How much do you know about WWII battles?

[buickanddeere]

****** was the Germany army's worst enemy. Had ****** listen to his officers the war would have had a much different outcome.
The German officers wanted a staged war to achieve their objective.
****** started the war three years before the officers said they would be ready. The officers plan was to take land in increments to exploit the resources and use the populations for production labor and indoctrinate the ones they could to fight. Start with Europe, get established and build up for the next phase. Then take the next area knowing the US did not want to get into it.
****** tried to do it all in a few years and flat ran out of resources and troops.
Had the officers prevailed we may well have a much different world today.

The US is not looking to take more land but to keep what we have. Big difference.

If Hilter had taken England early in the war and stayed out of Russia. The population would be speaking German around Big Ben today.

 

[davesl708]

If Hilter had taken England early in the war and stayed out of Russia. The population would be speaking German around Big Ben today.

Quite possible

 

[Green Power]

22/35

 

[ArlyA]

After the war, the surviving generals all sang the same song, "the Fuhrer made me do it." This was because he was dead and whoever was being asked needed someone else to blame, but who wouldn't do that? They were now facing a noose. In fact Hitlers expertise was really in politics and motivation, not generalship. The German generals who ran the war were trained during WWI and ran the war largely like that. As the war progressed and went awry, of course the Fuhrer who was no more than a corporal during WWI (second rank) took more and more operational control. The myth "Fuhrer was responsible for it all" was made by the surviving generals plus allied propaganda during the war. As usual, history is more complicated than the myths or war time propaganda.

Do note, I have nothing good to say about Adolf.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

After the war, the surviving generals all sang the same song, "the Fuhrer made me do it." This was because he was dead and whoever was being asked needed someone else to blame, but who wouldn't do that? They were now facing a noose. In fact Hitlers expertise was really in politics and motivation, not generalship. The German generals who ran the war were trained during WWI and ran the war largely like that. As the war progressed and went awry, of course the Fuhrer who was no more than a corporal during WWI (second rank) took more and more operational control. The myth "Fuhrer was responsible for it all" was made by the surviving generals plus allied propaganda during the war.

As usual, history is more complicated than the myths or war time propaganda.

Do note, I have nothing good to say about Adolf.

Indeed.

 

[houstonscott]

After the war, the surviving generals all sang the same song, "the Fuhrer made me do it." This was because he was dead and whoever was being asked needed someone else to blame, but who wouldn't do that? They were now facing a noose. In fact Hitlers expertise was really in politics and motivation, not generalship. The German generals who ran the war were trained during WWI and ran the war largely like that. As the war progressed and went awry, of course the Fuhrer who was no more than a corporal during WWI (second rank) took more and more operational control. The myth "Fuhrer was responsible for it all" was made by the surviving generals plus allied propaganda during the war. As usual, history is more complicated than the myths or war time propaganda. Do note, I have nothing good to say about Adolf.

I've read that had he survived the war he would have been a very difficult conviction at the trials because his signature is not on one piece of evidence. And he not present at any meeting making those decisions or putting it in motion. Interesting. In a time now where we won't move against a know high official criminal because we can't find the smoking gun, watch the posts follow making a case for his conviction and involvement. HS

 

[Garandman]

After the war, the surviving generals all sang the same song, "the Fuhrer made me do it." This was because he was dead and whoever was being asked needed someone else to blame, but who wouldn't do that? They were now facing a noose. In fact Hitlers expertise was really in politics and motivation, not generalship. The German generals who ran the war were trained during WWI and ran the war largely like that. //.

Beg to differ. They were horrified by the slaughter of WWI and determined not to repeat it: don't forget, they lost.

They didn't quite invent the "Combined Arms Team" but the adopted the key tenets into "Blitzkrieg":

• Massed armor supported by mechanized infantry.
• Close air support.
• Radio control.

The emphasis was on maneuver. An overlooked historical fact is that Germany had a big lead in radio communications and was able to command and control these fast-moving formations. The French Army was larger and had more tanks than the Reichswehr: but they were in the wrong place and didn't know where to go.

Don't forget also that Germany successfully deployed Airborne and "Special Operations" units via "vertical envelopment" and "asymmetrical warfare" (as it would be called today) to bypass fixed defenses and concentrate forces at critical locations. This further demonstrates their aversion to the meat grinder.

But as the war went on, the armor units and transportation resources were spread over the ever-expanding Wehrmacht. Allied bombing also impacted their ability to deliver trucks, fuel, and close air support. By the end of the war many German army units were back to horse-drawn artillery and logistical trains, although Waffen SS units were better supplied.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

To blame ****** "for it all" is a bit simplistic. The cause of the war and the way it developed has a myriad of causes, as did the propensity of Germans to blindly follow orders. Don't forget, that the German/Austrian cultures were strongly influenced by a history of militarism, consequently following orders without question was a patriotic thing to do. Couple that with a humiliating treaty that committed the German people to an economic nightmare, and you have a recipe for disaster. Antisemitism was rampant in Germany at the time, and hatred for the Jews ran deep; not just in ******'s mind, but in the country as a whole. Thus you have a ready made scapegoat, and throw a doctrine of racial superiority into the mix and you're off and running. ******'s magnetic personality and early economic successes didn't hurt. Germany was ready to dump on someone, and they did it big time.

******'s scapegoats...Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, Russians, Slavs were pretty much dehumanized by propaganda, and once you create a "them and Us" situation, where the "them" are sub human, then killing them by the millions becomes not so much of a moral issue, but a logistical problem. I have read quite extensively on the issue, and finally concluded that there is a place in everyone where evil lurks, and under the right circumstances it will inevitably show its face. We have to look at the mistakes of the human race if we want to prevent such things from happening again. So far, we're not doing so well.

BTW, I think even I could put together a case that would have convicted ****** of enough stuff to have stretched his neck.

 

[Garandman]

To blame ****** "for it all" is a bit simplistic. The cause of the war and the way it developed has a myriad of causes, as did the propensity of Germans to blindly follow orders. Don't forget, that the German/Austrian cultures were strongly influenced by a history of militarism, consequently following orders without question was a patriotic thing to do. //

It wasn't militarism per se, but fealty. Until German unification in 1870-71, there were over 200 independent municipalities and fiefdoms. Swearing a personal oath of allegiance to a lord was the norm. This continued into the Weimar Republic. There were several different oaths sworn by German soldiers, culminating in the "****** Oath" in 1934. Prior to 1934, they swore an oath of allegiance to the Reich or Fatherland. The ****** oath swore allegiance to "Adolf ******, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht"

If that sounds far-fetched, remember that U.S. Military officers swear an oath to the constitution to this day. This is the enlistment oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The officers oath is different: no President.

I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

 

[Ken45101]

^^^ Good point. Am I reading too much into it, or is the difference between the EM pledge and the officer's pledge worrisome?

That is an interesting point. But the Germans were never able to produce their superior weapons in the quantities that would have made a difference (too little too late), and ****** was the best general the Allies had on their side. There were so many bad tactical decision made by the micro-managing madman in Berlin that the British at one time had designs on killing him but it was decided that he was doing more good for the allied cause so those plans were scrapped.

The bottom line was that a small country like Germany, that took on countries whose output of war materiels and men outnumbered it greatly was not a good idea.

Fortress USA

Tremendous natural resources and manufacturing capability safe from enemy attack.