kunstler Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 I've read a number of the posts here now and there sure is an abundance of knowledge of wwii, from squad tactics on up. So I was wondering about the turning point in the war. And when did the Germans really get hit with supply problems? Was it because of the Allied Bombing campaign (largely viewed now as ineffectual)? Overextended lines, lack of rail, or what? The Germans seemed to have the initiative until Stalingrad. From what I have read, Kursk killed off the armour core, and the battle for Belorussia finished the infantry. Was Germany still in the 'game' after Stalingrad or was that it for them? What do you fellas think? Why were production levels for german vehicles so terribly low? The Russians were pumping out thousands of t34s every month that germany built maybe 100 panthers. Does anyone know of any good books about the battle for Berlin or the fighting between Russia and Japan early in the war? (Kolkin Gor or something like that) Thnx for any feedback! kunstler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 It was called Khalkin Ghol and any GOOD bio of Zhukov should contain some analysis of his strategy at Khalkin Ghol and how it relates to later doctrinal developments by him. Turning Point: Well the turning point was in 1928 to 1938 when Hitler gathered a load of mostly incompetent cronies around him. Some of his staff were geniuses who set the standards for media manipulation, controlling populations etc for the second half of the twentieth century. Most of them concentrated on building little fiefdoms and resisted ANY decrease in their personal power and prestige even if it was for the national good. This impacted state and military efficiency directly and prevented production rationalisation. Similar issues occured in the Armed Forces. Basically the "turning point" was Hitler's unwillingness to make a few examples and FORCE everyone to streamline. He allowed each regional bureaucratic head to head up production in his/her own area for too long instead of establishing an over-reaching all-powerful department to oversee production. Since we can see that Hitler centralised control of other important aspects of the state the only reason for him not doing the same vis a vis production etc is that he: 1) liked the fact that caring for their own little fiefdoms kept his potential military and political rival/underlings busy and stopped them becoming a threat to him. 2) he didn't have the heart to be ruthless with old comrades. A second night of the long knives in early 1940 would have done wonders for German productivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was Germany still in the 'game' after Stalingrad or was that it for them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Germany was still in the game after Stalingrad (largely due to Manstein). Stalingrad was the point at which the Germans lost the ability to win an offensive war. Kursk killed their chance at a defensive one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAEZ Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 Brute Force by John Ellis is a good book on the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 I think the war was lost when they invaded Russia. But when the english broke the German code they had no chance left at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 Berli, how do you win a defensive war (not battle)? Just curious, mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 Defensive stratagy. Not the best choice, but it is possible to win that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 To win a defensive war you have to make it too expensive for the other guy to win. Remember - you don't need to take ground to 'win', just hang on to what is important to you. If I was thinking more clearly at the moment I could probably give you some examples (I had thought of North Vietnam vs the US, but that's too contentious, and isn't really right for the point anyweay). Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryl Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 I've always generally tended to agree that the turning point came with the invasion of Russia. But frankly even that might not have been a fatal error if Hitler hadn't postponed Barbarossa for six weeks while he threw his little temper tantrum in Yugoslavia. The thing is though, that Hitler made so many mistakes throughout the war, it's tough to say exactly which ones Germany could've survived. ------------------ Darryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 I think that the Germans should have isolated the soviet union from western aid. They should have used the luftwaffe and navy to stop the flow of trucks, food, radios, and other war items that the SU so desperately needed. Russia could not feed itself when the germans held so much of its fertile areas. This would have created real friction in the alliance and a demand for a second front sooner. The germans should have got the japanese to attack the russians to make things worse for them. They should have shared technology so the japanese had better antitank and light weapons. I think the germans strategy in Normandy was really bad. It was obvious at this point in the war that ship supported landing assaults couldnt be stopped. The germans should have used a flexible defense, giving up the coast to fall back out of the navys range. Any attempts by the allies to set up air bases in France had to then be stopped with counterattacks. The germans should have had alot of forward protected supply dumps in France also. They knew the allies would blow every bridge to isolate the battle area. A gradual retreat where the germans inflicted alot of casualties on the allies would have made the opportunity for a peace with the west possible. Of course, they would have got nuked in 1945. The US government knew they were exterminating peoples and were designing the bomb for them. Why the US didnt start a propaganda war where they let the german people know what was going on in those camps is beyond me. Berliners never liked Hitler much anyway. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kunstler Posted March 21, 2000 Author Share Posted March 21, 2000 There is an interesting book about why the US did not publish information about the holocaust. Apparently both the United States and Great Britain new what was going on, in spite of efforts by the Higher SS and police to keep it quiet. I can't remember the title offhand, but some of the reasons they offer are pretty frightening. The book basically accuses Anthony Eden of being an aristocratic anti-semite, who was against letting in Jewish refugees because they might then have to take them all. He and Churchill were at loggerheads over the issue. England published more information about German activities than the United States did, though. Himmler began ordering the destruction of evidence as early as 1942. A german fellow with an almost french sounding name, Daleuge or something, went around occupied territories exhuming bodies and burning them. The book also alleges that Himmler ordered that soap not be made out of the remains of camp inmates (because it sounded bad in foriegn press), and that all bodies be burned. He also tried to offer prisoners for money to the allies, and Jewish refugees to silence complaints against the holocaust (no one would take the refugees, even though they knew what was being done to them). At least this is what the book says. I'm not sure if the invasion of Russia was the turning point. There was a German military report in 1941 that expressed the opinion that Germany could not win the war with Russia unless it turned it into a civil war. I think Hitler's racist policies are what really killed the Third Reich. In wwi, Germany liberated the Ukraine from Imperial Russia. The Soviets invaded and took it back in the twenties, so there were plenty of reasons for the Ukranians to believe the Germans were liberators in wwii (propaganda among them, Mein Kampf and Lebensraum notwithstanding). Until the einsatzcommandos were let loose. Alfred Rosenberg wasn't a great administrator, to be sure. If Hitler hadn't turned the war in the east into a war of extermination, and ordered the harshest treatment of the inhabitants, millions would have probably fought against the Soviets. The communists were hated by the Ukranians, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians. 50,000 former Soviets were captured/killed in German uniform at Stalingrad (or so this book on Stalingrad alleges), even with the rotten/horrific treatment the Germans meted out to their nationalities. I guess it's a combination of things. I just find it hard to believe how pathetic German production levels were during the war. They sure were in need of streamlining. Interesting stuff. kunstler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 I'd like to nominate 12.3.40 as one of the turning points, not because what happened then but because what didn't happen: Finland signed a peace treaty with Soviet Union and didn't ask help from Western Allies. It's difficult to say what would have happened if Finns had asked for help, but the following course of WWII would have been vastly different in any case. Britain and France were prepared to send some 20000 men to Scandinavia. Even though the nominal reason would have been to help Finland, in practice only a token force of some 5000 men would have reached Finland and the rest would have occupied (neutral) Narvik and Swedish iron mines, to prevent Germans from getting iron. In fact, one of the planners of the mission thought that the unit in Finland should be ordered to stay as far from Russians as possible! If this plan had come to light, Germans would have sent forces to fight of the occupation and the year 1940 would have seen heavy fighting in Norway and Sweden. It is also possible that in spite of all precautions Britain and France would have actually ended with a war against Soviet Union. It's really difficult to say what would have happened in the end in that war. In any case, I'm pretty happy that Finnish government chose the way they did. If the war had been continued, Soviet forces would have occupied Finland in the end. When the peace came the situation was critical at three sectors of the front and there was only one fully trained batallion left in _strategic_ reserves. In case of Soviet occupation I wouldn't have been ever born since in best case my grandfather would have been sent to Siberia as he was a member of Civic Guards. More likely he would have been shot after a secret trial. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 I would vote for November 1941 as the turning point. When the offensive on Moscow failed, the possibility for a successful blitzkrieg evaporated and the initiative passed to the Russians. The weight of time, manpower, and production capacity on the Russian side in what really became a war of attrition made the outcome inevitable from that point on. The Red Army went on the offensive in early December, 1941. The Germans were exhausted and had sustained losses they could never make up. It is a testimony to German field commanders that they performed as well and as long as they did. The veteran Wehrmacht that walked over Europe was really destroyed by Spring '42 and was never quite the same after that. I think the Germans could have theoretically won the war against Russia prior to that point. It could be argued that their failure to prepare adequately caused the subsequent failure at Moscow, and thus the operation was doomed before it began. But by failing to smash the Soviet state and the Red Army's will to resist, their doom was sealed. And having once started the war with Russia the only alternatives were total victory or abject defeat. I believe that England and the US also received a badly needed boost from the German failure at Moscow. The myth of German invincibility was shattered and serious aid to Russia began to seem worthwhile. Western aid in serious quantities wasn't reaching Russia until a couple months before Stalingrad. We tend to give too much emphasis to the US role in Russian resistance. For what it's worth, I don't think light anti-tank weapons for Japan would have made much difference to the outcome of the war. Did the Nazis refuse a Japanese request for them? And of course, the Japanese did tussle with the Soviet Union in the east, though before the German invasion. They didn't like it and they weren't going back. They were organized to fight a different kind of war against a different kind of enemy for which their "crappy" weapons were just fine. After Midway they had bigger fish to fry and were not about to stomp on the toe of another giant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eichmann2 Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 Destruction of 6th Army at Stalingrad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted March 22, 2000 Share Posted March 22, 2000 I think it was over before Stalingrad. Sure, the Germans achieved tactical successes in 1942- but did they still have any serious prospects of crushing the Red Army? The Russian pipeline was filling with tanks, planes, men, and experience. No way could Germany have kept up. Their only hope was a quick victory and they missed it. From then on, it was all numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakko Ichiu Posted March 22, 2000 Share Posted March 22, 2000 The absolute turning point of the war came on Dec. 8th, when Hitler declared war on the United States. Upon hearing the news, Churchill said, "So, we've won after all." Ethan ------------------ Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted March 22, 2000 Share Posted March 22, 2000 My vote goes for 17 September 1940: The date Hitler put Operation Sealion on permanent hold. Germany could never win a two-front war, and the majority of the OKW (including Hitler) new this. Their only chance was to take Britain out before the inevitable attack by the USSR (and it was inevitable --- Stalin was working on an operable timetable for the invasion of the Reich for as early as Fall of '41), or the involvement of the USA (also inevitable, thanks to FDR's goading the overly agressive Japanese). Once it became obvious that the Heer just didn't have the capability to take out England, the invasion of Russia was the only possible outcome --- and that way led to disaster. But the German war machine was overcome with inertia, and had to keep moving to stay alive... As far as the Japanese getting arms from the Germans; they did, IIRC, receive several pieces of varying sorts (including AT guns, subs, aircraft engines, blueprints, etc.), but the logistics of supply made anything but token presentations almost impossible. I do recall reading that the Japanese where rather impressed with the Tiger (and who wasn't? ) and even bought one (at double the list price ), but due to having no lifting capacity available for delivery, ended up leasing it back to the Reich... I wonder if the German crew had to wear hachi-maki's and salute the emperor before going into battle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted March 22, 2000 Share Posted March 22, 2000 IMO there were two key points that really cost the Germans the war. First: Dunkirk. If Hitler had allowed the Panzer Divisions a free hand in eliminating the troops holed up in Dunkirk, England would have been taken out of the war. With the meat of their army gone, England would have been forced to sue for peace. Second: Smolensk. When Hitler stopped the drive on Moscow (in August I believe) and sent Army Group Center south to isolate the Smolensk pocket, he missed the chance to capture Moscow. It was almost undefended and at their mercy. By the time AG Center got back on track and pointed towards Moscow, it was too late. The Russians had fortified the city and were able to hold, and then winter hit. If Moscow had been taken it would have been the end of Russia. Moscow was not just a token prize as it had been for Napolean. Bil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 23, 2000 Share Posted March 23, 2000 I didn't notice this thread before. I vote for September 1 1939. If HItler hadn't invaded Poland then the Allies wouldn't have eventually kicked his ass (metaphoriacally of course. He kicked his own as physicaly). Hehehe... ------------------ Visit my webpage! http://cm4mac.tripod.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 23, 2000 Share Posted March 23, 2000 Going after the Soviet Union without having neutralized Britain. The battle against the Soviets would have been pretty tough if they fought it with the same flawed logic and lack of planning, but it might have been possible to at least stalemated after the 1942 summer season. I think the combo of knocking Britain out of the war *AND* a sensible policy in the East (militarily and civilian wise) would have won them the war. But the reasons why none of this happened has more to do with Hitler's core personality than anything else, and therefore there really wasn't any chance that things would have worked out differently. Fionn's point about the inner workings of the Nazi government and industry was a DELIBERATE policy, believe it or not. Kinda like internal government corporate capitalism with few rules. Oh... there is one other option. Germany could have avoided being destroyed if the Beck bomb plot of 1938 had worked. Had Hitler been killed off then the war most likely never would have started, or if it had would have been waged differently at the strategic level. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EScurlock Posted March 23, 2000 Share Posted March 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darryl: The thing is though, that Hitler made so many mistakes throughout the war, it's tough to say exactly which ones Germany could've survived. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This along Hitler's personality, as Steve mentioned above are key points. IMHO the war was lost before it began. Hitler's lust for power and war were insatiable. People tend to look at the German war effort and say well if they didn't make this mistake, or make that mistake they may have just pulled it off. On the otherhand we tend to take only slight notice of the many blunders the Allies made. Why? Because Hitler's eyes were bigger than his stomach, taking the war far beyond Germanies capabilities to win it. Meanwhile the Allies could afford missmanagement of their masssive resources with little fear of actualy lossing the war. No matter what the German army did, how spectacular its successes on the battlefield, they were doomed to failure. The greater the victories the more reckless Hitler became. By '42 he managed to be at war with virtualy all the great economic powers of the world. I man able to sanely calculate the tremendous amount of power targeting (couter-targetting)him would have tried to get some of the pressure off as a matter of survival, but not Hitler. He wouldn't except Stalin's spring '42 offer of peace with borders as they were before operation Barbarosa, even with all that was stacked up against him. It could be argued that such a peace would have been temporary at best, but what does Hitler do, go on the defensive and lick his wounds? No, he re-equips his armies emanciated by Russia's '41 winter offensive and goes back onto the attack! All the while not daring to imagine or understand his enemie's abillity to also rebuild. The results of Hitler's pathalogical war lust, and delusional estimations of his enemies: guarantied defeat before the first shot was fired. ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frankrad Posted March 23, 2000 Share Posted March 23, 2000 My vote for the turning point is when those SBD Dauntless divebombers got lost and stumbled onto those four Japanese carriers at Midway, blowing them to smithereens. That had implications in Europe as well..getting us off the ropes and making Operation Torch possible. Speaking of Africa (nice Segue), I think the turning point was when that nebulous group of German decisionmakers somehow decided that the Middle East was not priority..Romel and the gang could have made the Mediterranean a German lake on several occassions, thereby altering the situation against the Soviet Union before Barbarosa began. my 2 cents. F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 I think the German really screwed up when they decided to not develop 4 engine bombers. The short range of the bombers they developed really hurt as they couldnt knock any of the real industrial targets deep in Russia, or stage a better assault on GB. I still think they had a chance to win if they would have held they Allies at the beaches too. Fate took Rommel away from properly directing the defenses, and if they would have held, they may have been able to reach some kind of hold by diverting troops afterward to the Eastern Front. Maybe they would not have won in the end in any event, but maybe the world would be quite different if the Americans and Russians had never entered Berlin. Ray ------------------ SWAT 3 Page Panzer Elite(not up) Combat Mission(comming soon)Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 The germans should have made peace with the west after taking france. They should have kept the US out of the war as long as possible. The nazis hated communism above anything else and should have concentrated on that. The germans should have agreed to leave france as long as it was demilitarized and no foriegn country occupied it. Then they should have attacked russia with the goal of either quickly KOing them or at least securing oil supplies. I dont think any western nation would have sent help to russia after they attacked poland. If germany could have accomplished this before Dec 7, 1941 they stood a good chance of winning. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MantaRay: I think the German really screwed up when they decided to not develop 4 engine bombers. The short range of the bombers they developed really hurt as they couldnt knock any of the real industrial targets deep in Russia, or stage a better assault on GB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There was a story on Wings of the Luftwaffe.. or maybe some other Wings type show that talked about the single 4 engine long range bomber proponant that Germany had and how his designs were being developed slowly in an environment that thought of war as taking place in 50 mile increments. He did have some support from Hitler, so some of his ideas were being looked at...until he was killed in Spain (I think... might have been earlier). I agree with Manta that a plane like a larger HE177 might have really hurt Britan and helped in Russia quite a bit. I agree with Churchill. Hitler lost the war when he declared on the US. [This message has been edited by Compassion (edited 03-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts