"The High Water Mark" for the Germans?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Michael Dorosh,

In the first place, we were discussing the proportion of Commonwealth production located in the UK, so US production is irrelevant. Raising that issue is a red herring.

Michael

Not really; you were implying that British production was ample for their own needs. The fact that the US made Lee Enfield rifles and War Aid KD and BD uniforms suggests to me that they were not - ditto jeeps, tanks, tank destroyers, and various aircraft types. It all goes to the fact that with Britain out of the war, the rest of the Empire (and in the case of the US, her allies) was more than capable of producing more than bread and milk.

Do you disagree with the last sentence?

[ June 02, 2003, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Richie:

If you're going to start a job you want to finish it and make sure it's done... one step at a time.

Never could understand how Hitler --- who was forever harangueing his generals about not getting involved in a 2-front war --- goes and invades the USSR before England is taken down. And then declares war on the USA! Hello! Wake-up call for Mr. Hitler! Now he has a 3-front war (if you count the Med as third) on his hands. </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

Actually that front was opened when the war started, it just wasn't done very well.

[Gaylord Focker]

Good point.

[MAUS_TD]

my opinion is that the most important thing is the time barbarossa was started. When the OKW attacked the russians not on 22june but on the first week of may then they would have won the war in the east. His general staff complaint against the fuhrer that when he delayed the attack for the second they didnt have enough time to get to moskou before the winter and that they didnt have any winter supplies.

So i think the high water mark was before the attack at russia.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Michael Dorosh,

In the first place, we were discussing the proportion of Commonwealth production located in the UK, so US production is irrelevant. Raising that issue is a red herring.

Michael

Not really; you were implying that British production was ample for their own needs. The fact that the US made Lee Enfield rifles and War Aid KD and BD uniforms suggests to me that they were not - ditto jeeps, tanks, tank destroyers, and various aircraft types. It all goes to the fact that with Britain out of the war, the rest of the Empire (and in the case of the US, her allies) was more than capable of producing more than bread and milk.

Do you disagree with the last sentence? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Michael Dorosh,

In the first place, we were discussing the proportion of Commonwealth production located in the UK, so US production is irrelevant. Raising that issue is a red herring.

Michael

Not really; you were implying that British production was ample for their own needs. The fact that the US made Lee Enfield rifles and War Aid KD and BD uniforms suggests to me that they were not - ditto jeeps, tanks, tank destroyers, and various aircraft types. It all goes to the fact that with Britain out of the war, the rest of the Empire (and in the case of the US, her allies) was more than capable of producing more than bread and milk.

Do you disagree with the last sentence? </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

That's exactly what you said. "production .... in Canada,Australia, and India.....never came close to matching what was being turned out at home."

Not sure what the point of that statement is.

It means that considerably more than 50% of the Commonwealth's production of finished war materials was situated in the UK. How can I make it plainer than that?

My original point was that invasion of England ensured that the rest of the British Empire would still have considerable material wealth, including industry that would be a threat to Germany.

But not nearly on the same scale.

You have said that British industry created the "bulk" of war production and the poor little colonies would be of no consequence once the United Kingdom was occupied.

I never used the phrase "of no consequence" because that is not my belief and certainly was not the point I was making.

Given the capacity of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India to produce war materiel in quantity, I submit you are wrong on that point, and with Britain's ally in 1940, the United States (ally but all in name) thrown into the mix, the potential "bulk" of war production shifts dramatically somewhat to the west.

Ah, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was talking about the production of the Commonwealth. I said nothing about the US. You are the one who keeps dragging it into the discussion. If you want to balance the production of the UK against the rest of the Commonwealth and the US, that is a very different equation. But why confuse the two issues?

I didn't realize Britain was the Arsenal of Democracy.

Now you are merely being silly.

Michael

[ June 02, 2003, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Mikko H.]

It wasn't so much about luck but intelligence. That was the greatest weakness of Germany: it was stumbling around like a blind cyclops. Hitler thought he could expand to east without hindrance; well, France and Britain declared war. Hitler thought Britain would sue for peace once France had fallen and the war would be over in short order; he was also confident that Soviet Union would fall down like a decayed hut; he thought USA was decadent and powerless; but, alas! Eventually, it was Germany that was divided into British, American, Soviet and French occupation zones.

While it's true that Germany probably had the least capable intelligence services of all the major players, on Hitler's level it wasn't that much the question of bad intelligence, but of refusing to heed the (good) intelligence. There were plenty of intelligence around that, for example, Britain and France were going to fight, and that the USA was formidable opponent. Hitler thought he knew better. Of course, it didn't help that Hitler (like all dictators) had his sycophants who told him just what he wanted to hear.

[CombinedArms]

Hitler was a psychopath who only believed what he wanted to hear--well, that can lead to a few bad decisions...

On the "dumbness" of cancelling Sealion--the question is, what would it take for Sealion to succeed. How about a navy at least equal to the British navy, if not superior. You can't achieve a channel crossing, and then continue to supply your expeditionary force, without naval superiority. On top of that, you need air superiority. (Ike felt he needed air supremacy, as well as the naval supremacy he already had, to succeed with HIS channel crossing.) Hitler learned that he could not achieve air superiority (let alone supremacy) in Autumn 1940. To achieve naval superiority would have required a several-year-long building program that may not have succeeded. His real strength was in his land army. And so, he turned to Russia...

In my view, the turning point (in terms of gradn strategy) was Dec 1941, when the US entered the war.

The high tide mark for the Axis was Oct 1942

The turning point in terms of combat was the end of November 1942 with Stalingrad encirclement, the North African landings, the El Alemein victory, and success on Guadalcanal all in the bag.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

That's exactly what you said. "production .... in Canada,Australia, and India.....never came close to matching what was being turned out at home."

Not sure what the point of that statement is.

It means that considerably more than 50% of the Commonwealth's production of finished war materials was situated in the UK. How can I make it plainer than that?

My original point was that invasion of England ensured that the rest of the British Empire would still have considerable material wealth, including industry that would be a threat to Germany.

But not nearly on the same scale.

You have said that British industry created the "bulk" of war production and the poor little colonies would be of no consequence once the United Kingdom was occupied.

I never used the phrase "of no consequence" because that is not my belief and certainly was not the point I was making.

Given the capacity of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India to produce war materiel in quantity, I submit you are wrong on that point, and with Britain's ally in 1940, the United States (ally but all in name) thrown into the mix, the potential "bulk" of war production shifts dramatically somewhat to the west.

Ah, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was talking about the production of the Commonwealth. I said nothing about the US. You are the one who keeps dragging it into the discussion. If you want to balance the production of the UK against the rest of the Commonwealth and the US, that is a very different equation. But why confuse the two issues?

I didn't realize Britain was the Arsenal of Democracy.

Now you are merely being silly.

Michael </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

little reason to disbelieve Skennerton (thanks to Sergei for posting that, by the way).

Hey anything for you, Michael. It was Sirocco, though.

[SgtMuhammed]

One big thing to remember about Sealion was that the Germans were never really equiped to carry it out. They were relying on river barges to carry their troops and equipment and for airborne assaults to secure ports to bring heavy stuff (armor and such). Nothing they had encountered on the continent would have prepared the Wehrmacht for a massive amphibious assault.

Imagine a fleet of slow moving barely sea worthy barges loaded with troops in the face of what would have been suicidal resistance by the Royal Navy and the RAF. What little would have reached shore would have been cut to pieces by a lot of really pissed off Brits.

We now return you to the Mike and Mike show.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

little reason to disbelieve Skennerton (thanks to Sergei for posting that, by the way).

Hey anything for you, Michael. It was Sirocco, though. </font>

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

In my view, the turning point (in terms of gradn strategy) was Dec 1941, when the US entered the war.

I would add the German failure at the gates of Moscow to that to possibly date it as the turning point.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

little reason to disbelieve Skennerton (thanks to Sergei for posting that, by the way).

Hey anything for you, Michael. It was Sirocco, though. </font>

[Lars]

High water mark?

I'd say the tip of the radio antenna on the Bismark.

May 27, 1941. Just before Barbarossa...

[Reichenberg]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

My guess as to where Hitler & Co. really blew it on jet aircraft was an earlier refusal to develop a prototype from Heinkel.

Michael

This prototype, the Heinkel 280 was actually developed and flew first on April 5th 1941. The He 280 was than shown to Udet and staff of the RLM and outmanoeuvred a FW 190 on this occasion. It was equipped with 2 radial jet engines He S 8. The He S 8 was never supported by the RLM. On September 15th 1942 the programm was stopped by Milch. The RLM favored the Me 262 because the first prototype of the 262 lacked the undercarriage with the front wheel by then. Later on the 262 had to be redesigned to carry such an undercarriage.

Talking of some weird decision making processes.

Regards

Uwe

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

given a German rapprochement or even alliance with Britain, that threat is immediately removed, as Canada et al probably would not have waged war on Germany as long as Britain did not.

Can we agree on that?

Certainly. While I never described the Commonwealth forces absent the UK as negligible, they would have been very greatly reduced. Even if a British government in exile officially continued to wage the war, one wonders how that could have gone. Certainly they and the rest of the CW governments would have wanted to see the liberation of the British Isles from the Nazi yoke. But it would have been a very long uphill struggle and dependent on its success by the attitude of the US. What that would have been under those circumstances I can't say with certainty, but I suspect it would have been sympathetic to one degree or another.

One thing I will say for sure is that it is hard to see how the Alllies (whoever they may have consisted of) could have reentered the continent and driven into Germany without first securing the Britiish Isles.

In other words, my original point was that Hitler may very well and understandably seen invasion of England as undesirable...can we also not agree that Hitler's unwillingness to invade England may not have been entirely evidence of "not finishing the job", since the true case was one of not having wanted to do that job (Sealion) at all in the first place.

Had Hitler made a serious attempt to mount an amphibious invasion at any time during the war (and 1940 was probably his best shot) he would have had his clock cleaned. In the midst of all the uncertainties and chances of war, I am still confident of that.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Wassermann:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

My guess as to where Hitler & Co. really blew it on jet aircraft was an earlier refusal to develop a prototype from Heinkel.

Michael

This prototype, the Heinkel 280 was actually developed and flew...</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Certainly. While I never described the Commonwealth forces absent the UK as negligible, they would have been very greatly reduced. Even if a British government in exile officially continued to wage the war, one wonders how that could have gone. Certainly they and the rest of the CW governments would have wanted to see the liberation of the British Isles from the Nazi yoke. But it would have been a very long uphill struggle and dependent on its success by the attitude of the US. What that would have been under those circumstances I can't say with certainty, but I suspect it would have been sympathetic to one degree or another.

Agreed.

One thing I will say for sure is that it is hard to see how the Alllies (whoever they may have consisted of) could have reentered the continent and driven into Germany without first securing the Britiish Isles.

Agreed.

Had Hitler made a serious attempt to mount an amphibious invasion at any time during the war (and 1940 was probably his best shot) he would have had his clock cleaned. In the midst of all the uncertainties and chances of war, I am still confident of that.

Michael

Agreed, but I would still assert that Hitler's cancellation of Sealion was not a recognition of these military realities, but a desire to turn east instead and bring the British to terms. Either way - invade, or not invade - Hitler had no clear, workable plan to subjugate England. Hitler's "high water mark" regards diplomatic relations with (superiority over?)England came at Munich. In September 1939, he grossly misjudged British resolve in their guarantee to Poland.

Had the Soviets invaded Poland first, I wonder how things might have turned out? Would Britain have declared war on Russia?

[ June 02, 2003, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Gaylord Focker]

Dorosh, Britain without a doubt would have declared war on the Soviet Union had they invaded Poland first, in fact, they almost declared war on the Soviet Union for their agressions toward Finland but they were too busy with Germany to make that a feasable course of action.

Stalin was not always "uncle joe", in fact it was the wests weariness of the Soviet Union that allowed Germany to become the power it did during that time in the first place.

[ June 03, 2003, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Wisbech_lad]

AFAIK, one of Hitler's reasonings to invade USSR was to force UK to peace table.

He believed that UK was hoping for USSR involvement, at some point. By attacking first (and he thought, knocking them out fast) he would remove any hope UK had of victory. As Sealion was a non starter, this was only way to bring UK to negotiation table.

It didn't work

[SgtMuhammed]

Just another refrain from the continental powers' plan to rid England of her "Continental Sword." The Germans tried that one in WWI and Napoleon before them. Funny how it never seems to work.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...I would still assert that Hitler's cancellation of Sealion was not a recognition of these military realities, but a desire to turn east instead and bring the British to terms. Either way - invade, or not invade - Hitler had no clear, workable plan to subjugate England. Hitler's "high water mark" regards diplomatic relations with (superiority over?)England came at Munich. In September 1939, he grossly misjudged British resolve in their guarantee to Poland.

I wouldn't dispute a word of that, but I think a little elaboration might be called for. I think Hitler would have invaded if he thought he could do it on the cheap. But I am firmly of the opinion that in the moments he actually thought seriously about the issue he realized that those conditions were unlikely to prevail.

Thus, I see the preparations for Sealion as serving two purposes. The first is to add muscle to his diplomatic efforts to end the war. Secondly, to be ready on the happy chance that military circumstances prevailed that would be favorable to such an endeavor.

Had the Soviets invaded Poland first, I wonder how things might have turned out? Would Britain have declared war on Russia?

I think that was Chamberlain's preferred option. Up until Hitler's occupation of Czechoslovakia, he would have rather fought at the side of Germany against the USSR than the other way around. But after that point he realized that Hitler was simply too treacherous to make any kind of ally.

Michael

[ June 03, 2003, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]