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.
Game. Set. Match. Neither Hitler nor his sycophants seriously considered that anything could go wrong.
They didn't have that supreme confidence until after France fell. There's a reason Hitler looks like he's dancing a *** in Paris in those old newsreel videos...he never really expected that they would win that fight, let alone in such spectacular fashion.
The fact that he proved so ignorant about the various armor employed by the Germans, French, British, and Russians during the first three years of the war tells me a great deal about this poster.
The diversion of units to the Balkans ultimately had ZERO impact on the timetable for Barbarossa. This is one of those oft-repeated myths, but it does have a grain of truth. Barbarossa was scheduled to initiate on May 15th. Some units from the southern front of Barbarossa were sent to assist in the Balkan's campaign. However, these units had already returned to their Barbarossa launch positions by early May. Once the main fighting was done reserve divisions were deployed in the Balkans. The biggest impact was to the armor units of the southern army group which did suffer some wear and tear during the Balkans campaign which had an impact on their effectiveness in Barbarossa.
Well I suppose this boils down to which school of thought you ascribe to, so I politely disagree. According to Field Marshall Friedrich Paulus's testimony during the Nuremberg trials stated that the postponement of Barbarossa due to the diversion of forces delayed the invasion by "about five weeks." This was collaborated by von Rundstedt who calculated the loss to be at least "four weeks." (Shirer p.830). So whether or not the units sent to the Balkans (Crete or North Africa for that matter) were back in time for the 15 May 1941 launch Barbarossa was set back to 22 June 1941, at least according the German general staff charged with leading the invasion as a result of the diversion to southern Europe.
Well I suppose this boils down to which school of thought you ascribe to, so I politely disagree. According to Field Marshall Friedrich Paulus's testimony during the Nuremberg trials stated that the postponement of Barbarossa due to the diversion of forces delayed the invasion by "about five weeks." This was collaborated by von Rundstedt who calculated the loss to be at least "four weeks." (Shirer p.830). So whether or not the units sent to the Balkans (Crete or North Africa for that matter) were back in time for the 15 May 1941 launch Barbarossa was set back to 22 June 1941, at least according the German general staff charged with leading the invasion as a result of the diversion to southern Europe.
Axis History Forum (the web's premier discussion board for all things Axis) has an excellent thread on this topic complete with links to primary sources, quotes and other information:
1. The May 15th date was arbitrary to begin with. It was picked as the approximate date the raputsa would end and the rivers and roads would become passable. It was never a firm date to begin anything. The dozens of supporting documents show that it was not until ~June 15th that the weather had improved enough to allow operations to commence.
2. The Balkans operation (Marita) was authorized before Barbarossa, so it was not as if one was approved without knowledge of the other. The units engaged in Marita had already been accounted for in Barbarossa planning. The only 'surprise' was the Yugoslav coup and the need to divert forces to handle that, but that was a very short-lived affair and again there is no evidence that units engaged in those operations had an impact on Barbarossa's timetable.
3. Any claims that it was due to the Balkans do not hold up to analysis. One would need to prove that units engaged in Marita/Yugoslavia were then not available for Barbarossa and became the reason for the delay. No such evidence can be found, because the operations were planned in concert and with full knowledge of each other.
4. Paulus and von Manstein's statements were made AFTER the war. The actual documentation and orders given during the war (many of which are presented in the thread I linked) do not support their statements. They were basically deflecting blame. The rains were very much the main reason for the delay. The talk of the Balkan's became an ex post facto "reason" and the favorite of the military to deflect the blame for the failure of Barbarossa onto Hitler. The rains are the real reason for the delay, the Balkans are simply the excuse presented for failure. There is not a single German primary source document that says "Barbarossa needs to be delayed because XYZ units integral to the operation won't be ready"...there are a lot of them that say..."damn the rains lasting longer this year, so much for that whole May 15th penciled in date".
Another reason is that the British and Greeks are quite fond of saying, even during the war, that their actions in Greece drew Hitler in, delayed Barbarossa and saved Russia. That's what they like to believe and there are plenty of people who believe that as well because they don't take the time to do the research. Stalin made a statement at the time along those lines because he desperately needed help against Germany. Men like Paulus and von Manstein said it because they wanted to appease the victorious allies and the British were the ones most keen on keeping certain German generals around.
5. Ultimately the delay (regardless of what caused it) was not seen as significant. Hitler and his generals felt that operations would last no longer than a "few months". They were wrong. Barbarossa was ultimately a deeply flawed plan that had severe logistics issues that were never resolved and lacked a true strategic aim.
Anybody who says that the Russian, French or British tanks were no match for German tanks during the early states of the war clearly has no understanding of the period. It was how they were used that made German armor superior, not the fighting capabilities of the individual tanks.
They didn't have that supreme confidence until after France fell. There's a reason Hitler looks like he's dancing a *** in Paris in those old newsreel videos...he never really expected that they would win that fight, let alone in such spectacular fashion.
That's true, but I think starting a war even when you respect your adversary as a fighting force says you're not really expecting to lose.
Anybody who says that the Russian, French or British tanks were no match for German tanks during the early states of the war clearly has no understanding of the period. It was how they were used that made German armor superior, not the fighting capabilities of the individual tanks.
I don't have a problem with that argument nor would I disagree with it. But for brevity sake that was as far as I wanted to take the argument. The fact that by applying better tactics also implies that German tanks were not overwhelmed by an technical superiority.
It was the quasi-personal attack that got you the Oh, Please..
My point is and remains regardless of the details of the argument is that these alt-history threads rely on such a rewrite of history that they become pointless.
Axis History Forum (the web's premier discussion board for all things Axis) has an excellent thread on this topic complete with links to primary sources, quotes and other information:
The general consensus is that...
Shame on you my much admired contributor, an Appeal to Authority! Shame, I say, shame!
So, what if Hitler had not invaded Poland in 1939? Delaying the start of the war two or more years might have been an advantage for Hitler, allowing more time for rebuilding Germany's military forces, far from complete in 1939, and for further extending Germany's technological lead (tanks, submarines, jets, rockets, etc.). On the other hand, France, Britain, and Russia might also have been better prepared for war.
I think delaying the invasion of Poland would have given more time for France, Brittain and Russia to prepare. It was already apparent that he was a war monger after taking over his own country so IMO that would have only made the allied countries more wary of his doings. If anything he should have attacked Poland quicker and harder to try and catch Russia off guard.
Britain was certainly contained in that they did not pose a true threat to continental Europe. Britain's ability to upset the Italian's plans in North Africa and conduct the occasional raid or bombing mission was annoying, but not game changing. Germany still managed to launch the largest invasion in history while at war with Britain. So, we could at least consider Britain "neutered" for those first couple of years of the war.
However, the question was "defeat/neutralize" Britain. In order to do that you have to get through the Royal Navy, which at the time was the greatest naval power on Earth.
Winston Churchill: "The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril."
Karl Donitz estimated he needed 300 U-boats to force Britain into submission. The estimate was based on 100 boats in port (repair, maintenance, crew rest, etc.), 100 in transit to or from areas of operation, and 100 operating in combat areas.
When war broke out, Donitz had 26 on patrol. The number of U-boats on patrol didn't hit 100 until August 1942. If he had had 100 on patrol in 1940, for instance, could that have forced the British to accept terms? I don't think anyone can say for a certainty. If they had failed to get the bulk of their troops out of Dunkirk, would they have been more open to an offer of terms short of surrender?
Neutralizing Britain need not have meant invasion and occupation. Terms could have included scrapping offensive weapons, such as their strategic bomber and submarine fleets, along with any manufacturing plants and equipment, for instance.
Last edited by CrazyDonkey; 01-15-2016 at 07:11 PM..
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.
Neither Hitler nor his sycophants seriously considered that anything could go wrong.
