Fionn Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 I think the thing that really caused the Germans to be unable to win anymore was when they surrendered. The signing of the surrender documents really put the kabosh on their chances of winning WW2. Fascetious? Yup Logical and correct ? Damn straight . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 That no-one has mentioned the advent of the 'Lucy' spy ring as determining the end result of WW2 I find amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 A spy ring does precious little good if the Germans had had triple their historical production levels in 1939-43 (as they could have done). Lucy helped but no-one really "beat" the Germans to create a turning point. Hitler provided it himself with his outmoded concepts of warfare and his failure to understand the logistical nature of modern warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 Fionn wrote: A spy ring does precious little good if the Germans had had triple their historical production levels in 1939-43 (as they could have done). Far too often German defeat on the Eastern Front is attributed solely to Russian "inexhaustible" supply of men and material. In reality, before the war German heavy industry was about twice as big as Soviet. That means, if Germans had utilized their full industrial capability they could have produced roughly two times more tanks than Soviets did. Similarily for manpower issues. Germany had about 80 million inhabitants, Soviet Union something between 160-190 millions. Not even close to the "tenfold superiority" that many sources claim. Add to this manpower of Hungary (about 10 million), Romania (about 20 million), Finland (3.5 million), and Italy (50 million) the total number of people in Axis side rises to some 160 millions, nearly equal. The Soviets just utilized their resources much better. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakko Ichiu Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speedy: That no-one has mentioned the advent of the 'Lucy' spy ring as determining the end result of WW2 I find amazing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We may never know for sure, but one theory I heard was that Lucy was being fed Ultra de-crypts by UK intellingence assets in Zurich. It allowed London to share vital intel whilie maintaining the secrecy of Ultra. Ethan ------------------ Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Far too often German defeat on the Eastern Front is attributed solely to Russian "inexhaustible" supply of men and material. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, it has been many years since I ascribed to the inexhaustible doctrine . One thing though, I don't understand why you stated this after my post? My post clearly was sayign I believed the Germans could have won if they had built more planes/tanks guns etc ( thus in a roundabout way showing I don't buy into the "inexhaustible russian hordes myth" )? I'm confused . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Berli, how do you win a defensive war (not battle)? Just curious, mind you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe the German general staff wanted a concept of "mobile reserves." They wanted to keep the bulk of the armor behind the lines in fire brigades and wherever the russians would break through, these fire brigades were to engage them on the steppes using their superior long-range fighting capability. Instead, Hitler committed them to Kursk where they fought the Russian armor at close range... this gave the advantage to the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest entec Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: I think the thing that really caused the Germans to be unable to win anymore was when they surrendered. The signing of the surrender documents really put the kabosh on their chances of winning WW2. Fascetious? Yup Logical and correct ? Damn straight .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting logic, but I would submit that the Germans surrendering was a result them losing and since the war was already lost by the time of the signing it had not effect on the winning or the losing of the war. But I guess you could say the Germans had lost the war, but after signing a surrender they were REALLY REALLY lost war. Or they REALLY REALLY REALLY lost when the last German combatant gave up. Or you could say is the war REALLY REALLY REALLY TRULY over, is there an ever so small possibility that they could come back. You know now with the Soviet breakup, and the US aversion to casualties the time could be ripe for a counter offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 The war in the Pacific didn't really have as large an impact as that in Europe. Japan knew that it was going to be out fought from the beginning. Wether or not the Hiryu, Soryu, Akagi and Kaga were all knocked out @ midway or a few months later the war was already decided from December 7. Dealing with the invasion of England in 1940, I don't think that it would have been possible for Germany to carry out a successful amphibious invasion. Norway was a success, as, Germany had suprise, a larger navy, and was geographically close to Norway. Attacking Britain one would have to fight through the RAF, RN, then tackle the British Army. By September 1940 when the invasion was planned for, the British Army was fairly well reorganized and refitted. Sure, it didn't compare to it's May 1940 standards in mobility, but, most divisions had 50%+ their artillery establishment, all their small arms (Rifles, LMG, MMG). There were two Armoured Divisions, multiple Armoured and Tank Brigades. Germany didn't have enough transport and sucessfuly land a large enough force to overwealm the British Army. Their forces would have been fed piecmiel into the face of the full British Army. Well, the ground in Dunkirk wasn't suitable for tanks. There was general fear of a counterattack from south or north, or even a combined attempt. The British attack on Arras constituted a force of 2 Tank and 2 Infantry Battalions and threw an SS Division and Rommel's 7th Panzer into total disaray. There could have been greater disasters had the Germans attempted to either invade Britain in 1940, or to attack Dunkirk directly in late May 1940. There is no one single turning point in war. It is really easy saying "well, they shouldn't have done this", but, how many of us in CM have done a move resulting in total disaster? Looking back in the history of that PBEM game you might question when was the turning point? Was it when the 3 StuG's were knocked out? The loss of half of the Infantry? The loss of all the remaining Panzershcrecks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts