Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In point of fact neither the generals or the "industrialist" were big proponents of concepts like lebensraum or the virulent form of anti-semitism concocted by the Nazis.
At least part of the industrialist class had no major qualms about the Eastwards expansion. Representatives traveled though East Europe before the invasions, compiling little wishlists to the Wehrmacht about which facilities and factories they would like taken intact, if the soldiers would be so kind.
At least part of the industrialist class had no major qualms about the Eastwards expansion. Representatives traveled though East Europe before the invasions, compiling little wishlists to the Wehrmacht about which facilities and factories they would like taken intact, if the soldiers would be so kind.
They certainly had no issues about willing participants and gaining from it. However, that is not the same as being outright supporters of the general concept. The post being addressed hypothesized the generals and industrialists killing Hitler and replacing him with a puppet. I think the result of that would have been no war, because neither group really wanted it, per se.
At least part of the industrialist class had no major qualms about the Eastwards expansion. Representatives traveled though East Europe before the invasions, compiling little wishlists to the Wehrmacht about which facilities and factories they would like taken intact, if the soldiers would be so kind.
If it were just German industrialists running the war, I imagine that it would be "business as usual"; I mean what do industrialists usually want? Money accumulating in their coffers. This usually includes conquered territories with conquered population, where production/crops/natural resources start enriching the conquerors instead of local authorities whoever they are. But this was not the war where the industrialists were running the show; the racial theories turned this war into something else.
If it were not Hitler with his theories, but German industrialists who wanted their "staple supply" to be delivered from Russia, one of the smartest things they could do under the circumstances was to reignite the sentiments of the civil war that ended there only less than twenty years ago and to step up anti-Soviet propaganda. THEN the outcome of the war could have been very questionable, if we keep in mind Vlasov's army that gathered million men back in the day. But since "liberation from Bolshevism" was nothing but bogus on Nazi part and their true goal was racial extermination (and not just the "staple demands" of industrialists,) they've signed their own death warrant.
Of course Americans never came to Russia with the sword so to speak - they've tried to ruin the country financially, so guess what's coming to the US?
The people Americans shook hands with in the nineties were the worst part of Russia, while they've betrayed the best.
It's going to catch up with the US rather sooner than later and who knows what's up Putin's sleeve with everything that's unfolding in the world.
For whatever reason god almighty put Russia on the map of the world, one should not make an attempt to remove it, as convenient as it might seem. However it looks like someone didn't learn the lesson from history.
Oh well...
I think germany was doomed when the US entered the war. Hitler wouldn't even believe the war prodcution numbers where presented to him. They are in fact hard top realise today. Germnay never was prepared to go any further than the west coast of france and its weapons in air craaft not designed to even make the trip well to england and back. Poor war plannig and no abilty to recover and adapt really. The allies had pretty much the same planning problems but the abilty to adapt looking at the weapons latter parts of the war. One only has to look at the fact that by the end of the war US had larger navy in just the pacfic theatre than the rest of the world combined.That starting from the Washington naval treaty limits .
The biggest reason why Germany lost the war generally speaking was they were fighting too many countries at once with too few men and supplies. It is clear that man for man the German army was the strongest military on the planet, but they bit off more than they could chew. Germany's allies were of very poor quality and little help. Germany was essentially fighting the entire western world by itself. Japan was a half a world away and provided no benefit other than distracting the Americans. However, if it was not for the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor, America likely never would have gone to war against Germany anyway.
If we look at specific reasons why Germany failed, we can look at several things. For starters, the German army was chronically undersupplied. Half of the army was still using horses to pull artillery and wagons. Only a minority of the German army was motorized. The German army in WW1 was actually better supplied than in WW2. When we look at strategics, the delaying of Barbarossa by 1-2 months resulting in the invasion stalling at the gates of Moscow as the harsh Russian winter set in was a major blunder. Hitler did not learn from Napoleon's mistakes 130 years earlier. The undersupplied German army literally froze to death. The Russian winter in my view is the only thing that prevented a total collapse of the Soviets.
The U.S. was not fighting any major combat operations against the Germans until at least 2-3 years into the war. Unless you count Africa alongside the British. So to say "germany was doomed when the US entered the war" is a bit extreme. The decisive front was the eastern front, so I would say the Russians played a much bigger part in the defeat of the Germans than the U.S. did.
The biggest reason why Germany lost the war generally speaking was they were fighting too many countries at once with too few men and supplies. It is clear that man for man the German army was the strongest military on the planet, but they bit off more than they could chew. Germany's allies were of very poor quality and little help. Germany was essentially fighting the entire western world by itself. Japan was a half a world away and provided no benefit other than distracting the Americans. However, if it was not for the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor, America likely never would have gone to war against Germany anyway.
Agreed to an extent. Germany, in particular Hitler, grossly underestimated the resolve and ability of Britain, Russia and the US to fight.
The question of whether or not the US would have gone to war in Europe sans Pearl Harbor or Italo-German declaration of war, is hard to answer. Anything would be mere speculation, but the fact remains that the US and Germany were already basically waging an undeclared war in the Atlantic.
Quote:
If we look at specific reasons why Germany failed, we can look at several things. For starters, the German army was chronically undersupplied.
Very true. Logistics never seemed to be a strong suit of German General Staff planning. Further, but most importantly, Germany never moved its economy onto a war footing until around mid-1943. The oversight of marshaling all the German economy could muster (purposefully done to keep the German populace happy with consumer goods) often left them struggling to replace weapon and materiel at the front.
Quote:
Half of the army was still using horses to pull artillery and wagons. Only a minority of the German army was motorized.
It was way more than half that still used horses. Out of roughly 264 divisions in November 1944 only 42 were fully armored and/or motorized. Even the vaunted panzer corps made heavy use of horses for pulling their heavy artillery and supplies. The US was the only army that was entirely "motorized/mechanized", at least on paper. In reality even the US made extensive use of pack animals, especially in Sicily, Italy and in the Pacific. In those cases they were used because machines were simply incapable of traversing the terrain. Overall, the British were probably the second most "motorized/mechanized", but even they made extensive use of draft animals.
Quote:
The German army in WW1 was actually better supplied than in WW2.
It was, because they were fighting on a much more contained front. Like I said earlier, logistics was generally not a strong suit of the German planners. Overall though, it really came down to use of railroads moreso than trucks. The Germans simply devoted far too little attention and resources to repairing and utilizing rail infrastructure. If you look at the way an army is moved/supplied it generally went like this:
Train to railhead ---> Trucks to front --> Animals/trucks to individual units and for carrying supplies on the advance.
When you look at the German advance in Barbarossa and then look at the Soviet advance back over the same terrain, you start to realize that it wasn't the trucks that were the critical factor, it was the railroads. The Germans stalled at Smolensk during Barbarossa because of logisitics and supply issues. Too little tonnage was able to get to them to do more then sustatin their units, let alone engage in an offensive. The tonnage had to be carried on rail and the Germans did a horrible job getting the rails operational. Conversely, the Soviets with a similar ratio of trucks to units had no such issues. This is because the Soviets had around a million people rebuilding rail lines behind the advance.
Overall, "motorization/mechanization" while a distinct advantage wasn't wholly necessary and eventhough the Germans and Soviets were far less mechanized then the US, they had enough trucks to sustain themselves. The decisive difference was attention paid to the rail. In the much smaller and more confined Western Front, heavy rail capacity was not needed owing to the shorter distances. Some have estimated that even if the Germans had been "fully motorized/mechanized" like the US, they still would not have been able to sustain their advance into Russia any better than they did.
Quote:
When we look at strategics, the delaying of Barbarossa by 1-2 months resulting in the invasion stalling at the gates of Moscow as the harsh Russian winter set in was a major blunder.
The decision to delay Barbarossa was based entirely on the late thaw and rains that had turned the routes of advance into mud bogs. This was not some random decision Hitler made nor was the decision influenced at all by what was going on in Greece. It had everything to do with the weather not cooperating. The Germans, by sheer bad luck happened to pick a year that had a late thaw/rain in the Spring and an early rain/freeze in the Fall. 1941 was the German window to strike at the Soviets, nature just didn't cooperate. As for delays such as those outside Smolensk during the invasion, I personally believe it had as much to do with logistics as anything else.
Quote:
Hitler did not learn from Napoleon's mistakes 130 years earlier. The undersupplied German army literally froze to death. The Russian winter in my view is the only thing that prevented a total collapse of the Soviets.
Well, one other thing Napoleon taught us is that the Russians are more than willing to burn Moscow to the ground and keep fighting even after the capital is taken. I think the Germans tried to go a "bridge too far" and I seriously doubt that they were in a position to actually take Moscow even if they had another month of good weather as stretched and depleted as they were. It may have descended more into a siege ala Leningrad, but the Germans were spent before they got to the gates.
Quote:
The U.S. was not fighting any major combat operations against the Germans until at least 2-3 years into the war. Unless you count Africa alongside the British. So to say "germany was doomed when the US entered the war" is a bit extreme. The decisive front was the eastern front, so I would say the Russians played a much bigger part in the defeat of the Germans than the U.S. did.
While I have long held and argued that the Soviets were the decisive power and that the war was decided on the Eastern Front before the US and UK really got involved in a significant way, the entry of the US did signal a bit of a death knell. While I am highly critical of the actual US role in the war, I also don't see how Germany could have defeated the US, UK and Soviet Union together. There was a glimmer of hope that it would be possible if it was just the UK and Soviets. The US entry certainly greatly reduced German chances for victory to near zero in the long term, even if the US itself was not as decisive in the actual fighting.
Unless of course you forget the incursion into eastern Russia by the U.S. and others in 1918.
Nope, didn't think about it, because it was "business as usual" more or less. Industrialists in charge so to speak, siding with one of the warring parties and counting the potential profits. I am talking about the support for Tsarist army of course. The losing party inviting the foreign power to interfere on its behalf - that's nothing unheard of. So it's not what I was referring to. The very existence of Russians as a nation hasn't been threatened at that point in the same manner as it was in times of Alexander Nevsky and then later again in 1941. Strangely enough that movie depicting the events of 1242 with the famous words about the sword has been produced in 1938, and by 1941 everyone could realize the connection. It was the eerie coincidence if there is such thing.
It was a good movie by the way ( made by Eisenstein) in spite of the fact, that initially
"within months of its release, Stalin entered into a pact with Hitler, and Nevsky was promptly pulled from distribution."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
( made by Eisenstein) in spite of the fact, that initially 
