling a pack of Cub Scouts in rowboats, provided that no more than four dens participated in the landing. (Remember that Newfoundland was independent until 1947.)
From Newfoundland Island and Labrador, German forces occupy Quebec, which they give autonomy on the Vichy model, converting them to an ally of sorts. This divides the Maritimes from the rest of Canada. Germany lands more troops, openly this time.
Now, we have a German army 200 miles north of NYC, and poised to capture and exploit the mineral wealth of northern Ontario.
I lived about two hours drive from Montreal and Ottawa, and about three hours from NYC, for 48 years. I can see it as quite a possible scenario.
Coyote:
Excellent list. I especially like #2, remembering Churchill’s line about “…the only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-Boat threat.” (or something like that.)
Minor correction to above posts on strategy:
The Schlieffen Plan called for a major wheel through northern Belgium, if necessary including the southern Netherlands. It was what Germany tried, unsuccessfully, in 1914 in order to bring WWI to a quick close.
The modification adopted in 1940 called for Panzer divisions to move through the Ardennes, which was previously considered impassible for offensive troops. It worked better than the original plan. IIRC, von Rundstedt came up with it and Hitler pressed it strongly on the General Staff, who were fearful of how well (poorly) it would work.
Kelly, one of the reasons Roosevelt and Congress could not do more was because this country had effectively disarmed itself in the 1930s. Greece and Portugal had larger armies, and some of our soldiers had to drill with sticks instead of rifles. I have read opinions that this lack of force was one reason why the Nazis discounted America’s possible impact upon the war.
Roosevelt and his allies in Congress did manage to institute the draft in '39 or '40; did manage to obtain passage of the Lend Lease Act, a great boon to Britain; and did manage to increase defense spending agains the wishes of much of the populace. I suspect Roosevelt would have done more, but many Americans were isolationists and/or concerned about The Great Depression.
Good point, Polycarp. I have read that the original Schlieffen plan failed because the German staff at that time thought von Schleiffen’s original plan too daring. Does Barbara Tuchman address this in “The Guns of August?”
The Coyote gnaws …
but he does not swallow.
Polycarp: An interesting theory. (I especially like the invading force of four troops of Nazi Cub Scouts. I could really make some tasteless jokes about what kind of merit badges they could earn, but I’m not that horrible. Besides, Konrad will do it for me.)
However, I don’t think we can assume that America would sit quietly while the Germans invaded Newfoundland and moved into Quebec. Most of the American isolationist felt that the European war was unimportant (or, at least not so important as to be worth American casualties) because it was European. Once the Germans began massing and invading North America, I think the idea that Hitler could be safely ignored would go right out the window.
Secondly, the invasion would have to happen prior to Pearl Harbor; otherwise, America would already be involved in the war (I cannot see America capitulating to Japan following Pearl Harbor, even had the attack done more damage than the Japanese could have even dreamed of).
JMCJ
Curmudgeon Of The Day Winner, 1/19/00
As Selected by RTFirefly
P.C., while I agree with some of the strategic blunders you ascribe to Hitler, I think a few of them are actually Monday morning quarterbacking because you look only at the benefits he would have received by following alternative options, and don’t look at the drawbacks those options would have involved.
The risk involved in wiping out the BEF beachhead at Dunkirk was possibly losing much of his armor in street fighting (think of the Russians in Grozny at this time). Without that armor his subsequent rollover of the French south of the Somme might have been jeopardized. Who knows what would have happened if he had given the French a month to stablize themselves. Basically, Hitler was faced with a choice of a guaranteed finishing off of either one of two defeated enemies. He choose to eliminate the French while he had a golden opportunity. If he had choosen to eliminate the BEF first, and the French had managed to rally, then he would have been in no position to invade Britain anyhow.
Sure, he might have built up his Navy- but Britain would surely have matched him to maintain their vital naval supremacy. On the other, Britain and France were belatedly starting to build up their own military and air forces after Munich. Actually, by 1940 they were outproducing Germany in armaments, but hadn’t yet made up for the head start they had allowed Germany to achieve. If Hitler had allowed them two more years they would have been much more formidable foes when war did break out. Furthermore, the Soviet army was at its nadir around 1939-1941; allowing Stalin two more years to possibly repair the damage he had inflicted on his own forces would just make Germany’s relative position that much worse.
The problem with this scenario is that in the spring of 1941, much of the Soviet borderlands was impassable mud. If Hitler had invaded in May as he originally intended, his panzers may not have achieved the spectacular victories they won by waiting until the ground dried out in June (but in any case my own humble opinion is that Hitler’s worse blunder was attacking the Soviet Union under any conditions. I don’t think he could have won under any set of circumstances, unless he actually behaved as a true liberator of the subject peoples rather than a Teutonic slavemaster- but if he would do that he wouldn’t have been Hitler)
Dear Nebuli:
To take your points in order:
Dunkirk: This is a very good argument. The Germans might have lost some armor; I believe that is why some German generals opposed a massive attack on the BEF. However, as another poster pointed out, France had some severe weaknesses and was, I believe, much weaker than Britain. Given a choice between armies, I think most generals would say destroy the strongest under most circumstances. BTW, I think the Germans later attacked the French and Belgian troops who covered the British retreat and did not suffer major armor losses. Of course, they were up against a much smaller army.
I stand by the statement on the navy. In “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” William Shirer details how German and Britain signed a treaty that relaxed many restrictions on the German navy and allowed it to gain a great deal of parity vis a vis the British Navy. Remember, the Nazis decided in 1937 - well before the Austrian Anschluss, the annexation of the Sudentenland and the invasion of Poland – they were going to start the war. Had they delayed the war’s starts, and the actions above, I think they would have been able to build up Germany’s navy without too much Allied concern. Up until the Polish invasion, the British and French leaders were willing to do anything they could to get peace. As long as the Germans were relatively quiet in Europe, I think the Chamberlain regime would have ignored German naval build-ups under terms of the treaty. I also doubt that Stalin would have used that delay to strengthen the Russian forces; from all that I have read, he seemed genuinely shocked that Hitler turned on him when Der Fuhrer did. Also, Uncle Joe’s first concern was terrorizing the USSR’s populace.
I have read others make those claims about the Yugoslavian invasion. However, I remember reading some recent pieces – and I wish I could remember where – that seem to confirm that the invasion of Russia was delayed solely by Hitler’s need to subjugate Yugoslavia.
I am glad that you mentioned Russia because I just remembered one of Hitler’s worse mistakes: Practicing genocide on the Ukrainians and Belorussians rather than trying to enlist them as allies against the Russians. A few glib promises, especially of freedom, and the Nazis would have had plenty of willing allies against the USSR.
The Coyote gnaws …
but he does not swallow.
Dear P.C.,
You said:
France was certainly weaker moralewise, her forces were shocked by the initial German successes, and torn by internal dissension. But materially her army was much stronger than Britain’s. Morale is a very iffy factor. Who can say whether France would rally if given some extra time to recover while Germany finished off the BEF? In hindsight, with access to a lot of inside information, we can say it was probably unlikely, but we cannot state so positively. Looking at it from the viewpoint available to the Germans in June of 1940, the French army certainly would have seemed the more formidable opponent.
No, Britain and France began seriously rearming right after Munich, and pushed their production even higher after Hitler wiped out the remnant Czechoslovakia in March of 1939.
Stalin was already rearming- he was stunned that Hitler attacked in 1941, but did expect that eventually the Soviet Union would be invaded. Most importantly, a couple extra years would have helped alleviate the USSR’s worst military shortcoming, the woefully inexperienced officer corps.
In short, I believe Hitler had a very narrow window in which to achieve his victories, and delaying would have cost him more than he gained.
I think you are correct that it was delayed because of Hitler’s last-minute wish to remove Yugoslavia. My point was that it did not cost him anything he would have gotten if he had stuck to his original target date for invading Russia, and it might even have helped him. If his panzers bogged down in mud early in the invasion, he would have aroused the Soviets without being able to encircle and eliminate large concentrations of their troops.
If you have more recent evidence to suggest that the spring mud was not as bad as I’ve been led to believe, I’m willing to be persuaded- but only that Hitler could have taken Moscow, not that he would have
defeated the Soviets. Many writers seem to imply that if Hitler took Moscow he would have won the war on the Eastern Front. I don’t see why. Napoleon took Moscow, and look what it got them. Why would the Russian’s surrender to Hitler when they didn’t surrender to Napoleon? Especially when the consequences of surrendering to Hitler would have been so much worse than surrendering to Napoleon?
I agree- while maybe it would have required a little more than glib promises, if Hitler were prepared to grant the Ukranians, Baltics, discontented Russians et al, the same degree of limited freedom he granted Vichy France, the outcome might have been very different. But by granting that he would have been eliminating the very reason for which he invaded in the first place.