(Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/30/2002 7:00:43 AM)

Liked your Lenningrad and French Navy comments Bernard, those details don't see a lot of type in comments normally.



IronDuke_slith -> (7/30/2002 7:22:29 AM)

You're right, Sarge, you don't see a great deal about Oran. It strikes me as quite an emotive subject, even now. The one time I saw it discussed (on a napoleonic gaming forum of all places) it provoked quite a heated debate that got a little out of hand.

It's a minefield and needs to be handled sensitively.

Leningrad is a bit strange in that it has never provoked the comment that Kursk, Stalingrad, Moscow, Kharkov has etc, but when you look at the scale of it all....

I wonder whether discussion of the war in the east is still pretty german centric. They besieged Leningrad for years, but never seemed to devote to it the resources they did to Stalingrad or other sectors of the front. It rates low on the interest scale for them, and as a result isn't discussed like the other battles mentioned

Some other thoughts on the pivotal battles that started this all off. I was thinking maybe Dunkirk. I can't imagine churchill could have continued in office on a policy of fighting to the bitter end if the entire BEF had surrendered, there. Even if you fight on, many of those men would have fought in the desert, so that would have been lost, and in '44 the US would have had to commit more (probably green) divisions on D-day to make up the numbers.

We might never have reached the low countries before the Russians did.



Dare2 -> (7/30/2002 8:24:03 AM)

How do non-events rate in the pivotal scale?

Like the annexation of the sudentland and non-response, etc. What would have happened if there was a fierce and immediate response to one of the earlier "incorporations" of land?

Would this have served notice and cooled Hitler down? Or would it have provoked an earlier start (to WWII)? Who would have benefited from an earlier start?

Very interesting thread, this. :)



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/30/2002 8:29:25 AM)

Very possible Iron Duke

Best way to look at Lenningrad is try to play Advanced Third Reich and stay in the war as the Russians after losing it.

Same with UK actually. I always hate defending the British at the beginning. To much turf not enough men.

When I play allies I usually play planning on losing France and try to be stingy with the British there.

The French have always been an odd country. But the strain was never so great during the war as when the French fleet was attacked.
To this day it has always been a subject not easy to relate to , why the French would doggedly refuse the British their original allies the fleet assets.

I always use the French fleet in as outrageous a fashion as possible before the fall of France just so the fleet will either drive axis insane of go down with as much axis naval power as possible.

But that is a gamey technique and not representative of the history of the time.



Chiteng -> why? (7/30/2002 9:20:09 AM)

Because the French felt that the British were ********
That had bailed on them at Dunkirk, and they were correct.



davewolf -> (7/30/2002 2:33:02 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dare2
[B]How do non-events rate in the pivotal scale?

Like the annexation of the sudentland and non-response, etc. What would have happened if there was a fierce and immediate response to one of the earlier "incorporations" of land?

Would this have served notice and cooled Hitler down? Or would it have provoked an earlier start (to WWII)? Who would have benefited from an earlier start?[/B][/QUOTE]
AFAIK that lunatic called Hitler wanted the war to start already in 1938. Though it was obvious that the Wehrmacht wasn't yet ready.

So the Munich Conference was more some kind of a disappointment to him, than satisfactory.



Raverdave -> (7/30/2002 3:40:52 PM)

IIRC I think that I read that Hitler was planning to start the "full-blown" war in '44, but with the ease of the victorys in '39 he upped the time table.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/30/2002 5:37:08 PM)

Not sure if I have this correct Raverdave but I think it was 42 that Hitler had plans for kicking butt.

Hitler's ambitions though, were greatly influenced by his easy early successes. Gave him the delusion he was more than a corporal at the game of war. Also made it hard for his General staff that were good at it, to say anything negative about him.

A strong smack down in 38 would likely have great reduced his chances of getting the war moving. Probably wouldn't have stopped him though.
It would mean that the RAF might have better planes to start with, the Germans would have better tanks, the Russians yet more quantities of their well designed but poorly led forces etc. Only people that would not have benefited would be the US (because the US wasn't interested in war machinery until they had the war forced on them). The US might have gone more naval in the Pacific vs the Japanese though (the Japanese were not constrained by Germany's chances).



wpurdom -> Pearl Harbor (7/30/2002 7:17:49 PM)

Apparently Churchill's vote would have been in favor of Pearl Harbor. In his history of World War II, he states that when he heard the news he felt a great relief, he finally knew that the Allies would win the war.
Also keep in mind that largely the war was won on the American industrial front. America fought the war out of one-half of the [I]increase[/I] in the American GNP and with that out-produced all of the other combatants. (Incidentially, American life expectancy rose during the war years and in the military population as a whole). The economy expanded at rates of about 25% per year. The Russians might have stopped the German attack without American aid, but their army would have been to immobil to ever get back to Germany. An American effort of the same quality as WWI (similar to the industrial effort of the Germans) would not have been sufficient to support the Russians and reestablish the Western Front.
On another note, the Japanese undoubtedly accepted as a truism that they had to go to war or run out of oil within 6 months. I have read, however, that with the delays in resuming oil production and the toll later exacted by American subs, that the Japanese never acquired enough additional oil flow to overbalance the increased demands of active combat against the Americans. Thus, it would seem that they could have hunkered down in China and Indochina and awaited world events, then negotiated, if necessary, once Allied victory seemed sure.
By the way, the decision to embargo Japanese oil was not a conscious decision at the top. The President just wanted to get the authority to embargo anything and apparently intended to play diplomatic games with the Japanese, one trade item at a time. He left town for a long isolated weekend. While he was out, one of the warhawks in Ickes' hawkish department implemented an immediate total embargo. Upon return, the question became whether to back down and appear weak, which was heightened when the British and Dutch followed our lead. The Westerners in the US couldn't contemplate the loss of "face" required to reverse course.



CCB -> Re: why? (7/30/2002 7:25:04 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Because the French felt that the British were ********
That had bailed on them at Dunkirk, and they were correct. [/B][/QUOTE]

British Army divisions were still in position on the Somme R. after Dunkirk and continued to fight the Germans until France surrendered.



Raverdave -> (7/30/2002 7:27:42 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Not sure if I have this correct Raverdave but I think it was 42 that Hitler had plans for kicking butt.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah I was not sure of the year, come to think of it '42 sounds more like it.



Raverdave -> Re: Re: why? (7/30/2002 7:29:09 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CCB
[B]

British Army divisions were still in position on the Somme R. after Dunkirk and continued to fight the Germans until France surrendered. [/B][/QUOTE]

Some British units fought on upto two weeks after Dunkirk IIRC.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/31/2002 12:14:54 AM)

Some one is laying a beating on yeah and the rich kid next door that takes them judo classes walks over and says hey I think you better let my friend up or else....yeah I guess that becomes the really important detail in your mind heheh.

Can't fault Churchill for seeing the US entry as being the most significant event I suppose.



Chiteng -> yes (7/31/2002 12:24:32 AM)

yes but we are talking about perceptions, not reality.
That is how they felt.

Sure the 51st Highlander was trapped and destroyed
in an attempt to fullfill the alliance. I often wonder what happened to those men.



wpurdom -> U.S. diplomacy with Japan (7/31/2002 12:48:55 AM)

"Some one is laying a beating on yeah and the rich kid next door that takes them judo classes walks over and says hey I think you better let my friend up or else....yeah I guess that becomes the really important detail in your mind heheh. "

If this is a response to my post, I want to make clear that I have no problem with either the morality of the U.S. diplomatic position nor the effectiveness of how it turned out. I was just commenting on the inadvertance of it all. As Bismark once resentfully noted about the favorability of the U.S. diplomatic-strategic position in the world "God looks after fools, drunkards, and the United States of America."
The events on the China front during World War II are considerably more clouded than those in Europe because neither the Japanese nor the Chinese were such fanatics about record-keeping as the Germans and civil war in China overlapped and followed the war with Japan, but an examination of the Rape of Nanking and similar incidents of the conquest, the Japanese record of biological warfare, and such information as we have on Chinese death rates suggest that the Japanese Army possessed a guilt probably at least commensurate with Hitler and the SS and Stalin during the "peace" time of the 20's and the 30's. I think it is most fortunate that the U.S. stumbled into war with Japan, never agreed to a peace based upon a continuation of the war in China, or the acquiesence in Japanese conquest. However, the U.S. military, and most of the "aid to the Allies" crowd (all my heroes, BTW) definitely felt that war with Japan in 1941 or the first half of 1942 was war "at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy" and were partially successful in pursuading Roosevelt to that view. Ultimately, once the step of the embargo was taken, however, Roosevelt was unwilling to propose a peace initiative on his own part that would involve the abandonment of the Chinese.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/31/2002 2:10:38 AM)

wpurdom I was merely commenting on the comment made concerning Mr Churchill being able to consider the US entry to be a pivotal matter.

Britain was very well served with the US entry into the broader war. That's a comment that is nothing more than what it is though. The British fight against Germany would have gotten quite nasty without the US being more actively involved.

That the US had many levels of interest in WW2 though goes without saying. That their interests in the Pacific were to some extent not entirely identical in motivation to those experienced in Europe is also obvious. To some, the war in Europe was not the same war as the war in the Pacific.
But once the allied powers were all messed up in it, it became global by virtue of it being just that, global.



GYBLIN -> (7/31/2002 2:31:48 AM)

But..didnt not really matter what Britain did or did not do since germany would have lost to russia anyway.According to your earlier comments russia was eating germany for breakfast on the steppes.:)



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/31/2002 2:56:18 AM)

Well hindsight is kinda handy though Gyblin heheh.

Today we can look back and see how dumb so many of Hitler's choices were.

I am not so sure though, if in say 42, that anyone was in a hurry to say, "oooooh don't go in there Adolf, or the Russians will get you":)

Biggest problem with "what if" threads I have noticed, is the Americans being unable to properly understand, that Pearl Harbour, and Normandy, were not the be all and end all of the war.
Sure they were important, but it is a natural Americocentric stance to think the Western Allies folded spindled and mutilated the Germans. By the time the Allies were in France in 44, the Germans had already had the asses whipped in Russia.

The Germans, were just unwilling to quit (or rather Hitler was unwilling to quit). Then again, he had gone far enough that the Allies were not interested in "terms" they wanted Hitler on a platter. So in that light, it was going to go till it was finished totally.



Bernard -> Re: Re: why? (7/31/2002 4:19:44 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CCB
[B]

British Army divisions were still in position on the Somme R. after Dunkirk and continued to fight the Germans until France surrendered. [/B][/QUOTE]

the French blamed everyone for failure in may-june 1940.
truth is they had great airplanes (too many different planes though) and in sufficient amounts;
they had better tanks than germans (B1Bis or even Somuas were a better match than PzI,II, III and even IV (no armor piercing capability).
They had as many men as need;
they had a very good fleet (just behind Royal Navy)
they had the Maginot line.

So they lost.
Therefore : someone else's fault :
British : they bailed out
Belgian : they surrendered after 18 days (betrayal !)
Netherlands : they surrendered even faster.

What they don't say is :
no tactics, no srategy, no spirit, no leader, no transmission.
no tank division, wrong disposition of troops (too many being Maginot), they couldn't even get their warindustry back on track after the stikes of 1936. So many D520 never flew because they lacked this or this equipment for example.

Gamelin sent his army to meet Germans in Belgium, with no other plan. Nothing was envisioned except fight back : if it fails : no plan, it it suceeds : no plan.
9th French army (CORAP) didn't really fight.
troops were engaged piecelike, and got beaten one after the other.
no recon, no fast order transmission : when an order arrived, situation had changed.

As for the Brits, what could have they done more on the continent ?
they were on the left, belgian army on center and french on right.
the french kept going back and kind of sucked the front back. The Brits stayed close to ports (prudent) and the belgian had to withdraw from good lines of defense (Escaut, Canal Albert) and had to fight on less imposant positions. So we surrendered in the end. And of course the French called it a betrayal. it is interesting to note that King Leopold sent notes to French and Brits and prolonged the fight an extra day or so to give "somehow" more time to reorganize.

The French fought better in June, but it was too late and the brits wouldn't send their aircraft to help. Even over Dunkirk they sent the minimum. And after that, Montoire, with Petain and Laval didn't come out of nowhere. they ar the result of the lack of fighting spirit of a whole nation in may 1940.

Also note that the Resistance really begun with the communist, after 22.06.1941.

So no, the Brits were no *****.

best regards



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/31/2002 5:51:02 AM)

Better watch out Bernard, no one likes hearing the truth, I should know I am from Quebec:D



Bernard -> (8/2/2002 5:03:29 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Better watch out Bernard, no one likes hearing the truth, I should know I am from Quebec:D [/B][/QUOTE]

Tabarnak.
You can't be all that bad then. Spent 1 year studying at Laval University. Met only nice people. Truly.


:) :) :p



IronDuke_slith -> (8/2/2002 7:15:25 AM)

Sarge, Bernard,

I agree. I'm a Brit and possibly (alright probably) biased, but once the Germans had broken the French at Sedan, a complete failure by the French high Command (to whom the British forces were subordinated) meant it was only a matter of time. Weygand and Gamelin were fighting the first world war again, and I'm sure I remember reading they were drawing halt lines on the map only to find the germans were fifty miles further on.

French armour if used properly, (and I seem to remember De Gaulle did at least try) could have made the Germans far more cautious. We did pull out at Dunkirk, but bearing in mind we were being cut off, and did attempt (at Arras) to test the German flanks, I'm not sure what other options we had.

Finally, as I've suggested earlier in this thread, if the BEF hadn't left at dunkirk, France would never have been liberated. The BEF would have been forced to surrender within days, and with out the 330 000 troops rescued from dunkirk, Britain wouldn't have fought on. France's liberation, if at all, would have come at the hands of Stalin. It wouldn't quite (I suspect) have been particularly liberating.

Also, at some point we have to credit Manstein and the plan he developed for the western front. It was an exellent plan, well conducted.

As for the Belgians, they did all they could. It is unfortunate for them, that whenever anyone in Europe decides to pick a fight, they often choose to do it in the low countries.

Regards,
IronDuke.



Bernard -> (8/3/2002 2:44:48 AM)

Ironduke,
i've put you high on my "best liked buddies" list.

of course, BEF had no choice. Belgian had surrendered, french were in toal disarray on the right and separated by the Pz Korps.

Yes, De Gualle had counterattacked near Sedan (name of the locality escapes me - Abbeville !)

but to no real avail and with huge losses. Also no reserve to be sent for exploitation and lack of infantry in the "DCR" Armoured division.

best regards;



hardcase -> (8/5/2002 3:35:18 AM)

The most decisive battle was the Battle of Pearl Harbor, sealed the Axis fates immediately. Churchill reported he slept soundly knowing that England would not loose the war. Yommamoto said he would run wild in the pacific for 6 months then loose the war.

hardcase



Unknown_Enemy -> (8/6/2002 8:24:32 PM)

[QUOTE] [I]Posted by Bernard[/I]
the French blamed everyone for failure in may-june 1940[/QUOTE]
Well, the staff was blaming anyone for sure, because if they could not find some resposabilities their heads would have been on the level.

[QUOTE] [I]Posted by Bernard[/I]
What they don't say is
[/QUOTE]

huu, please, could we update to "What they didn't say is " ?


Then, everybody should remember that by 1940, blitzkrieg was a new concept, neither understood in France, UK, Belgium or Holland. Neither France or UK had organised some mechanised units, all western europe was still looking for a WW1 type war.

Then, let's have a closer look :

- No spirit : agreed, most of french were not eager to die for the liberty of Poland. And worst, one of the more powerful political party at the time : the communist party, was strongly versus the war and despite being banned, covertly advocated peace since the beginning of war.
- No tactics : wrong. They was some very good tactics, which had been learned by all high ranking officers. For instance, when the breakthrought was detected in the Ardennes, the local staff asked to chop the trees to block the roads. The answer was a very strong NO, as the road were necessary for the cavalry to attack. Indeed, the french cavalry was send on these roads, just to come back routed with the panzers hot on their tails. Brillant isn't it ?
- no strategy : wrong the whole french strategy was to dig up in defense and let the enemy bleed dry on it. Which was a typical WW1 well learned lesson. Except that what was forgotten is that war are won by attacking, not only by defense.
- no leader : wrong. De Gaule, Leclerc, Giraud anyone ? The only problem is that they were regarded as strange fools when war should be run by serious people.
- no transmission : wrong again, transmissions were top of the line for a slow moving WW1 model. But nobody in the french (or UK) CC ever imagined they would have to deal with an enemy able to run 50 miles a day.

For a complete analysys of the france battle, I would recommand the reading of "History of WW2" by Liddel Heart.

Then for Montoire, it came by Petain as a Marechal, was adamant not to have the army more humiliated. Which forbid to have the government to continue the fight from the colonies. But that is another and long history.



jnier -> (8/9/2002 8:58:20 PM)

"Biggest problem with "what if" threads I have noticed, is the Americans being unable to properly understand, that Pearl Harbour, and Normandy, were not the be all and end all of the war. Sure they were important, but it is a natural Americocentric stance to think the Western Allies folded spindled and mutilated the Germans."

Speaking as a biased, oppresive, Americocentric tool, I will still offer the opinion that American entry into the war was the single most decisive event in WWII - especially when you consider both the European and Pacific Theaters. Talking only about the Germans and the European Theater is, well, Eurocentric - Europe was only half the war.

You could make a case that Barbarrosa was the most important event in WW2, but this completely overlooks the Pacific Theater.
If your talking just about Europe, then maybe the Soviets take the Germans down by themselves, but this is not a certainty (as historians cannot seem to agree on this either). Also consider the radically different shape of European, and World, history if this was the case.

But since Pearl Harbor was the event that brought the US into the war that makes it single most pivotal battle in the war. It forever changed what would happen in both theaters of the war. Subsequent US individual actions (like Normandy, Bastonge, Guadalcanal) were important, but don't seem to really qualify as pivotal, since the weight of Allied numbers on both fronts made the eventual results of these campaigns a foregone conclusion.

Churchhill was right.



Shrapnel -> It happened way back during the BoB... (8/10/2002 12:55:01 AM)

One gloomy night a stray German bomber got lost over Britain. Finally giving up he jettisoned his bombs and headed back to Germany. What he didn't know was he was over London at the time.
In retaliation Britain launched a bomber raid over Berlin (I think it was Berlin).
Hitler was so furious that he ordered all bombing of airplane factories, airfields, pilot training facilities, etc to stop and switch over to the destruction of London.
The Raf was at the breaking point at this time and most likely would of ceased to exist if the Luftwaffe had continued to pressure the Raf with attacks many times a day.
With the switching of targets from the suppression of the Raf to London busting Hitler gave the Raf time to rebuild, rest and restock. The end result was the failure of "Eagle Day", the invasion of Britain by Mid-September if Germany had air superiority.
Had Germany gained air superiority and invaded Britain, a battle they almost certainly would of won (the "home force" was training w/ broom sticks at the time) the allies would of not had a spring board for the B-17s to go on it's strategic bombing missions nor would Normandy of happened.
Most likely the Allies only option was up the boot of Italy and Hitler could of massed many more troops there.
Would have Germany won the war? Probably not but they probably could of ended up w/ more territory and the allies agreeing to a cease fire (this is all speculation of course).
IMHO that one lone bomber back in the BOB lost the war for Germany when he jettisoned his bombs =)



Chiteng -> well Vienna (8/10/2002 2:52:56 AM)

The defeat of the Ottoman outside Vienna would be pivotal
but not WW2 =)



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (8/10/2002 4:17:14 AM)

Hey no fair I already said that Shrapnel:D



Shrapnel -> (8/10/2002 4:08:05 PM)

Heh heh Sarge 9-1,

There was no way I was going to read all those posts. Not many poeple know about that one. =)



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.40625