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.
Germany per se never did much all by itself in WW2. Look up how many incorporated non-German militaries there was participating in "German" warfare. SS divisions were simply international, almost inter racial ones.
I skimmed over posts and they do prove only one thing - that is, how much western historigraphy is twisting the truth about who won WW2 in Europe.
As of industrial potential moved or not moved and Siberian division etc (which is another twist, supporting Independent Siberian Territory) do very simple experiment.
Take map of 1941 USSR. Right before the war. Then, mark on it how FAR did "German" troops actually move into its territory.
Suddenly, it becomes not how FAR, but how LITTLE, right?
Then simply realize, that BULK of Russian and Soviet industry ALREADY was way deep in the country. All they had to do was to rearrange and re-mobilize. Which they did fast and furious.
Could Germany have captured North Africa, Palestine, and Iraq if they had devoted their full resources to it?
No. They could not devote their full resources to it as depleting Europe would mean the British gain a foothold on the Continent and threaten the fatherland. The British can afford to leave a skeleton army in the UK as the country is protected by sea and a large navy and air force and deploy more troops elsewhere. The Germans do not have that luxury and need a large defensive army at all times.
Germany per se never did much all by itself in WW2. Look up how many incorporated non-German militaries there was participating in "German" warfare. SS divisions were simply international, almost inter racial ones.
I skimmed over posts and they do prove only one thing - that is, how much western historigraphy is twisting the truth about who won WW2 in Europe.
As of industrial potential moved or not moved and Siberian division etc (which is another twist, supporting Independent Siberian Territory) do very simple experiment.
Take map of 1941 USSR. Right before the war. Then, mark on it how FAR did "German" troops actually move into its territory.
Suddenly, it becomes not how FAR, but how LITTLE, right?
Then simply realize, that BULK of Russian and Soviet industry ALREADY was way deep in the country. All they had to do was to rearrange and re-mobilize. Which they did fast and furious.
By 1940 Britain and France combined had armies that were superior in both numbers and equipment. Their navies were vastly superior to Germany's and their air forces at least equal. The RAF was equivalent to the Luftwaffe in numbers and quality and the RN vastly superior to anything the Germans and Italians combined could put to sea. The British were able to out-produce the Germans in aircraft even prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union.
Although Germany had access to the industrial plant of Northern Italy, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands they were not able to use it to match either the Soviets or the British in war production. Ironically, the 1940 conquests only burdened the German war economy since Western Europe was a net importer of food and raw materials and Germany had to support them - the RN blockade was effective. French aircraft production aimed for Germany was miniscule. France had access to manufacturing plant and supplies of bauxite but it was not able to produce as it imported coal from Britain for its electricity production. With the RN blockade the main source of coal for France became Germany. However Germany was not able to increase its production sufficiently to overcome the short fall.
The amount of food produced in Europe fell. Previously the production of meat and dairy products in countries such as Denmark had been dependant on the import of grain and animal feed from the Americas. That was not available and the amount of food available for the dairy industry collapsed as did food production. In the rest of Europe food production had been based on the widespread use of chemical fertilizer. Apart from the issues of the RN blockade huge amounts of the chemicals used for fertilizer production was diverted to the making of explosives affecting agriculture.
French workers were moved on to subsistence rations and as the country had been dependant on motorized transportation produce could not be distributed with milk being poured away. Most of France's oil imports came from abroad. With the outbreak of war the only available oil products came from Romania or from synthetic oil made in Germany. This was barely enough for the needs of the German armed forces and not enough to keep the Italian Navy operational. France reverted to a pre-petroleum transport economy.
This economic background partially influenced Hitler's decision to invade the USSR. The USSR had the natural resources that would enable European industry to out-produce Britain and America and face the coming air war - the USA announced in May 1940 it would produce 50,000 planes per year, on top of UK production. Had Hitler won against Stalin, he would have gained unrestricted access to resources he needed to fight the USA and UK. The conquest of the Soviets was a key step in Hitler's strategy and not irrational. However the Soviets were able stand up to an invasion and better able to marshal their resources so that they could outlast the Germans. The USSR in 1942 out-produced the USA in arms.
Germany had 2.5 times the per capita GDP of the USSR. Invading the USSR was critical because Western European industry was dependent upon exports, and the RN blockade had cut them off.
This is a question I have been wondering about for a long time. If Hitler had concentrated fully on capturing North Africa and the western part of the Middle East before invading the Soviet Union, would he have succeeded? And if he had, and had gained access to Iraq's oil, would the Soviet Union been able to hold out against the German forces?
Hitler had the capability to capture the territories but it would have not made Barbarossa easier. Any delay in the invasion would only make the Soviets stronger as they would have had more time to recover from the purges and get better organized. Germany simply did not have the resources besides oil to defeat the USSR.
By 1940 Britain and France combined had armies that were superior in both numbers and equipment. Their navies were vastly superior to Germany's and their air forces at least equal.The RAF was equivalent to the Luftwaffe in numbers and quality and the RN vastly superior to anything the Germans and Italians combined could put to sea. The British were able to out-produce the Germans in aircraft even prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union.
Although Germany had access to the industrial plant of Northern Italy, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands they were not able to use it to match either the Soviets or the British in war production. Ironically, the 1940 conquests only burdened the German war economy since Western Europe was a net importer of food and raw materials and Germany had to support them - the RN blockade was effective. French aircraft production aimed for Germany was miniscule. France had access to manufacturing plant and supplies of bauxite but it was not able to produce as it imported coal from Britain for its electricity production. With the RN blockade the main source of coal for France became Germany. However Germany was not able to increase its production sufficiently to overcome the short fall.
The amount of food produced in Europe fell. Previously the production of meat and dairy products in countries such as Denmark had been dependant on the import of grain and animal feed from the Americas. That was not available and the amount of food available for the dairy industry collapsed as did food production. In the rest of Europe food production had been based on the widespread use of chemical fertilizer. Apart from the issues of the RN blockade huge amounts of the chemicals used for fertilizer production was diverted to the making of explosives affecting agriculture.
French workers were moved on to subsistence rations and as the country had been dependant on motorized transportation produce could not be distributed with milk being poured away. Most of France's oil imports came from abroad. With the outbreak of war the only available oil products came from Romania or from synthetic oil made in Germany. This was barely enough for the needs of the German armed forces and not enough to keep the Italian Navy operational. France reverted to a pre-petroleum transport economy.
This economic background partially influenced Hitler's decision to invade the USSR. The USSR had the natural resources that would enable European industry to out-produce Britain and America and face the coming air war - the USA announced in May 1940 it would produce 50,000 planes per year, on top of UK production. Had Hitler won against Stalin, he would have gained unrestricted access to resources he needed to fight the USA and UK. The conquest of the Soviets was a key step in Hitler's strategy and not irrational. However the Soviets were able stand up to an invasion and better able to marshal their resources so that they could outlast the Germans. The USSR in 1942 out-produced the USA in arms.
Germany had 2.5 times the per capita GDP of the USSR. Invading the USSR was critical because Western European industry was dependent upon exports, and the RN blockade had cut them off.
Here you go again. The Allies DID NOT have equal numbers of aircraft to the Germans at the start of the war. When Germany invaded France, the Germans held a major numerical advantage of over 2:1 in the theater versus the Allies. The Germans were able to achieve total air dominance during the campaign from day 1. During the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe had about 2500 planes going against 1900 RAF.
The British were able to out-produce the Germans (barely) during the entire course of war, but started the war with fewer planes and never held a numerical advantage over the Germans until the final year 1945. In 1944 for example, the Germans out-produced the British 40,000 to 26,000 aircraft. By then it didn't really matter anyhow since the U.S. was producing about 96,000 aircraft.
This is a question I have been wondering about for a long time. If Hitler had concentrated fully on capturing North Africa and the western part of the Middle East before invading the Soviet Union, would he have succeeded? And if he had, and had gained access to Iraq's oil, would the Soviet Union been able to hold out against the German forces?
With the resources they put into it they almost suceeded in doing just that. There was also a plan to get the Turks who were neutral to join the Third Reich Mideast war effort with a promise that they would get back lands taken from them by the Allies like Syria, Irak, Lebanon, Cyprus and Palestine/Trans Jordan and Mecca and Medina. Turks, Syrians, Palestinians and Arabs joined volunteer regiments in the German Heer (Army).
Part of the Middle Eastern plan was to reach Iran and add the Shah's forces (The Shah was a Nazi sympthizer) to the effort which would have been in place to cut off British Oil supplies and to join in a corordinated attack on the USSR that would have seen Russia lose the bulk of its oil supliues from a place called Baku on the Caspian Sea near the Iranian border.
In a stroke you cripple the war efforts of the British Empire and Soviet Union for lack of fuel and tie the British up trying to defend India which also had a 5th column movement wanting to help the Germans. You also cut off one of the best avenues to get war supplies , food, and weapons to the Red Army which was through Iran to the Soviet border in the Caucuses or through Central Asia. The Soviets helped build the railroad from the Persian Gulf through Iran to speed those shipments up. Also loss of its bases in Cyrprus, Alexandria, Suez would have made the Royal Navy's position in the Mediterranean untenable and forced a withdrawal from Malta. The British would have tried to hold on to Gibraltar as a last redoubt and to keep the Mediterranean bottled up.
The British pulled their chesnuts out of the fire. The Turks stayed neutral, The Germans didn't reach the Suez. The British put down a Baathist (Fascist) and Falangist (also Fascist) uprising in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq and Launched a coup against the Shah of Iran which put his son Mohammed Reza Pahlavi on the Throne. The new teenaged Shah was pro-British .
With the resources they put into it they almost suceeded in doing just that.
Germany was in no way able to circle the Med. Every time they pushed back the Brits they extended their supply lines and the vehicles were in need of heavy maintenance unable to fight properly - attacks only had a limited range. They could not even take Malta. They suffered heavy losses in merchant ships taking supplies to Africa.
The French attempted to get the Turks to attack Russia when they went into Finland. The Turks did not stay neutral, they declared war on Germany in 1945. They were more British leaning than German. Leading Turkish politician Rauf Orbay said "the British will not be beaten. There is no doubt that an Empire capable of raising 45 million soldiers will gain the final victory". The Anglo-Turkish declaration of mutual co-operation and assistance agreement of 1939 was aimed at guarding against advances in the area. This prompted Mussolini to commit Italy to the German cause by strengthening his alliance with Hitler through the Pact of Steel, signed ten days later.
With the UK firmly in control of all the Middle East, Turkey offered nothing strategically for the Germans as a bridge to the oil fields. Turkey did offer a pro-German attitude between 1941 and 1943 because of German advances in the USSR. What Germany gained was Turkish neutrality - allied and Turkish troops on Hitler's right wing moving into the USSR was not a good prospect. A Turco-German neutrality pact was signed in June 1941 just before the attack on the USSR. Unfortunately to appease the Germans, Turkey also agreed to supply Germany with chromium, a critical raw material used in weapons manufacture, for three years.
As the War proceeded the German pre-war chrome stockpile dwindled. Not until January 1943 did Turkish chromite reach Germany. Britain and France had signed an agreement with Turkey in 1940 to guarantee their sole purchase of all Turkish chromite for 1940 and 1941 for their industry and to keep it away from Germany. During 1943 and 1944 Britain and the US thwarted the increasing trade between Germany and Turkey by urging Turkey to delay exports of chromite until Germany fully met its obligations to deliver military equipment as a part of the deal. It was suggested to destroy the railroad bridges over the Martiza River between Turkey and Bulgaria to prevent 85% of chrome deliveries to Germany - the bridges were destroyed by British planes in WW1 but rebuilt. The US and Britain in 1942 began purchasing strategic commodities that Turkey had promised Germany in their trade agreements with Germany.
Quote:
The Germans didn't reach the Suez. The British put down a Baathist (Fascist) and Falangist (also Fascist) uprising in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq and Launched a coup against the Shah of Iran which put his son Mohammed Reza Pahlavi on the Throne. The new teenaged Shah was pro-British .
You got a lot of that right. The British defeated the Vichy French in Syria.
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.
