Posted on 06/08/2014 9:06:40 AM PDT by tom h
Hitler could have beaten the Soviets (Germany had in 1917); the problem (ignored by many historians) was that Japan and the USSR had a truce that lasted into 1945. This allowed the Soviets to move most of their troops from the Far east to defend Moscow and drive the Axis back.
Hindsight is 20/20, but if the Japanese had used their troops against the USSR instead of China it would have collapsed (on one front or the other). Instead, at the time of the surrender in 1945, Japan had over a million troops in China accomplishing nothing at all.
uh, in WW 1, there were no “Soviets” - to equate beating Tsarist Russia in WW 1 with beaing the Soviets in WW 2 is not a valid comparison. The Soviet Union was established in 1922, tho the communist revolution happened in 1917.
They were pretty close to Moscow at some point too. If memory serves, German soldiers could see the Kremlin minarets.
That was fun, thanks…I’m a big WW 2 buff.
“It was also Stalin’s decision. Hitler could not invade Poland without Stalin’s assurances. Stalin knew it would mean war in the West, which was in his best interests, since he figured it would result in the Armies of Britain, France and Germany bleeding themselves dry, thus making it easy for the Soviets to swoop in from the East and take the whole continent.”
Poland was invaded simultaneously by the Soviet Union and Germany; the hypocrisy of Britain & France not declaring war on the USSR in 1939 still stinks to this day. The countries of Eastern Europe that were betrayed to the Soviets BEFORE 1941 (Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland) remember this well, and don’t understand why anyone would celebrate any battles in western Europe (like Normandy). All save Finland were given to Uncle Joe for nearly fifty years of murder & repression; the allied troops who died in a war declared for Poland’s sake were simply squandered in the end - they never liberated Poland.
I understand your point, but Tsarist Russia never surrendered in WWI. Lenin was sent in to do just that. The comparison is close enough; incompetence from the top, a repressive government squandering lives without conscience, bolstered by foreign aid from western allies - yes, close enough.
FYI, The Russian Winter offensive began prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
“Else they would not have later gone on the offensive at Kursk.”
Guderian’s book provides some valuable insight into this.
Germany lost more than just a battle at Stalingrad, they lost invaluable EXPERIENCE. He noted how just the season before, the Panzers had been crewed by experienced and motivated MEN, and that now, just before Kursk they were inexperienced kids.
The Russians out-ran their supplies after Stalingrad, which allowed Manstein to stabilize the lines somewhat. Guderian argued hard against the Kursk Offensive, knowing that the Russians were building a deep defensive line, and had big forces behind it.
He advocated again for his “Mobile Defense” doctrine, but Hitler wouldn’t have it, especially given how little movement there had been in the North at this point. He was convinced that the Russians had run out of steam, and pushing them hard would cause them to fall apart again.
When the Allied invasion of Sicily forced Hitler to Divert an entire Air Fleet, and several of Germany’s best, newly re-equipped Mech Divisions to be diverted to Italy, Guderian argued even more strongly against Kursk, knowing that he was expending the last of Germany’s real reserve.
Needless to say, this earned him the ire of Hitler.
Good thing the EPA and endangered species act did not exist then!
If Hitler had taken his generals advice, it would have given him the time to develop the atomic bomb (which Germany was working feverishly towards). This would have changed everything.
“turning the Mediterranean Sea into a ‘German Lake.’”
Could only have been done with the aid of Vichy and Italian warships.
Which exactly is why the scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon was critical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_in_Toulon
And the British sudden attack on the (then neutral) French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir was necessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_French_Fleet_at_Mers-el-Kebir
Churchill had some really great ideas but he also had his really bad ones... like Galipoli. Given the hard fighting in mountainous Italy, his idea to invade the mountainous Balkans was a really bad idea.
Germany and Japan were never going to be able to compete with a United States that was going to just keep producing Tanks, Boats, guns, airplanes, munitions, etc with no interruption in supply.
War is as much about logistics and supply.
Start running out of stuff at critical moments and you lose important ground.
We were always going to have the ability and will to bomb everything into oblivion with no interruption in supplies and very good logistics or at least logistics that would eventually meet demand.
Germany was only going to lose that battle and Japan never stood a chance, as they have nothing.
No metals, Oil & Gas, gunpowder, etc. They were an overly ambitious island nation, who could only gain supplies for logistics by taking over peoples.
Germany had the same problem but, the ability to simply annex a few more yards of real estate.
They were never, ever, ever going to be able to keep up a pace sufficient to attrite us and ultimately the war ended on Atrrition, as most do.
Run out of supplies, you run out of men.
Finally, the war was about avarice for the Axis and about liberty for American and the Allies.
The Axis could only conscript men, who were motivated by bayonets at their back.
America had men volunteering in droves to help their fellow man and were willing to kill for their liberation and then simply go home.
One set of values has a more enduring and lasting motivation than the other...
With endless supplies one set of values was going to win over another no matter what.
“America had men volunteering in droves to help their fellow man and were willing to kill for their liberation and then simply go home.”
By winter ‘44, manpower was already becoming a critical issue for American forces, and training was being cut back to get more men out faster. Conscription standards were also lowered.
In addition, despite already being at war for 2 years, the casualty lists were only then becoming huge, and this was already creating unrest. That unrest played a large part in the decision to use the nukes. The idea of a million+ casualties invading Japan would have created a real political crisis at home.
There has been much written about this over the years.
This will help you understand why Hitler went south instead of east to Moscow and why he had Rommel and his group in North Africa.
Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine
http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Palestine-Plans-Extermination-Jews/dp/1929631936
“Too bad for him all those evil Jewish atomic physicists left Germany...”
Ha, those guys might have THOUGHT of it, but it took THIS guy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kistiakowsky
...to make it actually work. It would have been pretty tough to make a lot of “little boys”...
Just use asset forfeiture to steal a few existing parking lots. You know you want to.
Success has a thousand fathers...
You are correct. Everything I've read about Hitler not only stresses his habit of taking huge risks but also his desire to conquer. He made this clear in Mein Kampf. Once he acquired the reins of power, the future was determined. Churchill saw this, but few others did.
nope
no analogy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.