Conservative Political Forum

General Category => War Forum => Topic started by: tbone0106 on June 24, 2012, 09:52:40 PM

Title: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: tbone0106 on June 24, 2012, 09:52:40 PM
I guess this is sort of a poll. There were many huge miscalculations, but I can't help thinking Hitler's move into the Soviet Union in 1941 -- especially so late in the season! -- was the worst.

Opinions?
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on June 25, 2012, 06:05:43 AM
Quote from: tbone0106 on June 24, 2012, 09:52:40 PM
I guess this is sort of a poll. There were many huge miscalculations, but I can't help thinking Hitler's move into the Soviet Union in 1941 -- especially so late in the season! -- was the worst.

Opinions?
Indeed, But I think the worse part of the miscalculation was attempting to invade the Soviet Union with a horse drawn army. The distances involve guaranteed the break down of logistics. And I guess they believed all the unicorns and war fairies would be on their side, because I don't care if you do expect the campaign to be over before the winter, would it have hurt to have winter clothing and cold tested battle equipment on standby, I mean, after all, you're invading Russia. BTW, why fight at Stalingrad, simply cross the Volga and cut the damn city off.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: tbone0106 on June 25, 2012, 08:52:22 PM
The monumental stupidity of the whole thing has always befuddled me. Until June 1941, Hitler had achieved every goal he had set and won every battle save one -- the Battle of Britain. He had formed the Axis with Mussolini's Italy, reunited Germany and Austria, subdued Czechoslovakia (first the willing Sudetenland, then the rest), conquered and occupied most of Poland (giving Stalin the rest by secret compact), France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, on and on. England was not defeated, but hardly stood as a competent threat for invasion at the time, or even in the foreseeable future. And folks in the United States were still holding America Firster rallies.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 04:54:28 AM
Definitely Stalingrad. It's where Hitler lost his army. Had he won it D-Day might
have been impossible.

Hitler's officers wanted to go straight to Moscow and sit out the winter before
going to Stalingrad but Hitler wouldn't here of it. The German Army wasn't even
trained for house to house fighting. They liked being in the open.

You'd also have to list Pearl Harbor. While a tactical vicotry for the Japs, it was
perhaps the worse strategic move in history.

Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: elmerfudd on June 26, 2012, 11:41:05 AM
Quote from: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 04:54:28 AM
Definitely Stalingrad. It's where Hitler lost his army. Had he won it D-Day might
have been impossible.

Hitler's officers wanted to go straight to Moscow and sit out the winter before
going to Stalingrad but Hitler wouldn't here of it. The German Army wasn't even
trained for house to house fighting. They liked being in the open.

You'd also have to list Pearl Harbor. While a tactical vicotry for the Japs, it was
perhaps the worse strategic move in history.

No question that Hitler invading the Soviet Union was a screw up.  An almost equal screw up was his failure to recognize that many of the Russkis, at first, welcomed him as a liberator, Stalin being such a bastard.  But being the mentally ill megalomaniac he was, he treated them all as "sub humans" who were incapable of doing battle with a "superior race."  And the Japs definitely awakened a "sleeping giant" at Pearl Harbor.  I think the giant would have awakened anyway, though.  (The Louisiana maneuvers and other preparations were not being undertaken without good reason.)
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 12:31:25 PM
Great point about the Russians hating Stalin. He killed almost as many of them as Hitler did
and Htiler made a grave yard out of Russia killing and maiming 1/3 of its population and they
still lost.

That's why I never felt sorry for the Germans behind the Berlin Wall.  They started the shit.

In the end Hitler's own army tried to kill him and just missed. Pure luck on Hitler's part.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on June 26, 2012, 06:20:39 PM
I never understood the Germans in Russia, even if you thought slavs were sub-humans, you don't start the mistreatment until after you had won. You're superior to your dog, but that's no reason to kick him every time you walk in the house. All the Nazis had to be was a little bit better than the Communists - how hard could that have been. And why did the Nazis never build a four engine bomber of their own, if they didn't want to go to the trouble of developing one, simply copy a shot down Lancaster. That would have allowed them to get at much of the Soviet industrial plant.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: tbone0106 on June 26, 2012, 07:29:01 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on June 26, 2012, 06:20:39 PM
I never understood the Germans in Russia, even if you thought slavs were sub-humans, you don't start the mistreatment until after you had won. You're superior to your dog, but that's no reason to kick him every time you walk in the house. All the Nazis had to be was a little bit better than the Communists - how hard could that have been. And why did the Nazis never build a four engine bomber of their own, if they didn't want to go to the trouble of developing one, simply copy a shot down Lancaster. That would have allowed them to get at much of the Soviet industrial plant.

Yessirree, the einsatzgruppen -- the "single purpose" squads, largely SS and wholly SS-supervised -- were a crappy idea. They were "kicking the dog" right behind the Panzers. Political and stupid.

As for the bombers, it speaks to the German mindset, perhaps, or maybe even more to the European mindset. Of European countries involved in WWII, ONLY England built strategic bombers. Being essentially an island stronghold without a stable foothold on the European continent, England had to build planes that could strike the enemy where he lived and/or operated. The British have been criticized for the short "legs" of their fighter aircraft, but what were they assigned to do? They were assigned to protect the British people from bombers flying short distances across the English Channel, generally from forward bases in occupied France. The were assigned to do battle with Messerschmidt Bf109's that had such dinky fuel tanks that on bomber-escort missions, their time-over-target was something like ten minutes.

Germany, roaming continental Europe, could afford to subscribe to the tactical air force point of view. Take the territory with your armor, supported by your short-range, heavily armored airplanes, then do it again, and again, and again, always from captured or conquered territory. The Luftwaffe had to be the most portable land-based air force that ever existed!  :tounge:

The Bf109, the vaunted Messerschmidt fighter, went through an endless series of models and improvements, but not one time did the designers extend its pitiful operational range, which never exceed around 600 miles WITH a drop tank. Like all other German weapons of war, it was a tactical, not a strategic, weapon.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Ford289HiPo on June 26, 2012, 07:37:43 PM
Quote from: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 04:54:28 AM
Definitely Stalingrad. It's where Hitler lost his army. Had he won it D-Day might
have been impossible.

Hitler's officers wanted to go straight to Moscow and sit out the winter before
going to Stalingrad but Hitler wouldn't here of it. The German Army wasn't even
trained for house to house fighting. They liked being in the open.



I'd add Kursk in there. That battle ate the German armored forces.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Ford289HiPo on June 26, 2012, 07:54:32 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on June 26, 2012, 06:20:39 PM
I never understood the Germans in Russia, even if you thought slavs were sub-humans, you don't start the mistreatment until after you had won. You're superior to your dog, but that's no reason to kick him every time you walk in the house. All the Nazis had to be was a little bit better than the Communists - how hard could that have been. And why did the Nazis never build a four engine bomber of their own, if they didn't want to go to the trouble of developing one, simply copy a shot down Lancaster. That would have allowed them to get at much of the Soviet industrial plant.

How correct you are. The Ukrainians initially looked at the invading German forces as liberators and were willing to fight alongside them against Stalin. That was, until the Einsatzkommando moved in and started exterminating everyone.

The Germans did have a 4 engine aircraft, the Focke-wulf 200
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de%2FBilder%2FFw200%2FFw200C2-1%2520IKG40.jpg&hash=32a1050428b9ba60939ccead64bed70bceef9219)

During the war, it was relegated to long range aerial reconnaissance and anti-shipping duty. After the war, it was used as a civilian aircraft.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 07:55:08 PM
You're right. I meant to add that battle but couldn't think of it's name.
That's where Hitler lost all his tanks, perhaps the greatest tank battle of
all time. Russia held their tanks back as the Panzers kept coming and
coming and then they charged right in to them. They even rammed the
Panzers. Gutzy move by the Russians.

There was another great tank battle with us where Abrams beat the shit
out of the Panzers. can't remember the name. The Panzers were the best
tanks of WW2 but they were bulky and the Shermans were faster and
could maneuver around them. Same with the Russian tanks.

Speed whipped big in both those cases.

Patton of course whipped Rommel in the desert.

Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: walkstall on June 26, 2012, 07:57:30 PM
Quote from: Ford289HiPo on June 26, 2012, 07:37:43 PM
I'd add Kursk in there. That battle ate the German armored forces.




The Battle of Kursk: Myths and Reality

http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm (http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm)
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: tbone0106 on June 26, 2012, 09:41:02 PM
Quote from: Ford289HiPo on June 26, 2012, 07:54:32 PM
How correct you are. The Ukrainians initially looked at the invading German forces as liberators and were willing to fight alongside them against Stalin. That was, until the Einsatzkommando moved in and started exterminating everyone.

The Germans did have a 4 engine aircraft, the Focke-wulf 200
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de%2FBilder%2FFw200%2FFw200C2-1%2520IKG40.jpg&hash=32a1050428b9ba60939ccead64bed70bceef9219)

During the war, it was relegated to long range aerial reconnaissance and anti-shipping duty. After the war, it was used as a civilian aircraft.

Yeah, but...

Actually, Hitler himself used one a few times for personal Fuhrer business. But only 276 Fw 200's were ever built. That's a wartime token gesture to a concept no one in the higher echelons of German planning/thinking/doing believed in.

Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 11:04:25 PM
Somebody needs to tell the Military Channel about these supposed myths
because they sure pimped them as fact in the program.

Russian tank commander said they rammed into German tanks but do we
believe what Russians say?
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on June 27, 2012, 08:44:43 AM
Quote from: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 11:04:25 PM
Somebody needs to tell the Military Channel about these supposed myths
because they sure pimped them as fact in the program.

Russian tank commander said they rammed into German tanks but do we
believe what Russians say?
Why not. On the Russian side it was win or get shot by the NKVD. Of course on the German side it was win or get shot by the SS.
Actually on the military channel the laid the entire battle out, and mostly it was about the Soviets carefully channeling the Nazis into their anti-tank guns, and then counterattacking using superior air and superior numbers. The problem with the Germans was they never knew when to break off an action.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Ford289HiPo on June 27, 2012, 07:18:52 PM
Quote from: walkstall on June 26, 2012, 07:57:30 PM



The Battle of Kursk: Myths and Reality

http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm (http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm)

More good intel on the Battle of Kursk

http://victory1945.rt.com/s/content/6/226_4_Kursk_battle.jpg (http://victory1945.rt.com/s/content/6/226_4_Kursk_battle.jpg)

There does seem to be a large discrepancy in the order of battle between various sites though.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: COVER D on June 27, 2012, 07:35:50 PM
This looks like a major tank battle to me. Plenty of dead Germans and tanks.

http://military.discovery.com/videos/greatest-tank-battles-battle-of-kursk-operation-zitadelle.html (http://military.discovery.com/videos/greatest-tank-battles-battle-of-kursk-operation-zitadelle.html)
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: COVER D on June 27, 2012, 07:45:15 PM
Big Panzers learn numbers will win it every time.

http://military.discovery.com/videos/tank-battles/ (http://military.discovery.com/videos/tank-battles/)
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on June 27, 2012, 08:04:05 PM
Quote from: COVER D on June 27, 2012, 07:35:50 PM
This looks like a major tank battle to me. Plenty of dead Germans and tanks.

http://military.discovery.com/videos/greatest-tank-battles-battle-of-kursk-operation-zitadelle.html (http://military.discovery.com/videos/greatest-tank-battles-battle-of-kursk-operation-zitadelle.html)
The Soviets had the habit of staging propaganda shots after battles were over. Pulling German Tanks and German dead from other battles, laying them around and taking pictures. Total German production of Tiger I's was about 1400, Tiger II's added another 700, and they only produced about 6500 Panthers; so be suspicious when you see a lot of "destroyed" Tigers on a battlefield.  In comparison  The US produced about 45,000 Sherman's and the Soviet produced 57,000 T-34's. As one German Panther commander put it: "We ran out of shells before they ran out of Sherman's".
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: tbone0106 on June 27, 2012, 08:43:11 PM
It really was a matter of numbers in a lot of respects. It has already been pointed out that the Germans produced, for example, a four-engine long-range bomber -- the FW 200. They made exactly 276 of those astoundingly modern airplanes.

The United States produced 12,731 B-17s.
The United States produced 18,482 B-24s.
Great Britain produced 7,377 Avro Lancasters.
Great Britain produced 6,178 Handley Page Halifax bombers.

Um, it's not hard to see that the numbers favored the Allies. The tank production numbers are roughly similar, though I don't have them at hand. If you need 'em, I'll get 'em.  :wink:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: elmerfudd on June 28, 2012, 10:54:18 AM
Quote from: tbone0106 on June 27, 2012, 08:43:11 PM
It really was a matter of numbers in a lot of respects. It has already been pointed out that the Germans produced, for example, a four-engine long-range bomber -- the FW 200. They made exactly 276 of those astoundingly modern airplanes.

The United States produced 12,731 B-17s.
The United States produced 18,482 B-24s.
Great Britain produced 7,377 Avro Lancasters.
Great Britain produced 6,178 Handley Page Halifax bombers.

Um, it's not hard to see that the numbers favored the Allies. The tank production numbers are roughly similar, though I don't have them at hand. If you need 'em, I'll get 'em.  :wink:

No question that American industrial capacity is what turned the tide.  That coupled with the fact that the war was not waged to any extent in our country.  Lend lease, while probably unconstitutional, made it entirely possible for the Russkis to do what they did, and mostly possible for the Brits to do what they did prior to our entry. Nobody wanted to challenge the constitutionality of lend lease for that reason.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on June 28, 2012, 05:08:37 PM
Quote from: elmerfudd on June 28, 2012, 10:54:18 AM
No question that American industrial capacity is what turned the tide.  That coupled with the fact that the war was not waged to any extent in our country.  Lend lease, while probably unconstitutional, made it entirely possible for the Russkis to do what they did, and mostly possible for the Brits to do what they did prior to our entry. Nobody wanted to challenge the constitutionality of lend lease for that reason.
Germany wasn't exactly an industrial backwater and, for much of the war, they had all the resources of Europe to call on. They were simply an organizational mess. The Sherman and the T34 were not the best tanks on the battlefield, but the were easy to build and the Soviets and Americans were organized in a manner that allowed them to produce thousands. The Germans were never satisfied with large numbers of a pretty good tank, the wanted the perfect tank; even if it meant producing a minuscule amount. They would get ready to produce a particular weapon and then stop because a better one was on the drawing boards. The Nazis always let the perfect be the enemy of the merely good.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: tbone0106 on June 28, 2012, 05:28:52 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on June 28, 2012, 05:08:37 PM
Germany wasn't exactly an industrial backwater and, for much of the war, they had all the resources of Europe to call on. They were simply an organizational mess. The Sherman and the T34 were not the best tanks on the battlefield, but the were easy to build and the Soviets and Americans were organized in a manner that allowed them to produce thousands. The Germans were never satisfied with large numbers of a pretty good tank, the wanted the perfect tank; even if it meant producing a minuscule amount. They would get ready to produce a particular weapon and then stop because a better one was on the drawing boards. The Nazis always let the perfect be the enemy of the merely good.

Yes, Giles, there was that difference in... attitude? Standards? The German panzers in general were bigger and badder than anything the Allies ever fielded, but they cost a friggin' FORTUNE to build, they were incredibly complex and difficult to repair, and the man-hours in construction and maintenance meant that a relatively small number were built. Sure, a Panzer IV's 75mm gun could kill a Sherman most of a mile away. But killing thirty Shermans that are all shooting back at you -- all at the same time -- with 75mm cannons that aren't so much inferior to yours is another matter altogether.

While the Germans loved their armor -- the more, the thicker, the better -- the Japanese took the opposite approach. Their tanks were steel coffins, with tiny guns and thin armor. They were very effective against infantry, and they were fast, but when faced with a REAL tank, the fight was over pretty quickly. The same philosophy went to Japanese aircraft. No armor, no self-sealing gas tanks, and so on. The Zero was a pretty cool plane, but one tracer at a wing root was all you needed to earn a new rising sun painted on the side of your cockpit.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: elmerfudd on June 28, 2012, 05:40:11 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on June 28, 2012, 05:08:37 PM
Germany wasn't exactly an industrial backwater and, for much of the war, they had all the resources of Europe to call on. They were simply an organizational mess. The Sherman and the T34 were not the best tanks on the battlefield, but the were easy to build and the Soviets and Americans were organized in a manner that allowed them to produce thousands. The Germans were never satisfied with large numbers of a pretty good tank, the wanted the perfect tank; even if it meant producing a minuscule amount. They would get ready to produce a particular weapon and then stop because a better one was on the drawing boards. The Nazis always let the perfect be the enemy of the merely good.

Not that I think they're Nazis, but this reminds me of the Tea Party. 
All or nothing, which generally means nothing.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Ford289HiPo on June 28, 2012, 05:47:33 PM
Quote from: elmerfudd on June 28, 2012, 05:40:11 PM
Not that I think they're Nazis, but this reminds me of the Tea Party. 
All or nothing, which generally means nothing.
Bah! Let's not turn this into a political thread. :angry:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Ford289HiPo on June 28, 2012, 05:49:46 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on June 28, 2012, 05:08:37 PM
Germany wasn't exactly an industrial backwater and, for much of the war, they had all the resources of Europe to call on. They were simply an organizational mess. The Sherman and the T34 were not the best tanks on the battlefield, but the were easy to build and the Soviets and Americans were organized in a manner that allowed them to produce thousands. The Germans were never satisfied with large numbers of a pretty good tank, the wanted the perfect tank; even if it meant producing a minuscule amount. They would get ready to produce a particular weapon and then stop because a better one was on the drawing boards. The Nazis always let the perfect be the enemy of the merely good.

Your comment reminds me of the East/West border during the Cold War. We had a few battalions of M1 Abrams, but they had lots and lots of T80's. They were expected to take Frankfurt in 5 days.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: tbone0106 on June 28, 2012, 08:42:20 PM
Quote from: Ford289HiPo on June 28, 2012, 05:49:46 PM
Your comment reminds me of the East/West border during the Cold War. We had a few battalions of M1 Abrams, but they had lots and lots of T80's. They were expected to take Frankfurt in 5 days.

Heh. My guess is they couldn't have taken Frankfurt in 500 days. The T80 was a hell of a tank, but shit...
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: COVER D on June 29, 2012, 01:21:09 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on June 27, 2012, 08:04:05 PM
The Soviets had the habit of staging propaganda shots after battles were over. Pulling German Tanks and German dead from other battles, laying them around and taking pictures. Total German production of Tiger I's was about 1400, Tiger II's added another 700, and they only produced about 6500 Panthers; so be suspicious when you see a lot of "destroyed" Tigers on a battlefield.  In comparison  The US produced about 45,000 Sherman's and the Soviet produced 57,000 T-34's. As one German Panther commander put it: "We ran out of shells before they ran out of Sherman's".

Good point about the numbers. That's why IKE never worried about the outcome of the war. He
knew he had superior numbers in men and equipment. Patton went thru Europe pretty fast
after D-Day.

But all these men, tanks and guns still make  this a major battle and a great victory for Russia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk)

Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on June 29, 2012, 08:55:59 AM
Quote from: Ford289HiPo on June 28, 2012, 05:49:46 PM
Your comment reminds me of the East/West border during the Cold War. We had a few battalions of M1 Abrams, but they had lots and lots of T80's. They were expected to take Frankfurt in 5 days.
Not if the A-10's were up.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Ford289HiPo on June 30, 2012, 03:17:28 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on June 29, 2012, 08:55:59 AM
Not if the A-10's were up.

That would have been a target rich environment, but those of us that were on border patrol during that time had no doubts that we were nothing but a speed bump. They just had too much stuff.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: walkstall on June 30, 2012, 04:04:06 PM
Quote from: Ford289HiPo on June 30, 2012, 03:17:28 PM
That would have been a target rich environment, but those of us that were on border patrol during that time had no doubts that we were nothing but a speed bump. They just had too much stuff.



O T  I like your new avatar.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on June 30, 2012, 05:35:52 PM
Quote from: Ford289HiPo on June 30, 2012, 03:17:28 PM
That would have been a target rich environment, but those of us that were on border patrol during that time had no doubts that we were nothing but a speed bump. They just had too much stuff.
The question is could they have trusted their Warsaw Pact "allies" not to turn on them. Not to mention Russian troops surrendering in droves after the had a gander at how people lived in the West. Imagine some Russian troops overrunning a small town supermarket?
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Ford289HiPo on July 01, 2012, 04:03:28 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on June 30, 2012, 05:35:52 PM
The question is could they have trusted their Warsaw Pact "allies" not to turn on them. Not to mention Russian troops surrendering in droves after the had a gander at how people lived in the West. Imagine some Russian troops overrunning a small town supermarket?
Their propaganda machine, like ours, is strong. In their view, we in the west were hostile to their form of government and living. We wanted to destroy them, and they, us. They would have defended their way of life.
Thousands of artillery pieces would have been brought in to action in a WP attack. Those small town supermarkets would have been destroyed prior to the arrival of the main thrust.

As far as "trusting" their Warsaw Pact allies, in 1996, I had the opportunity to participate in one of the first military training teams to Poland. While there, my Team Leader asked General Bric, the commander of the Polish 6th Airborne, what they would have done if we infiltrated prior to an outbreak of hostilities.

Gen Bric told my Team Leader that hte polich civilians would have rolled us up, fed us and gotten us drunk, or the Polish military would have welcomed us with open arms as the did an about face and pointed their weapons east.

Without trying to get too in-depth, Poland is very nationalistic. We found just as many locals that despised us as the Russians. As long as they are left to their own means and doing their own thing, Poland is OK.

Of course, Gen Bric could have been blowing smoke just because they were desperate to join NATO.

East Germany - oh well......Germans being Germans, they followed the strong leader.

Czechoslovakian loyalties may have been questionable, and I have never been to Romania, Hungary, or Bulgaria, so I can't rate them.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 07:53:40 AM
Quote from: Ford289HiPo on July 01, 2012, 04:03:28 PM
Their propaganda machine, like ours, is strong. In their view, we in the west were hostile to their form of government and living. We wanted to destroy them, and they, us. They would have defended their way of life.
Thousands of artillery pieces would have been brought in to action in a WP attack. Those small town supermarkets would have been destroyed prior to the arrival of the main thrust.

As far as "trusting" their Warsaw Pact allies, in 1996, I had the opportunity to participate in one of the first military training teams to Poland. While there, my Team Leader asked General Bric, the commander of the Polish 6th Airborne, what they would have done if we infiltrated prior to an outbreak of hostilities.

Gen Bric told my Team Leader that hte polich civilians would have rolled us up, fed us and gotten us drunk, or the Polish military would have welcomed us with open arms as the did an about face and pointed their weapons east.

Without trying to get too in-depth, Poland is very nationalistic. We found just as many locals that despised us as the Russians. As long as they are left to their own means and doing their own thing, Poland is OK.

Of course, Gen Bric could have been blowing smoke just because they were desperate to join NATO.

East Germany - oh well......Germans being Germans, they followed the strong leader.

Czechoslovakian loyalties may have been questionable, and I have never been to Romania, Hungary, or Bulgaria, so I can't rate them.
It's called a "preference cascade". The problem with the Warsaw Pact "allies" is that they weren't really allies. How many revolts did NATO have to put down in France, or Italy, or West Germany. How many did the Warsaw Pact have to put down Poland, or East Germany, or Hungary, or Czechoslovakia?  In reality, we now realize that the Soviet military machine was hollow and their "allies" support was non existent. One of the things that media reported back after the Moscow Summit in 1988 was the realization that the Soviets were basically a Third world country with nuclear weapons. Reagan simply stopped being afraid of the "dreaded" Soviet war machine, and drove them into bankruptcy. It turned out there was "no there, there".
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 07:56:07 AM
BTW, I notice that we seemed to have missed the worse miscalculation of WW2, which was Hitler declaring war on the US. Suppose he had display a moment of sanity and had refrained from doing that?
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Ford289HiPo on July 02, 2012, 05:18:42 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 07:56:07 AM
BTW, I notice that we seemed to have missed the worse miscalculation of WW2, which was Hitler declaring war on the US. Suppose he had display a moment of sanity and had refrained from doing that?
Then I wouldn't be here..............my mother was German, and my father was stationed there in the late 50's. :ohmy:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Annoying Armed Conservative on July 02, 2012, 07:33:18 PM
Quote from: COVER D on June 29, 2012, 01:21:09 AM
Good point about the numbers. That's why IKE never worried about the outcome of the war. He
knew he had superior numbers in men and equipment. Patton went thru Europe pretty fast
after D-Day.

But all these men, tanks and guns still make  this a major battle and a great victory for Russia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk)

Actually he did worry.  Right up until he received the message, "Beachhead secured".
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 08:22:05 PM
Quote from: AnnoyingArmedConservative on July 02, 2012, 07:33:18 PM
Actually he did worry.  Right up until he received the message, "Beachhead secured".
Actually he did worry. Even after Normandy was a success. Yes, the US had more equipment and support than the Nazi's, but the interesting thing is toward the end of the war, they were starting to run out of men. Infantry men, the sharp point of the spear, were becoming scarce. The British had already started breaking up some divisions to fill out others even before D-Day. And one of the impetus for using black troops was that they were running out of troops, period. The US Army had a huge support establishment, because the US was supplying almost all of the equipment for almost all of the allies. And training Infantry had been a low priority, because "anybody" could be a grunt. And then they found out that wasn't even close to being true. The order of the day became to "spend material, not men". The Germans learned very quickly that if you attacked Americans, all sorts of artillery and air was coming your way. If the received fire from a village, the way they handled it was to flatten the village. A lot was made of the fact during the Vietnam War, that some areas were designated "free fire zones". You didn't need any permission from higher headquarters to call in any assets you had. Well in WW2, all of Europe was a "free fire zone".
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Foreigner on August 22, 2012, 07:40:15 PM
Yes, from a German POV attacking Russia definitely is considered being the biggest mistake right after the Holocaust.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: CubaLibre on August 23, 2012, 08:12:49 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 07:56:07 AM
BTW, I notice that we seemed to have missed the worse miscalculation of WW2, which was Hitler declaring war on the US. Suppose he had display a moment of sanity and had refrained from doing that?
Best case scenario- the British would have worked out a truce, and the Cold War would have been fought a few years early between Germany and the USSR.

Hard to tell who would have developed the A-bomb in such a scenario, though.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on August 23, 2012, 12:02:33 PM
Quote from: CubaLibre on August 23, 2012, 08:12:49 AM
Best case scenario- the British would have worked out a truce, and the Cold War would have been fought a few years early between Germany and the USSR.

Hard to tell who would have developed the A-bomb in such a scenario, though.
Actually the US started work on the Manhattan Project in 1939. Without having to put any resources into a European Campaign it's possible that the US may have developed the bomb earlier. And the defeat of Japan would have come much sooner as the only object of US industrial might. All those troops that went to Europe would have been head for Japan.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: tbone0106 on August 25, 2012, 09:44:12 PM
Quote from: Foreigner on August 22, 2012, 07:40:15 PM
Yes, from a German POV attacking Russia definitely is considered being the biggest mistake right after the Holocaust.

In the US, the Holocaust is considered an unthinkable tragedy, a horrible crime, but NOT a mistake in the conduct of the war, mainly because it was almost unknown until the war was practically over, but also because it was carried out mostly outside of Germany proper.

Hitler and Company might have gotten by with eliminating a lot of Jews, or whatever other ethnic/religious/political enemies they may have chosen, for years or decades. But they declared war on practically the entire world, and the entire world responded.

Barbarossa was Hitler's signature mistake. The instant a German boot landed on Soviet territory, Hitler's war was over; after that, it was just a matter of time. Der Fuhrer's declaration of war against the US later that year is often cited as a dumb move, and it was. But all it did was accelerate the inevitable.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on August 26, 2012, 09:46:43 AM
To many Americans the idea of the Nazis and the Communists fighting each other to the death had a certain appeal. I'm sure the US would have been glad to supply both sides, building up our war economy, while crushing Japan to powder.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: tbone0106 on August 29, 2012, 01:16:02 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on August 26, 2012, 09:46:43 AM
To many Americans the idea of the Nazis and the Communists fighting each other to the death had a certain appeal. I'm sure the US would have been glad to supply both sides, building up our war economy, while crushing Japan to powder.
Patton, I'm sure, would have supported such a scheme.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Foreigner on August 30, 2012, 08:18:07 PM
Quote from: tbone0106 on August 25, 2012, 09:44:12 PM
In the US, the Holocaust is considered an unthinkable tragedy, a horrible crime, but NOT a mistake in the conduct of the war, mainly because it was almost unknown until the war was practically over, but also because it was carried out mostly outside of Germany proper.

Hitler and Company might have gotten by with eliminating a lot of Jews, or whatever other ethnic/religious/political enemies they may have chosen, for years or decades. But they declared war on practically the entire world, and the entire world responded.

Barbarossa was Hitler's signature mistake. The instant a German boot landed on Soviet territory, Hitler's war was over; after that, it was just a matter of time. Der Fuhrer's declaration of war against the US later that year is often cited as a dumb move, and it was. But all it did was accelerate the inevitable.

Yes, when it comes to war strategy alone, attacking Russia is probably #1. I just felt like putting the Holocaust first, because I personally think it's the dumbest thing ever.

Don't get me wrong, not just because I learned at school etc. that this was horrible and as a German I'm supposed to think that way. I'm actually pretty good at ignoring what society tries to indoctrinate me with, otherwise I wouldn't even be talking to American conservatives at all, haha.

Also I have to disappoint you if you're Jewish. Because as much as I respect how Jewish people value education, I also know how people in Israel tend to be dicks about anything from who's first in line at the supermarket to who's right about driving where on the roads. (You'll know what I mean if you've been there.)

But from any reasonable point of view, the Holocaust was idiotic and insane. I'm pretty sure that even if you applied modern day genetics, it still would prove to be complete nonsense to kill all those people. Well, I guess according to modern day genetics the whole "Arian" thing is pretty silly.

To be honest, the true "master race" would be a mix of lots of different races' attributes, not some inbred people (I'm exaggerating here). We'll have to worry about this kind of thing in the future again, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on August 31, 2012, 10:18:39 AM
Quote from: Foreigner on August 30, 2012, 08:18:07 PM
Yes, when it comes to war strategy alone, attacking Russia is probably #1. I just felt like putting the Holocaust first, because I personally think it's the dumbest thing ever.

Don't get me wrong, not just because I learned at school etc. that this was horrible and as a German I'm supposed to think that way. I'm actually pretty good at ignoring what society tries to indoctrinate me with, otherwise I wouldn't even be talking to American conservatives at all, haha.

Also I have to disappoint you if you're Jewish. Because as much as I respect how Jewish people value education, I also know how people in Israel tend to be dicks about anything from who's first in line at the supermarket to who's right about driving where on the roads. (You'll know what I mean if you've been there.)

But from any reasonable point of view, the Holocaust was idiotic and insane. I'm pretty sure that even if you applied modern day genetics, it still would prove to be complete nonsense to kill all those people. Well, I guess according to modern day genetics the whole "Arian" thing is pretty silly.

To be honest, the true "master race" would be a mix of lots of different races' attributes, not some inbred people (I'm exaggerating here). We'll have to worry about this kind of thing in the future again, I'm afraid.
When the war was winding down, the Nazis were using their few working trains to take people to death camps as opposed to supplies to the Eastern Front. But the Holocaust was stupid only in so far as they wasted resources on industrial murder. By the way that"s "Aryan". And indeed most pure breeds tend to end up with diseases or conditions singular to that breed. The best thing is hybrid vigor (i.e., mutts).
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: tbone0106 on August 31, 2012, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: Foreigner on August 30, 2012, 08:18:07 PM
Yes, when it comes to war strategy alone, attacking Russia is probably #1. I just felt like putting the Holocaust first, because I personally think it's the dumbest thing ever.

Don't get me wrong, not just because I learned at school etc. that this was horrible and as a German I'm supposed to think that way. I'm actually pretty good at ignoring what society tries to indoctrinate me with, otherwise I wouldn't even be talking to American conservatives at all, haha.

Also I have to disappoint you if you're Jewish. Because as much as I respect how Jewish people value education, I also know how people in Israel tend to be dicks about anything from who's first in line at the supermarket to who's right about driving where on the roads. (You'll know what I mean if you've been there.)

But from any reasonable point of view, the Holocaust was idiotic and insane. I'm pretty sure that even if you applied modern day genetics, it still would prove to be complete nonsense to kill all those people. Well, I guess according to modern day genetics the whole "Arian" thing is pretty silly.

To be honest, the true "master race" would be a mix of lots of different races' attributes, not some inbred people (I'm exaggerating here). We'll have to worry about this kind of thing in the future again, I'm afraid.
There's more than an ocean between us, Foreigner.

Killing millions of Jews simply because they were Jewish was sorta stupid, yeah. But it was also EVIL. It was BAD, which is the diametric opposite of GOOD. It was premeditated MURDER on an industrial scale. The term BUTCHERY, though often applied to the Holocaust, is not proper because butchers slaughter dumb animals for the purpose of feeding people. The friendly folks who ran the extermination camps killed people by the thousands simply to make them dead. They believed that, because you were Jewish or homosexual or mentally retarded or a Gypsy or Polish, etc., etc., you did not deserve life. That is premeditated MURDER.

If you think that "as a German," you're "supposed to think that way" (that the Holocaust was horrible), you have light years to travel on your journey to humanity. If you think there is even a concept called the "master race," you'll find no home here.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: a777pilot on November 10, 2012, 07:37:50 PM
I did not read all of this thread but has anyone yet mentioned the stupidity of Hitler declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbor?  Now that was with out a doubt the stupidest thing Hitler did to bring him down.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 06:57:37 AM
Hitler sucked at picking allies.  Italy and Japan were worse than useless.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: a777pilot on November 11, 2012, 02:12:26 PM
Really?  Japan was useless?  You're funny.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 02:16:47 PM
Quote from: a777pilot on November 11, 2012, 02:12:26 PM
Really?  Japan was useless?

Yes.  You see, it did something called "Pearl Harbor".

Nice attempt to project your entirely unrelated argument with me into a thread, to attack an innocent statement on a random board, but you lack the critical thinking skills to make it stick.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: a777pilot on November 11, 2012, 06:11:06 PM
Japan was not, repeat, not, an inconsequential ally of Germany.  I have a cousin still aboard the USS Arizona and an uncle KIA on Bougainville.  Both Marines that might not agree with your assessment of the quality of the Japs.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: a777pilot on November 11, 2012, 06:19:41 PM
p.s.,   You stated, "...but you lack the critical thinking skills...".  I must agree with you.  I am, if nothing else, dumb, stupid, ignorant and basically a burden on this country.  So do keep this in mind when next, or if, you reply to me or comment on a post of mine.

Thank you.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Solar on November 12, 2012, 07:32:09 AM
Quote from: a777pilot on November 11, 2012, 06:19:41 PM
p.s.,   You stated, "...but you lack the critical thinking skills...".  I must agree with you.  I am, if nothing else, dumb, stupid, ignorant and basically a burden on this country.  So do keep this in mind when next, or if, you reply to me or comment on a post of mine.

Thank you.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Be nice, he's head water boy for the DNC, that's quite a position of power, ya know. :wink:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 01:00:11 PM
Quote from: a777pilot on November 11, 2012, 06:11:06 PM
Japan was not, repeat, not, an inconsequential ally of Germany.  I have a cousin still aboard the USS Arizona and an uncle KIA on Bougainville.  Both Marines that might not agree with your assessment of the quality of the Japs.

Clearly, you think that being able to give the Americans a lot of trouble makes them useful.  That only makes them useful tactically.  From a Grand Strategy standpoint, Japan brought America into the war against the Axis powers.  That is a net loss for Germany.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: a777pilot on November 13, 2012, 01:47:55 PM
No they did NOT!

You might want to re-read your, or the correct history.

Hitler declared war on the United States.  There was no treaty obligation to do so.  That was stupid of him. 
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Quote from: a777pilot on November 13, 2012, 01:47:55 PM
No they did NOT!

You might want to re-read your, or the correct history.

Hitler declared war on the United States.  There was no treaty obligation to do so.  That was stupid of him.

Hitler declared war on the United States the day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.  Coincidence?  Obviously not.  Hitler wanted to put his weight behind Japan.  He was horribly wrong in doing so (again).
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: a777pilot on November 13, 2012, 04:30:52 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Hitler declared war on the United States the day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.  Coincidence?  Obviously not.  Hitler wanted to put his weight behind Japan.  He was horribly wrong in doing so (again).

It was 11 DEC 1941 not 8 DEC 1941.  There was no legal/treaty obligation to do so.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 04:36:05 PM
Quote from: a777pilot on November 13, 2012, 04:30:52 PM
It was 11 DEC 1941 not 8 DEC 1941.

OK.

QuoteThere was no legal/treaty obligation to do so.

But Hitler obviously declared war on the USA as a direct act of support for Japan, unless if you think that the closeness in dates is a sheer coincidence.  Ergo, Japan dragged Germany into a war with the United States, regardless of whether it was by treaty or simply Hitler's idiocy.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: a777pilot on November 13, 2012, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 04:36:05 PM
OK.

But Hitler obviously declared war on the USA as a direct act of support for Japan, unless if you think that the closeness in dates is a sheer coincidence.  Ergo, Japan dragged Germany into a war with the United States, regardless of whether it was by treaty or simply Hitler's idiocy.

I'm sure Hitler declared war on the USA after the Jap attack on America because Japan declared war on Russia after Germany invaded Russia.

ROFLMAO!

On the great side of Hitler's stupidity, this act sealed his fate.  That was a good thing.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 04:45:04 PM
Quote from: a777pilot on November 13, 2012, 04:40:52 PM
I'm sure Hitler declared war on the USA after the Jap attack on America because Japan declared war on Russia after Germany invaded Russia.

That Japan didn't is my whole point; it was a worse than useless ally.  Having a strong military and winning a few victories doesn't change the fact that it brought the United States into the war.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on November 18, 2012, 07:26:29 AM
Quote from: a777pilot on November 11, 2012, 06:11:06 PM
Japan was not, repeat, not, an inconsequential ally of Germany.  I have a cousin still aboard the USS Arizona and an uncle KIA on Bougainville.  Both Marines that might not agree with your assessment of the quality of the Japs.
Yes, they were. Even the CiC of the Combined Fleet, Yamamoto, knew the Japanese would only be victorious for six months and it would be downhill after that. The army, which dominated the Japanese government felt the US would sue for peace after a few defeats; the navy knew better. The problem with the German/Japanese alliance is they never actually were allies. Real allies work toward the same strategic goal, they don't conduct their own separate wars. WW2 would have had an entirely different outcome had the Japanese kept going once they had broken into the Indian ocean. A Japanese naval force in the Indian Ocean would have allowed the Italians to sustain themselves in Ethiopia, and had disastrous effects on the British Middle East and Indian position. Britain may have had to drop out of the war. Instead Japan went in the other direction.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Texas_Secession on December 12, 2012, 11:31:28 AM
The miscalculation (misreading) of German intelligence prior to the Battle of the Bulge.  Toland, Butcher and D'Este talked about the "partying generals in Paris", while GIs were freezing in foxholes.  Meanwhile  the Germans were marshalling armor, men and supplies for the attack.  Had Eisenhower chosen to remain with his troops near the frontline, review intelligence or talk with Gerow or Patton  I don't beleive the Germans would have driven so deep - or the war gone on so long - as it did.  The attack would have been halted in the Ardennes by reinforced CCB's and reserves.

Patton predicted the battle in his diaries weeks before but like Henry Fonda's character in the movie - getting laughed at by a perfumed prince in the confines of a heated office 50 miles W of the front - he wrote that the Germans were up to something and he believed it would take place in the Ardennes.   
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: a777pilot on December 16, 2012, 07:27:43 AM
Want to learn about what really was going on during WWII?  Read "Ultra Secret" By Fredrick William Winterbotham.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: sn00ze on December 17, 2012, 07:52:28 AM
Determination!  or the will of the People of Russia made all the difference.  The best logistics or weapons don't necessarily dictate the outcome of a war.  Besides that, the Russians did indeed have good armor at the right moment in history, they stopped the Germans cold where the Germans clearly thought they had the upper hand.  Even today German technology is so complicated and intricate in everything they do that it would be a detriment to a long sustained war.  Of course they have limited equipment due to the surrender terms and they still follow those, but what they do have is in a lot of ways superior to the ours and other nations.  In WWII the Russians were fighting for survival, that alone has to be the most important factor.   
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: a777pilot on December 17, 2012, 09:52:56 AM
QuoteThe best logistics or weapons don't necessarily dictate the outcome of a war.

LOL!

Amateur.  Logistics is what determines the out come of wars.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: sn00ze on December 17, 2012, 11:44:27 AM
I'll see your LOL and raise you one LOL, tell that to those less than 1000 remaining German POW's who invaded Russia.  Logistics don't mean squat if you don't have the people power with a will to win.  Your probably right about me being an amateur, my meager 3000 combat hours are probably much less than yours.  It's da peoples man, da peoples!
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on December 23, 2012, 09:11:41 AM
Quote from: sn00ze on December 17, 2012, 11:44:27 AM
I'll see your LOL and raise you one LOL, tell that to those less than 1000 remaining German POW's who invaded Russia.  Logistics don't mean squat if you don't have the people power with a will to win.  Your probably right about me being an amateur, my meager 3000 combat hours are probably much less than yours.  It's da peoples man, da peoples!
Logistics is EVERYTHING and that's where the Nazis and Japanese failed. It's a failure of logistics when you invade a country as expansive as Russia and don't have a mechanized army. The Nazis - once you got past their few Panzer divisions - were a horse draw/marching army. To conquer even western Russia you needed a motorized army. Didn't the Nazis ever pick up a history book? How could they have allowed themselves to caught without any cold weather gear. Hitler believed in the occult. He could have held a seance and asked the ghost of Napoleon about that one. And the Japanese? Their logistics were so bad they were reduced to cannibalism on their island outposts by the end of the war. And how could you go to war to obtain the riches of Southeast Asia and Indonesia, and give absolutely no thought as to how you were going to transport those riches back to Japan - and protect them on the way there. As for you 3000 combat hours obviously you didn't learn shit, if you don't understand the importance of logistics. You're like those Japanese generals who believed that "fighting spirit" was more important than a functioning supply system.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Phillip on February 03, 2013, 12:19:28 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on December 23, 2012, 09:11:41 AM
Logistics is EVERYTHING and that's where the Nazis and Japanese failed. It's a failure of logistics when you invade a country as expansive as Russia and don't have a mechanized army. The Nazis - once you got past their few Panzer divisions - were a horse draw/marching army. To conquer even western Russia you needed a motorized army. Didn't the Nazis ever pick up a history book? How could they have allowed themselves to caught without any cold weather gear. Hitler believed in the occult. He could have held a seance and asked the ghost of Napoleon about that one. And the Japanese? Their logistics were so bad they were reduced to cannibalism on their island outposts by the end of the war. And how could you go to war to obtain the riches of Southeast Asia and Indonesia, and give absolutely no thought as to how you were going to transport those riches back to Japan - and protect them on the way there. As for you 3000 combat hours obviously you didn't learn shit, if you don't understand the importance of logistics. You're like those Japanese generals who believed that "fighting spirit" was more important than a functioning supply system.


Hitler made the mistake of fighting on too many fronts. The Battle of Britain destroyed any notion of Germany's air superiority. That battle was also fundamental in shifting U.S. opinion of Great Britain's ability to survive and counter Germany, although the U.S. still didn't directly participate for another year. Instead of sticking to a battle with Britain and allies, Hitler broke off any ceasefire with Stalin and invaded via Operation Barbarossa. Napoleon made a similar mistake of making too many enemies and then erroneously trotting into Russian territory without preparations.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: JustKari on February 03, 2013, 09:49:17 AM
I miss tbone.  That is all.  :sad:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Paris on February 19, 2013, 05:22:13 PM
IMHO, the worst mistake in WWII was made by Hitler when he failed to occupy Gibraltar.  I have read that Franco demanded too much for his cooperation, and I've read that Spain was not entirely secure, but, in my view, the outcome of the war depended on control of the  Mediterranean.  If the Germans had control of Gibraltar, the British would have been denied access to the Med, and the Suez Canal, and a short route to the Indian Ocean.  North Africa, and the Middle East would have been completely under the control of the Axis, and Hitler would have had a secure base from which to supply his campaign in the Ukraine.  What's more, all of the Middle eastern countries, Turkey, Palestine, Arabia, and Afganistan would have tumbled into the Axis camp.  India would have been isolated, and Britan could only reach her eastern colonies by taking the long route around the Cape of Good Hope, all the whle exposed to U Boats.  That, BTW, is my vote for the second bigest mistake, not building up and modernizing the U Boat force.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on February 23, 2013, 12:23:39 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on December 23, 2012, 09:11:41 AM
Logistics is EVERYTHING and that's where the Nazis and Japanese failed. It's a failure of logistics when you invade a country as expansive as Russia and don't have a mechanized army. The Nazis - once you got past their few Panzer divisions - were a horse draw/marching army. To conquer even western Russia you needed a motorized army. Didn't the Nazis ever pick up a history book? How could they have allowed themselves to caught without any cold weather gear. Hitler believed in the occult. He could have held a seance and asked the ghost of Napoleon about that one. And the Japanese? Their logistics were so bad they were reduced to cannibalism on their island outposts by the end of the war. And how could you go to war to obtain the riches of Southeast Asia and Indonesia, and give absolutely no thought as to how you were going to transport those riches back to Japan - and protect them on the way there. As for you 3000 combat hours obviously you didn't learn shit, if you don't understand the importance of logistics. You're like those Japanese generals who believed that "fighting spirit" was more important than a functioning supply system.

The "logic" behind the invasion of Russia was that Poland fell in 46 days, France was completely conquered in 43 days, Denmark was conquered in 6 hours. Hitler was applying the same reasoning behind the invasion of Russia and thought it would fall after 3 months. (Souce: Victor David Hanson "Father of us all").Hitler was intelligent, but he was fool and didnt have any wisdom. And you are right about the national socialist being occult, the only history he read was occult articles, and his occult religion outlined in Ostara and by Guido Von List said that the German people were a mystical race and many NSDAP/SS believed they had power of telekenisis etc. If he had read the history of Russia, from the tactics of Peter the Great, Ivan the terrible and Alexander I, then they would have known Stalin would use scorch eart tactics.

For these occult reasons Hitler declared war on the USA, because they viewed the american people as a mix of black and white untermenchen which could not put up a fight against the more pure germans. This was the greatest miscalculation of WW2, and just show how much a fool Hitler and the rest of NSDAP was (Lets not forget that Nazi germany was run by The National Socialist Party of Germany and that Hitler was just one man out of many).

Both the Japanese and Germans believed they were ethnically superior, which made "fighting spirit" and "ethnic purity" bullshit more important than logistics and scientific analysis of enemy war capacity.

Quote from: Phillip on February 03, 2013, 12:19:28 AM
although the U.S. still didn't directly participate for another year.

Don't forget the massive amount of war material, capital, resources and tanks/planes that were shipped to USSR and GB which made both countries possible to continue the war, without these resources both GB and USSR would have fallen.

EDIT:
Quote from: sn00ze on December 17, 2012, 11:44:27 AM
I'll see your LOL and raise you one LOL, tell that to those less than 1000 remaining German POW's who invaded Russia.  Logistics don't mean squat if you don't have the people power with a will to win.  Your probably right about me being an amateur, my meager 3000 combat hours are probably much less than yours.  It's da peoples man, da peoples!

Again, there was never any will of the Russian people and the fact that destroys your entire argument is the fact that the Russians had machine guns at the back of the line killing all people who tried to escape. If there was ever a people with the will to win a war then it was the germans, they had the morale, the invincible mentality and the belief that they were superior in every aspect. It was US resources that saved the USSR, your crackpot theory about "Der Triumph des Willens" dies with the Russian commisars and SS.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on March 28, 2013, 11:14:09 PM
Quote from: JustKari on February 03, 2013, 09:49:17 AM
I miss tbone.  That is all.  :sad:

Tbone is back. Sorry you missed him.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on March 28, 2013, 11:40:52 PM
Gotta go with Giles on this one. Logistics really is everything, and the bigger the battles, the more logistics matter. Talk about national determination and will to win on the part of the Russkies is piffle. Russian officers had to literally force recruits into battle at gunpoint early on. As a nation, the USSR gave up tens of thousands of square miles of the most productive part of the land mass of the largest nation on Earth at that time, and sacrificed MILLIONS of men and women just to slow the poorly-prepared Germans down enough so they could literally move the capital machinery they needed far enough east to be out of the Nazi reach, to make the T-34s (their equivalent of our Shermans) and Yaks and other tools of war that finally turned the tide after years of miserable defeat and retreat. In the first six months, in addition to horrendous battlefield casualties, the Germans took 3 million Soviet prisoners (most of whom never returned from captivity), and sat within sight of Moscow's outskirts.

Hitler was an idiot to invade the Soviet Union, particularly when he had already achieved his European goals (except for England), and particularly when his move was made so late in the summer. (I often wonder how differently things might have turned out if he had launched Barbarossa in, say, early or mid-May.) But as poorly as the Germans were prepared for the conflict -- as Giles points out, they were only fractionally mechanized -- they caught Papa Joe with his pants all the way down, and they damn near pulled it off. Even the Germans were far better positioned logistically than the Russians, who were in almost complete disarray.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 12:16:29 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 28, 2013, 11:40:52 PM
Hitler was an idiot to invade the Soviet Union, particularly when he had already achieved his European goals (except for England),

Hitler never wanted to crush Britain, he wanted Britain to remain strong and continue to have its empire. He always lamented that Britain was under the control of Churchill and that the sympathetic wing of the aristocracy of Britain was not in power. Sycophantic but equally occult Rudolf Hess went to Britain to broke a peace treaty in a move to save Hitlers wish in this regard.

As for the Soviet Union it was a necessary part to make "lebensraum" for their deurbanization plans and germanization of eastern europe after the war.

It really annoys me that people think the Nazis were warmongers, because they were not, they wanted peace but on their terms not Treaty of Versailles terms. I.e Study the Hitler Youth, they preached hippie nonsense about pagan spirituality. They wanted lebensraum to make possible the race purification in their perfection of man and to regain the lost Aryan powers such as telekenisis. They also wanted to prepare for their next war, which they believed would be an invasion from the east.

If you really want to understand the Nazis then I recomment actually reading their works and philosophy instead of just historical accounts of the war.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 12:37:47 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 12:16:29 AM
Hitler never wanted to crush Britain, he wanted Britain to remain strong and continue to have its empire. He always lamented that Britain was under the control of Churchill and that the sympathetic wing of the aristocracy of Britain was not in power. Sycophantic but equally occult Rudolf Hess went to Britain to broke a peace treaty in a move to save Hitlers wish in this regard.

As for the Soviet Union it was a necessary part to make "lebensraum" for their deurbanization plans and germanization of eastern europe after the war.

It really annoys me that people think the Nazis were warmongers, because they were not, they wanted peace but on their terms not Treaty of Versailles terms. I.e Study the Hitler Youth, they preached hippie nonsense about pagan spirituality. They wanted lebensraum to make possible the race purification in their perfection of man and to regain the lost Aryan powers such as telekenisis. They also wanted to prepare for their next war, which they believed would be an invasion from the east.

If you really want to understand the Nazis then I recomment actually reading their works and philosophy instead of just historical accounts of the war.

Hitler is often quoted as believing that the British were the "natural allies" of Germany. He is not quoted as wanting a "strong" England, which could only be a thorn in his side. Hess was a nutcase.

Now let's see... why would we think that the Nazis were warmongers? Could it be Czechoslovakia? How about Poland? Austria? Maybe Belgium? Perhaps France? But of course Hitler had only nice thoughts about England, which is why he sent Goering's Luftwaffe to bomb the living shit out of the place every day and every night, and why he assembled the troops and landing craft for Operation Sealion along the north coast of France.

Since they were in actual fact the primary initiators of the greatest war in the history of mankind in their quest for lebensraum, I'm pretty darn sure we're just gonna have to call the Nazis warmongers. Sorry if that annoys you, but hey, it is what it is.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 01:16:42 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 12:37:47 AM
Hitler is often quoted as believing that the British were the "natural allies" of Germany. He is not quoted as wanting a "strong" England, which could only be a thorn in his side. Hess was a nutcase.

Read Mein Kampf, you are factually wrong. Hitler wanted Britain to continue having its fleet, its colonies and power. Germany did not have any conflicting interests with Britain when it came to sphere of influence.

During the progression of the conflict it was clear germany had to bring Britain to submission however, mostly because of Churchill ability to inspire the british people and keep the national unity together.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 12:37:47 AM
Now let's see... why would we think that the Nazis were warmongers? Could it be Czechoslovakia? How about Poland? Austria? Maybe Belgium? Perhaps France? But of course Hitler had only nice thoughts about England, which is why he sent Goering's Luftwaffe to bomb the living shit out of the place every day and every night, and why he assembled the troops and landing craft for Operation Sealion along the north coast of France.

Austria was peacefull annexation, the austrian national socialist party accepted unification.
Belgium and France happened after Britain and France declared war.
Poland and Czechoslovakia was part of the lebensraum strategy.
Hitler did respect England, he wanted the British Race to continue ruling its white empire, he sent the Luftwaffe to force a fast a surrender because he didn't think they would endure the terror bombing. This is the reason he hated Churchill, , many families in the british aristocracy wanted peace with Hitler and it was them Rudolf hess wanted to conspire with.
Rudolf Hess was a true national socialist, they were all nutcases.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 12:37:47 AM
Since they were in actual fact the primary initiators of the greatest war in the history of mankind in their quest for lebensraum, I'm pretty darn sure we're just gonna have to call the Nazis warmongers. Sorry if that annoys you, but hey, it is what it is.

Yes, but that many people call nazis warmongers still doesnt mean its fact. The german state after 1918 was a revisionist state that needed to have a war to change the balance of power to its side or on more equitable terms. War was inevitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_State)

EDIT: I understand that people call nazis warmonger because of the perception of the nazis we have, just like those Donald Duck Cartoons the nazis are portrayed as "industrialist Expansionalist Authoritarians" but this is not the case when it came to National Socialist Doctrine and their philosophy, so it is a wrong perception when it comes to objectively understanding National Socialism.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 01:59:47 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 01:16:42 AM
Read Mein Kampf, you are factually wrong. Hitler wanted Britain to continue having its fleet, its colonies and power. Germany did not have any conflicting interests with Britain when it came to sphere of influence.

During the progression of the conflict it was clear germany had to bring Britain to submission however, mostly because of Churchill ability to inspire the british people and keep the national unity together.

Austria was peacefull annexation, the austrian national socialist party accepted unification.
Belgium and France happened after Britain and France declared war.
Poland and Czechoslovakia was part of the lebensraum strategy.
Hitler did respect England, he wanted the British Race to continue ruling its white empire, he sent the Luftwaffe to force a fast a surrender because he didn't think they would endure the terror bombing. This is the reason he hated Churchill, , many families in the british aristocracy wanted peace with Hitler and it was them Rudolf hess wanted to conspire with.
Rudolf Hess was a true national socialist, they were all nutcases.

Yes, but that many people call nazis warmongers still doesnt mean its fact. If 100% of humanity claimed that thunder and lightning is a result of mytholigical gods, it would still not make it true.

The german state after 1918 was a revisionist state that needed to have a war to change the balance of power to its side or on more equitable terms. War was inevitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_State)

I had to read to the end to find something I could agree with: "War was inevitable." That is true, largely because of the Treaty of Versailles and associated mandates.

The Nazis had been in power only about six months when agents of the SS assassinated Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, who adamantly opposed reunification with Germany. Over the next four years, a constant political and propaganda battle took place between Berlin and Vienna. In the final event, on March 12, 1938, in order to preclude a plebiscite scheduled for the following day which the Nazis feared would nix a proposed unification, Germany's Eighth Army invaded Austria. Within a few days, 70,000 opponents of unification had been arrested. Nothing about the Anschluss was "peaceful."

Blaming Britain and France for the subjugation of Belgium and France is lunacy.

Yes, Poland and Czechoslovakia were part of the lebensraum strategy. So what? Does that somehow make Germany's unilateral and unprovoked war on them more acceptable or less aggressive?

Hitler did express respect and admiration for Great Britain in his writings. But nevertheless, exactly as I stated before, he sent his Luftwaffe to bomb the living shit out of the place day and night, and assembled an invasion task force for the express purpose of conquering England. Hitler may have said at some point in time that he wanted England to continue its mastery of the seas, but he did not build Tirpitz and Bismarck and several hundred U-boats for shits and giggles.

Hess was no more a "true Nazi" -- something that cannot even be defined -- than was anyone else in Germany at the time. But he WAS screwy, and his flight to Scotland was a bat-shit crazy thing to do.

You can claim that the Nazis weren't warmongers, but claiming the sky ain't blue don't make it so. For such a peaceful bunch, they sure waged a lot of war in a very short time. I'd be interested to learn who you might think WOULD be classified as warmongers.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 03:20:16 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 01:59:47 AM
I had to read to the end to find something I could agree with: "War was inevitable." That is true, largely because of the Treaty of Versailles and associated mandates.

The Nazis had been in power only about six months when agents of the SS assassinated Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, who adamantly opposed reunification with Germany. Over the next four years, a constant political and propaganda battle took place between Berlin and Vienna. In the final event, on March 12, 1938, in order to preclude a plebiscite scheduled for the following day which the Nazis feared would nix a proposed unification, Germany's Eighth Army invaded Austria. Within a few days, 70,000 opponents of unification had been arrested. Nothing about the Anschluss was "peaceful."

Blaming Britain and France for the subjugation of Belgium and France is lunacy.

Yes, Poland and Czechoslovakia were part of the lebensraum strategy. So what? Does that somehow make Germany's unilateral and unprovoked war on them more acceptable or less aggressive?

Hitler did express respect and admiration for Great Britain in his writings. But nevertheless, exactly as I stated before, he sent his Luftwaffe to bomb the living shit out of the place day and night, and assembled an invasion task force for the express purpose of conquering England. Hitler may have said at some point in time that he wanted England to continue its mastery of the seas, but he did not build Tirpitz and Bismarck and several hundred U-boats for shits and giggles.

I do concede to most of these points, but the bombing of Britain by Germany was to force Britain to accept a peace treaty as fast as possible. And the invasion of Britain was to force Britain to accept these terms, when the bombing did not work, for the nazis this is was a sad necessity and not part of their original plan.

I didn't blame france, belgium or even Britrain for the war, Hitler was gambling that they would not act on the independence guarantee too Poland just as the British and French did nothing when the germans annexed Czechoslovakia.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 01:59:47 AM
Hess was no more a "true Nazi" -- something that cannot even be defined -- than was anyone else in Germany at the time. But he WAS screwy, and his flight to Scotland was a bat-shit crazy thing to do.

This is part of the general ignorance people have about origins of the NSDAP, people simplify the nazis in order to comprehend them because they lack knowledge about philosophy. Your statements here prove beyond a doubt that you have no comprehension about Theosophy and this part of esotericism even though you have broad indepth knowledge about the historical accounts of the war and germany.

Individual inability to define a term due too that individual lack of knowledge does not render a term indefinable. Again please read the books before making assumptions based on ignorance on this aspect of NSDAP, I know you have alot of historical knowledge on the timeline, material facts and events but what you clearly lack is knowledge about the metaphysical foundations of NSDAP which seems you claim do not exist which is ludcrious if that is the case.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 01:59:47 AM
You can claim that the Nazis weren't warmongers, but claiming the sky ain't blue don't make it so. For such a peaceful bunch, they sure waged a lot of war in a very short time. I'd be interested to learn who you might think WOULD be classified as warmongers.

And claiming that thunder is caused by mythological beings doesnt make it so either. You have to define your terms if you want to play semantics with me.

The term warmonger should in my experience be defined to the culture of the nation or cultural group you are describing, or individual leaders if that is the case. I.e the Mongolians had a warmonger culture because they relied on continual warfare for their standard of living, same with the vikings. Gustav II Adolf and Frederick II of Prussia was warmongers because they believed in continual maximiation of power through expansionism. Hitler however did not believe in continual endless territorial expansion and neither did the other nazis. Many nazis such as Artur Axmann and Martin Bormann was in fact very shocked and sad that Hitler attacked Poland and that war had started. They believed in a Greater Germany and a spiritual expansion through race purification.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: JustKari on March 29, 2013, 06:39:38 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 28, 2013, 11:14:09 PM
Tbone is back. Sorry you missed him.  :rolleyes:

I posted that a full month before you came back, sorry it bothered you.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:44:43 AM
Quote from: JustKari on March 29, 2013, 06:39:38 AM
I posted that a full month before you came back, sorry it bothered you.

Bothered me? Hardly. It's kinda nice to be missed.  :blush:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Solar on March 29, 2013, 12:24:24 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:44:43 AM
Bothered me? Hardly. It's kinda nice to be missed.  :blush:
That is until our aim improves. :biggrin:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 03:20:16 AM
I do concede to most of these points, but the bombing of Britain by Germany was to force Britain to accept a peace treaty as fast as possible. And the invasion of Britain was to force Britain to accept these terms, when the bombing did not work, for the nazis this is was a sad necessity and not part of their original plan.

The bombing of England by Germany was a unilateral act of war. The reasons Hitler may have had for taking those steps aren't really relevant. Sure you can argue that Germany was merely reacting to England's teaming with France in defense of Poland, but Germany's treatment of Poland was ANOTHER act of war, premeditated and planned as a partitioning action with Stalin. Hitler knew for a certainty when he sent his troops over the Polish border that both England and France were bound by treaty to defend Poland. In truth, he responded to his own act of war with another act of war. The invasion of the British Isles -- Operation Sealion -- was absolutely not "plan B." It was Plan A from the start, and what became known as the Battle of Britain was initiated unilaterally by the Germans with the sole intent of killing the RAF; German strategists considered air supremacy a prerequisite to a successful seaborne invasion.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 03:20:16 AMI didn't blame france, belgium or even Britrain for the war, Hitler was gambling that they would not act on the independence guarantee too Poland just as the British and French did nothing when the germans annexed Czechoslovakia.

What you said was "Belgium and France happened after Britain and France declared war." I did not say that you blamed any particular country or government for the war. What I said was that to blame Belgium and France on the British and the French is lunacy. Yes, Hitler was gambling that especially England would just sit there while he had his way, as they had when he took Czechoslovakia -- ANOTHER unilateral act of war.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 03:20:16 AMThis is part of the general ignorance people have about origins of the NSDAP, people simplify the nazis in order to comprehend them because they lack knowledge about philosophy. Your statements here prove beyond a doubt that you have no comprehension about Theosophy and this part of esotericism even though you have broad indepth knowledge about the historical accounts of the war and germany.

Individual inability to define a term due too that individual lack of knowledge does not render a term indefinable. Again please read the books before making assumptions based on ignorance on this aspect of NSDAP, I know you have alot of historical knowledge on the timeline, material facts and events but what you clearly lack is knowledge about the metaphysical foundations of NSDAP which seems you claim do not exist which is ludcrious if that is the case.

We are posting in the War Forum. It is not the theosophy forum or the esotericism forum. You are free to petition the managers of the board to establish either or both.

As you have noticed, I have a fairly broad and deep understanding of the history of the period. The mysterious dark makeup of the Nazi party has always been a favorite subject of mine. And guess what -- there ain't much "there" there. I have read dozens, perhaps hundreds of books about that 12-year period (and the development beforehand). If I were to recommend one book above the rest, it would be Heinz Hohne's The Order of the Death's Head: The History of the SS. Heaping helpings of theosophy, esotericism, hocus-pocus, Arthurian roleplaying, mass murder, political education -- depending on the educator's politics -- and extermination, all in a jack-booted parade led by a chinless chicken farmer who couldn't raise chickens. It's the best account I've found of the utter chaos that actually was the Nazi world. There is simply no such thing as the "typical Nazi."

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 03:20:16 AMAnd claiming that thunder is caused by mythological beings doesnt make it so either. You have to define your terms if you want to play semantics with me.

Oh now, I'd never play semantics with you, sir.  :wink:

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 03:20:16 AMThe term warmonger should in my experience be defined to the culture of the nation or cultural group you are describing, or individual leaders if that is the case. I.e the Mongolians had a warmonger culture because they relied on continual warfare for their standard of living, same with the vikings. Gustav II Adolf and Frederick II of Prussia was warmongers because they believed in continual maximiation of power through expansionism. Hitler however did not believe in continual endless territorial expansion and neither did the other nazis. Many nazis such as Artur Axmann and Martin Bormann was in fact very shocked and sad that Hitler attacked Poland and that war had started. They believed in a Greater Germany and a spiritual expansion through race purification.

The Nazis were not warmongers, you claim? In the twelve years they ruled Germany, they committed military aggression against Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Finland, England, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Greece, Luxembourg, Scotland, Ireland, Romania, every western soviet republic, Canada, and the United States. I won't count the endless incursions into neutral and "friendly" territories, especially in North Africa. And I'm sure I left a few out. In their brief tenure, they directly caused the deaths of 20-30 million civilians and millions more in battle.

Not one of the "warmonger" cultures you cite can match that record of... warmongering.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on March 30, 2013, 12:48:20 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
The bombing of England by Germany was a unilateral act of war. The reasons Hitler may have had for taking those steps aren't really relevant. Sure you can argue that Germany was merely reacting to England's teaming with France in defense of Poland, but Germany's treatment of Poland was ANOTHER act of war, premeditated and planned as a partitioning action with Stalin. Hitler knew for a certainty when he sent his troops over the Polish border that both England and France were bound by treaty to defend Poland. In truth, he responded to his own act of war with another act of war. The invasion of the British Isles -- Operation Sealion -- was absolutely not "plan B." It was Plan A from the start, and what became known as the Battle of Britain was initiated unilaterally by the Germans with the sole intent of killing the RAF; German strategists considered air supremacy a prerequisite to a successful seaborne invasion.

And during all these operations Hitler tried serveral times to broke a peace treaty with Britain, none of the facts you have stated here counters the fact that the Nazis wanted Britain to remain strong and out of the war. That they had contingency plans and were prepared for the worst case scenario with Britain from the start does not deny this.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
What you said was "Belgium and France happened after Britain and France declared war." I did not say that you blamed any particular country or government for the war. What I said was that to blame Belgium and France on the British and the French is lunacy. Yes, Hitler was gambling that especially England would just sit there while he had his way, as they had when he took Czechoslovakia -- ANOTHER unilateral act of war.

Yes, and as you said yourself Hitler thought Britain would just sit there. The reason was he did not want a new war with Britain if it could be avoided.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
We are posting in the War Forum. It is not the theosophy forum or the esotericism forum. You are free to petition the managers of the board to establish either or both...
You stated that national socialist are indefinable, but as stated previously they are not. I did not go in depth into their philisophy because it is not relevant to this discussion, but I corrected your argument that Rudolf Hess was not just bat shit crazy, he actually had a creed he followed and so did every other nazi as well. Now we can say that made them bad-shit crazy, but they are still not indefinable just because someone can't define them.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
As you have noticed, I have a fairly broad and deep understanding of the history of the period. The mysterious dark makeup of the Nazi party has always been a favorite subject of mine. And guess what -- there ain't much "there" there. I have read dozens, perhaps hundreds of books about that 12-year period (and the development beforehand). If I were to recommend one book above the rest, it would be Heinz Hohne's The Order of the Death's Head: The History of the SS. Heaping helpings of theosophy, esotericism, hocus-pocus, Arthurian roleplaying, mass murder, political education -- depending on the educator's politics -- and extermination, all in a jack-booted parade led by a chinless chicken farmer who couldn't raise chickens. It's the best account I've found of the utter chaos that actually was the Nazi world. There is simply no such thing as the "typical Nazi."

By that logic one can say there is no such thing as a typical conservative, typical communist or typical khmer rouge. That chinless chicken farmer was a highly educated agronomist who decided to try and be a farmer because he had ridiculous notions of farming being the only pure germanic occupation and too distance himself from urban life. That you try to simplify Heinrich Himmler into a some random failed farmer who stumbled upon the job as leader of the SS just proves to me that you are not serious and that all your boasting about reading history is either not true because you did not know this fact, or more likely it is because you are after simplifying national socialism. You are cherry picking facts to paint the picture of national socialism as something simple. And that book you recommend is not even written by nazis themselves... That would be the same as using a modern day review of das kapital instead of reading the actual marxist books yourself when trying to understand marxism. You claim there is nothing yet base your assumption on books written by non nazis.


Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
The Nazis were not warmongers, you claim? In the twelve years they ruled Germany, they committed military aggression against Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Finland, England, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Greece, Luxembourg, Scotland, Ireland, Romania, every western soviet republic, Canada, and the United States. I won't count the endless incursions into neutral and "friendly" territories, especially in North Africa. And I'm sure I left a few out. In their brief tenure, they directly caused the deaths of 20-30 million civilians and millions more in battle.

Not one of the "warmonger" cultures you cite can match that record of... warmongering.

Oh really now?

Mongolia:
Dai Viet, Champa, Khmer, Taiyo, Changmai, Goryeo, Sukhotahai, Republic of Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Riga, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Wallachia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Persia, iraq, Hungary, Bohemia, Antioch, Trebizond, Sakhalin, Malays, Mamluks, Nickhs, Oroks, Chinese Kingdoms and even Khublai Khan also invaded Japan though he failed.

As for the proportion of deaths, if you were to calculate the percentages of total population that was exterminated by Mongol invasion too the Nazi invasion then it would be greater, you can't compare total number of deaths when the parameters are so different.

As for the Vikings they attacked every single european coastal nation and nation with large enough rivers for longboats.

You completely avoided the definition, after NSDAP had reaced it war goals they wanted to have a 1000 years of peace. None of the Vikings or Mongolians wanted that and that makes them warmongering :wink:

Edit:
I'm wholly against the simplification of national socialism, one of the result is that most people today don't even know that nazi stands for national socialism because too pop culture today the nazis were capitalist fascist and not socialist. And simplyfing Hitler, Himmler, Goerhing, Goebbels and all these others monsters into people of with little or a modicum of intelligence is falling into the elitist perspective that intelligent highly educated people can't be evil and can't have insane ideas, thereby giving creedence to the notion today that as long as we have highly educated technocrats in charge of government then tyranny will not happen. But as seen with both national socialism and communism the leaders of these movement are not people of low education or intelligence.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on March 30, 2013, 03:52:36 AM
I can't modify my statement, I just want to say sorry that I lost myself for a moment there and wrote that I didnt think you knew all you proclaimed to do, but I do acknowledge your knowledge about this topic, except for part I disagree with you
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on March 31, 2013, 09:19:48 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 30, 2013, 03:52:36 AM
I can't modify my statement, I just want to say sorry that I lost myself for a moment there and wrote that I didnt think you knew all you proclaimed to do, but I do acknowledge your knowledge about this topic, except for part I disagree with you

Man, as I was scrolling down through your latest screed ( :tounge:), I was thinking, "Hey, this idiot just called me a liar! I may just have to resort to fisticuffs!"

I do NOT claim to be THE authority on any of this stuff, but it happens to be an interest/hobby of mine, as it seems to be for you. I admittedly don't have your European point of view, being an Ohio boy, but I'm always willing to listen, and I understand that new insights are often found at the end of a club. Actually, I would welcome hearing more of your point of view; it is rare here. (You are Scandinavian, yes?)

I think you and I have both spent a lot of time studying what happened in Europe in the early and mid-20th century. Your study has leaned this way, mine a bit more that way. I was not a participant in WWII, though my father was. I don't know what your background is, but clearly you have strong feelings about that time and those events.

Your apology is accepted. As they say in New Jersey, "fuhgeddaboudit."
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on March 31, 2013, 09:55:26 PM
And here's a question.

If we're talking about warmongering and those who do that, aren't we talking also about the period in which they live?

All of your examples are, I'm sure, valid, but the discussion at hand, at least by the flimsy limitations of the OP, is the WWII era. It's hard for me to imagine that you or anyone could come with an example of warmongering equal to Nazi Germany during the mid-20th century. (Although Imperial Japan -- a treaty-bound ally of Nazi Germany -- comes close.)

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong... but be prepared when I think I ain't......
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on April 01, 2013, 12:00:19 AM
Yes I'm Norwegian so I have a tendency to get too emotional when discussing this sometimes resorting to "master technique" rethoric as I did in my last post forgetting we are not political debate but historical  :blushing: And I had to wonder what "fuhgeddaboudit" meant for a few minutes  :tounge:

I think the only point we really disagree on is to the extent Nazi Germany wanted Britain out of the war and the lenght it was willing to go to force Britain out of the war. With Vergeltungswaffen 3 ready to turn London into a total graveyard I concede they were willing to go far, but I think the eventual peace deal would be one benefitial for Britain, especially sense Hitler would have installed the British Union of Fascists in power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists)

Regarding the definition of nazi its a metaphysical one and not historical in the sense that we can judge the written works from blavatsky too guido von list up too the wannabe chicken farmer but we can't make a conclusion based on historical events. So I don't think we can come to a agreement there, and as you see I have an overall agenda in pushing my point of view on this as well which makes it hard for me to compromise on that point.

As for the warmongering discussion, the definitions I read does mean that you are right regarding Hitler, he was a warmonger according to wiki definition. But my point is that the nazis as a collective were not really warmongering, they just saw war as a short time means to an end. And that a typical nazi even though not a pacifist in the modern sense was a environmentalist spiritual hippie, advocated vegetarianism, nudism, notions of meditation unlocking aryan race powers such as telekinisis and collectivist agrarianism. I.e the Hitler Youth camping outside the radio station where the nazi faked a polish attack were having a Peace Rally camping :tounge:

Edit:
And thanks to your father and all other americans like him for liberating my country, if the Soviets had gotten the time to been able to "liberate" Norway then the labor party officials would never have joined NATO and contined to stay in the COMINTERN instead and Norway would look like Hungary today.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: simpsonofpg on April 03, 2013, 09:46:27 AM
Pearl Harbor gets my vote.  If we don't enter the war then Hitler only has to fight on one front.  With us in thebattle he has two front line and after we blew up most of his manufacturing capacity it was down hill.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on April 29, 2013, 12:44:32 AM
Quote from: simpsonofpg on April 03, 2013, 09:46:27 AM
Pearl Harbor gets my vote.  If we don't enter the war then Hitler only has to fight on one front.  With us in thebattle he has two front line and after we blew up most of his manufacturing capacity it was down hill.

Oh, for sure, from the Japanese point of view, PH in the long run was stupid. But it was planned to give them the short time they thought they could use to consolidate their "Southeast Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Say that twice and go gargle.

Yamamoto knew, though the quote about "awakening a sleeping giant" is apocryphal. But he had a singular advantage over his peers -- he was educated in, and had vast experience of, the US. He understood the monumental differences between Japanese culture and society and the same things American. He also had a deep appreciation for the simple geographic SIZE of the United States, and an understanding of our natural and technological resources.

His own prediction was six months of free rein for the Japanese in the South Pacific. In fact, his prediction came true almost to the day -- that day being the Battle of Midway, just a day or two short of six months after PH. The loss of four precious aircraft carriers in the waters off that nearly worthless island gutted the Japanese Imperial Navy, and underlined the inability of Japan to produce replacements for them.

I think one paradox about Pearl Harbor that is seldom commented upon is the (to me) obvious fact that the Japs showed up with aircraft carriers (the same ones they lost six months later at Midway) and proved for all the world to see that the age of battleships was over. And they did so by sinking... battleships. There were three carriers attached to our Pacific Fleet at the time, and despite continuous, real-time intelligence provided by Japanese agents and sympathizers in Hawaii, the attack went in KNOWING that no carriers were in the harbor.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on May 16, 2013, 01:21:39 PM
QuoteI think one paradox about Pearl Harbor that is seldom commented upon is the (to me) obvious fact that the Japs showed up with aircraft carriers (the same ones they lost six months later at Midway) and proved for all the world to see that the age of battleships was over. And they did so by sinking... battleships. There were three carriers attached to our Pacific Fleet at the time, and despite continuous, real-time intelligence provided by Japanese agents and sympathizers in Hawaii, the attack went in KNOWING that no carriers were in the harbor.
The Japanese had a battleship fixation. It's why they put tremendous resources into building the super battleships Yamato and Musashi, when the resources could have gone into building more carriers. The Japanese were desperate to show the world they were a great power, and in doing so lost all strategic, tactical and logistic sense.

Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on May 16, 2013, 07:35:05 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on May 16, 2013, 01:21:39 PM
The Japanese had a battleship fixation. It's why they put tremendous resources into building the super battleships Yamato and Musashi, when the resources could have gone into building more carriers. The Japanese were desperate to show the world they were a great power, and in doing so lost all strategic, tactical and logistic sense.

You're right, but why? I guess I'm searching for logic where maybe there isn't any.

The Japs constantly, endlessly -- even after their war was obviously lost -- tried to stage that "one big naval shootout" that would destroy the US Navy (or the Imperial Fleet). Only a fixation on battleships and battle cruisers would support such silliness.

When nations wage war, I look for logic. I can't find it in the Japanese approach to WWII.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Solar on May 16, 2013, 08:24:14 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on May 16, 2013, 07:35:05 PM
You're right, but why? I guess I'm searching for logic where maybe there isn't any.

The Japs constantly, endlessly -- even after their war was obviously lost -- tried to stage that "one big naval shootout" that would destroy the US Navy (or the Imperial Fleet). Only a fixation on battleships and battle cruisers would support such silliness.

When nations wage war, I look for logic. I can't find it in the Japanese approach to WWII.
I watched a special on their behemoth and how and why they were built, it had everything to do with pride and honor.
Sometimes there just isn't any logic to be found where emotion clouds ones view.

Kind of like the mindset of a lib.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on May 16, 2013, 08:41:30 PM
Quote from: Solar on May 16, 2013, 08:24:14 PM
I watched a special on their behemoth and how and why they were built, it had everything to do with pride and honor.
Sometimes there just isn't any logic to be found where emotion clouds ones view.

Kind of like the mindset of a lib.

It seems that the lesson the Japanese taught the world on 12/7/41 was completely lost on... them.

Their primary purpose in attacking Midway in 1942 was not the subjugation of the island outpost, but the luring out of the US Pacific Fleet for that 'One Big Battle.' Yes, they sent the same carrier complement that was so successful at Pearl Harbor, but the primary reason for them being there was to soften up the slender garrison on Midway Island itself to accommodate the occupation troops on the battleships, cruisers, and other capital ships in the secondary group -- the ones that never entered the battle. It was the occupation of the island that was supposed to bring our navy out of Pearl for the Big Fight.

So much for that idea...  :tounge:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on May 17, 2013, 11:16:15 AM
Mahan. The Japanese worshiped Mahan - and he was very wrong - not a single war was ever settled by "One Big Battle". Even after Nelson sank much of the Frandco-Spanish Fleet the Napoleonic wars continued for a further 10 Years. "Those distant storm tossed ships upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and dominion of the world" - is wonderful prose, but false. in reality most of the Grand Armee actually died in the snows of Russia. What was left of it was finally beaten by Wellington and Blucher at Waterloo. Had the Japanese not been infatuated with Mahan, they might have given more thought to logistics - and especially for an island nation - anti submarine warfare and shipping protection.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on May 17, 2013, 07:52:07 PM
Giles, I'm a student of history, after my own method, but I've never heard of "Mahan." Can you throw me a reference or two?
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Solar on May 17, 2013, 09:32:00 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on May 17, 2013, 07:52:07 PM
Giles, I'm a student of history, after my own method, but I've never heard of "Mahan." Can you throw me a reference or two?

USS Mahan is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer ...
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on May 18, 2013, 07:01:45 PM
Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2013, 09:32:00 PM
USS Mahan is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer ...

I doubt if the Japanese worshipped a US Navy destroyer.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Solar on May 19, 2013, 06:18:28 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on May 18, 2013, 07:01:45 PM
I doubt if the Japanese worshipped a US Navy destroyer.
Tell that to Md, I only answered because you asked.

The Japanese had an arrogance built on pride in superiority that their race alone was enough to defeat any military. (Asian egocentric)
This arrogance came from worship of the Emperor, whom they believe to be be a God.

Drive is one thing, but when you believe you are blessed by God, that of death is honor, then one takes on a feeling of invincibility, as in the Kamikaze and sacrificing ones life is of the highest honor.

What I remember and what I've read is this arrogance transcended intellect, those in power felt they were smarter and better than those expendable peons below them and didn't listen, it's why they spent so much time and treasure on behemoth battleships that never saw combat sacrificed their own people as flying bombs. 
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on May 19, 2013, 10:05:38 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on May 17, 2013, 07:52:07 PM
Giles, I'm a student of history, after my own method, but I've never heard of "Mahan." Can you throw me a reference or two?
Sure. Alfred Thayer Mahan. Here's the wiki entry. It's fairly accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan)
Pay special attention to the section on Japan.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Travis Bickle on May 24, 2013, 09:02:12 AM
One of the worst: Sending American soldiers into battle in the Hurtgen Forest.

The Hürtgen Forest cost the U.S. 1st Army at least 33,000 killed and incapacitated, including both combat and noncombat losses;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_H%C3%BCrtgen_Forest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_H%C3%BCrtgen_Forest)

My grandfather fought there, and was terribly wounded there.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on May 29, 2013, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: Travis Bickle on May 24, 2013, 09:02:12 AM
One of the worst: Sending American soldiers into battle in the Hurtgen Forest.

The Hürtgen Forest cost the U.S. 1st Army at least 33,000 killed and incapacitated, including both combat and noncombat losses;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_H%C3%BCrtgen_Forest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_H%C3%BCrtgen_Forest)

My grandfather fought there, and was terribly wounded there.
I've always wonder why an Army which had already invented both the Amphibious Tractor and the DUKW, always seemed to consider a river such a barrier?
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on May 30, 2013, 02:11:59 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on May 29, 2013, 04:00:52 PM
I've always wonder why an Army which had already invented both the Amphibious Tractor and the DUKW, always seemed to consider a river such a barrier?

In the ETO, there are at least two obvious reasons.

First is the matter of simply getting any sort of boat, much less a DUKW or an amphtrac to where it needs to be. Books have been written about the immense transportation problems, especially after the breakout from the hedgerows in summer 1944. The famed Red Ball Express was a shoddy, makeshift excuse for logistical planning. It barely managed to deliver gasoline and food, and certainly had no accommodations for boats of any description.

Second is the fundamental difference between dropping a boat in a relatively still ocean for a straight run into an invasion beach vs. dropping the same boat in a river that varies from shallow and still (usually) along the banks to deep and fast-flowing down the middle.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on May 31, 2013, 06:32:17 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on May 30, 2013, 02:11:59 PM
In the ETO, there are at least two obvious reasons.

First is the matter of simply getting any sort of boat, much less a DUKW or an amphtrac to where it needs to be. Books have been written about the immense transportation problems, especially after the breakout from the hedgerows in summer 1944. The famed Red Ball Express was a shoddy, makeshift excuse for logistical planning. It barely managed to deliver gasoline and food, and certainly had no accommodations for boats of any description.

Second is the fundamental difference between dropping a boat in a relatively still ocean for a straight run into an invasion beach vs. dropping the same boat in a river that varies from shallow and still (usually) along the banks to deep and fast-flowing down the middle.
Okay with most of what you said; BUT, "relatively still ocean"? Spent 10 years in, what they used to call "The Suck" (that's the Marine Corps, for the uninitiated). Got a laugh out of that. Same laugh I get every time I see troops leaping out of Huey helicopters, in EVERY documentary on the Vietnam War. Two tours, and I think I got on a helicopter three times. And two of those times it was a Medivac chopper. 
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on May 31, 2013, 06:38:14 PM
BTW, on worse decisions of WW2, how about the Nazis waiting until it was too late to share technology with the Japanese. Advanced German tanks, artillery and weapons might have made getting out of China (thus soothing the US and turning the oil spigots back on)and attacking the USSR with the Germans, a viable option for the Japanese.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Solar on May 31, 2013, 06:42:35 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on May 31, 2013, 06:32:17 PM
Okay with most of what you said; BUT, "relatively still ocean"? Spent 10 years in, what they used to call "The Suck" (that's the Marine Corps, for the uninitiated). Got a laugh out of that. Same laugh I get every time I see troops leaping out of Huey helicopters, in EVERY documentary on the Vietnam War. Two tours, and I think I got on a helicopter three times. And two of those times it was a Medivac chopper.
LOL, remember how they told you we don't march anymore, pointing to the cattle car haulers.
Then the First Sergeant yells "Troooops...Double Time"...Nope, never much marched, but we definitely ran our asses off.... :biggrin:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on July 03, 2013, 12:54:01 PM
Quote from: viking on July 02, 2013, 10:54:41 PM
Great site. Great thread btw.

The biggest miscalculation of WWII. I would say the Nazi's not doing more to allie with the Iraq's  to run the british colonists out of Iraq thereby taking away one of the allies majore sources of oil and securing the oil resources for themselves thereby negating germanies need to invade russia in the first place, but the Nazi's racist ideologies prevented them from allying with Muslims despite their shered hatred for jews.
But they DID ally with Muslims. In the Balkans. In Iraq. And with the Mufti of Jerusalem. After the war it's thought that more than a few of the Nazi war criminals escaped into the MidEast - those that didn't prefer South America.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Solar on July 03, 2013, 01:52:22 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on July 03, 2013, 12:54:01 PM
But they DID ally with Muslims. In the Balkans. In Iraq. And with the Mufti of Jerusalem. After the war it's thought that more than a few of the Nazi war criminals escaped into the MidEast - those that didn't prefer South America.
There was even a TV series about it called the rat Patrol.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kit saginaw on July 07, 2013, 06:35:52 AM
Quote from: Solar on July 03, 2013, 01:52:22 PM
There was even a TV series about it called the rat Patrol.

-Which was a miscalculation by not casting an all-British/New Zealand ensemble.   Ya can't have Americans runnin'-around in North Africa.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: walkstall on July 07, 2013, 07:23:10 AM
Quote from: kit saginaw on July 07, 2013, 06:35:52 AM
-Which was a miscalculation by not casting an all-British/New Zealand ensemble.   Ya can't have Americans runnin'-around in North Africa.

Hmm...It is my understanding we have Americans running around places that even b o does not even know about, until he looks at the news.  :wink:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on July 07, 2013, 09:00:46 AM
Quote from: kit saginaw on July 07, 2013, 06:35:52 AM
-Which was a miscalculation by not casting an all-British/New Zealand ensemble.   Ya can't have Americans runnin'-around in North Africa.
They were Canadians!  :wink:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on July 07, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
One of the worse miscalculations, was the Japanese idea that the duty of submarines was only to sink opposing warships. As commerce raiders, early in the war the Japanese could have accomplished two things, had they concentrated on the sea lanes between the US and the Pacific battlefields. First, they would have forced the US to provide far greater anti-submarine protection once the beyond the range of West Coast air cover (a single Long Lance would have been instant death to a freighter or tanker). And of course the sinking of ships near the West Coast would have crippled American operations due to the political pressures, for West Coast defense. And it would have place pressure on the US, to cut back on its convoy duties in the Atlantic; thereby assisting their Nazi allies. I wonder if the I-Boats, built to operate for long periods, in the trackless wastes of the Pacific, would have been useful to the Nazis? They could have traded the Japanese machine gun and tank plans for I-boat plans.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: daidalos on July 08, 2013, 09:12:27 AM
Quote from: tbone0106 on June 24, 2012, 09:52:40 PM
I guess this is sort of a poll. There were many huge miscalculations, but I can't help thinking Hitler's move into the Soviet Union in 1941 -- especially so late in the season! -- was the worst.

Opinions?

The worst thing Hitler did, was listen to his own propoganda minister.  :smile:

As the allies were rolling into berlin, he was still telling Hitler they'd win.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on July 08, 2013, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: viking on July 07, 2013, 11:50:45 PM
The Japanese were known for their machine gun and tanks??? I thought the nazis had the best machine gun in WWII the mg-38(I think that's what it's called) and the best tanks the tiger and panzer tanks-it's just that they didn't have enough of them
Sigh, caught me on the grammar there. It should have read:"They could have traded the Japanese, German machine gun and tank plans, for I-boat plans". Sometimes my brain is way ahead of my fingers.  :blush:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on July 08, 2013, 01:52:56 PM
Quote from: viking on July 08, 2013, 12:12:16 AM
Didn't the Nazi's declare war on America after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor??? That would seem like a pretty significant miscalculation???
The expectation on the Nazis part, was that the Japanese would join them in their war on the USSR. But the Japanese had already had a taste of the Soviets, in two early battles on the Mongolian border. Without better weapons, their is no way the wanted anything to do with the Soviets. That's one of the reasons they head South. Which they could have done WITHOUT attacking Pearl Harbor or the Philippines. No way the US was going to go to war to rescue European colonies. They could have snapped up the Philippines after the US granted them independence.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on July 10, 2013, 06:47:28 AM
Quote from: viking on July 09, 2013, 08:19:49 PM
I gotchya  :biggrin: I heard somewhere that the allies did some statistical analysis on what caused the most casaulties in the European theatre(I think?) and out of all the weapons the Nazis had they found that most casaulties were caused by machine gun fire-probably the mg-38
Indeed. It's said that infantry in WW2 were psychotically afraid of Tiger tanks, but only 1697 Tigers and King Tigers, were produced total, along with 10,000 Panthers and 9870 Panzer-4's. In comparison, the Soviets produced about 35,000 T-34's and the US produced 49,234 Sherman's. As one defeated German tank commander complained: "We ran out of shells, before they ran out of tanks"!
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on July 12, 2013, 08:11:05 AM
The MG-42 is still used by the Norwegian army even 70 years later, there is no need to change it because the weapon is so durable, and a proficient gunman can target enemy camps/locations up to 3-4km. The only downside is the weight of the weapon that limits the ammo capacity and that the gun is a two man operation.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fworld.guns.ru%2Fuserfiles%2Fimages%2Fmachine%2Fmg33%2Fmg42_02.jpg&hash=f63d0a692ada90bb87135941faeccbc02737abc7)

The Tiger tanks and anti tank Panther were the best tanks in ww2, the only problem was that they were time consuming and difficult to manufacture compared to the soviet T-34 like mdgiles pointed out. A tiger tank could take out a sherman before the sherman could get in range, that is in addition to having accurate fire under high speed and excellent sloped armor. I also believe the tiger and panther used anti aircraft guns for their main gun which was able tear through any other tank on the battlefield.

QuoteThe expectation on the Nazis part, was that the Japanese would join them in their war on the USSR. But the Japanese had already had a taste of the Soviets, in two early battles on the Mongolian border. Without better weapons, their is no way the wanted anything to do with the Soviets. That's one of the reasons they head South. Which they could have done WITHOUT attacking Pearl Harbor or the Philippines. No way the US was going to go to war to rescue European colonies. They could have snapped up the Philippines after the US granted them independence.

Ideology was also a major factor, the Germans viewed most americans as polluted untermenchen, hardly a match for the aryan giants. A funfact is in their war decleration they gave tribute to FDR for essentially being a dictator.

Also Hitler expected the war against the soviets to be over in 1-2 months, which would have made reinforcing the atlantic wall possible, in addition Hitler expected Rommel to be able to push through Egypt into USSR, but Montgomery attacked and routed Rommels Africa Corps while he was in germany discussing battle plans with Hitler.

I think a very important miscalculation of ww2 were the german generals adherence to Hitler. Hitler had a good overall battleplan which was to secure oil, but the application of that battleplan he screwed up time and time again.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on July 17, 2013, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 12, 2013, 08:11:05 AM
The MG-42 is still used by the Norwegian army even 70 years later, there is no need to change it because the weapon is so durable, and a proficient gunman can target enemy camps/locations up to 3-4km. The only downside is the weight of the weapon that limits the ammo capacity and that the gun is a two man operation.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fworld.guns.ru%2Fuserfiles%2Fimages%2Fmachine%2Fmg33%2Fmg42_02.jpg&hash=f63d0a692ada90bb87135941faeccbc02737abc7)

The Tiger tanks and anti tank Panther were the best tanks in ww2, the only problem was that they were time consuming and difficult to manufacture compared to the soviet T-34 like mdgiles pointed out. A tiger tank could take out a sherman before the sherman could get in range, that is in addition to having accurate fire under high speed and excellent sloped armor. I also believe the tiger and panther used anti aircraft guns for their main gun which was able tear through any other tank on the battlefield.

Ideology was also a major factor, the Germans viewed most americans as polluted untermenchen, hardly a match for the aryan giants. A funfact is in their war decleration they gave tribute to FDR for essentially being a dictator.

Also Hitler expected the war against the soviets to be over in 1-2 months, which would have made reinforcing the atlantic wall possible, in addition Hitler expected Rommel to be able to push through Egypt into USSR, but Montgomery attacked and routed Rommels Africa Corps while he was in germany discussing battle plans with Hitler.

I think a very important miscalculation of ww2 were the german generals adherence to Hitler. Hitler had a good overall battleplan which was to secure oil, but the application of that battleplan he screwed up time and time again.

You're tackling a LOT of subject matter in a single post, Yep, the German tanks could pick off a Sherman LONG before the Sherman's short-barreled 75mm pea-shooter could bang a hole in its enemy. But NO German tank pilot could fight off six or ten Shermans at a time. I think that was Giles's point.

As for Hitler's plans, they were bullshit. Hitler was in no sense an educated strategic impresario, and being a corporal who ran messages in the German army in a losing effort ain't much in the way of chops. He had no f***ing idea what he was doing. Reminds me a lot of a certain Kenyan...
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on July 19, 2013, 06:47:22 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on July 17, 2013, 09:14:24 PM
You're tackling a LOT of subject matter in a single post, Yep, the German tanks could pick off a Sherman LONG before the Sherman's short-barreled 75mm pea-shooter could bang a hole in its enemy. But NO German tank pilot could fight off six or ten Shermans at a time. I think that was Giles's point.

As for Hitler's plans, they were bullshit. Hitler was in no sense an educated strategic impresario, and being a corporal who ran messages in the German army in a losing effort ain't much in the way of chops. He had no f***ing idea what he was doing. Reminds me a lot of a certain Kenyan...

Well I would say this goes for one sub-category of conservatives as well who look to Hitler as a person who got things done and saved the german economy. But the overall point that "Oil" was the essential most strategic resource of WW2 is undeniable, the case of Japan proves this beyond a doubt. The application of that fact to wartime strategy by Hitler was bullshit, but not the principle. Even the British acknowledged that fact with their warships undergone the switch from coal power to oil just decades before.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on July 19, 2013, 02:29:28 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 19, 2013, 06:47:22 AM
Well I would say this goes for one sub-category of conservatives as well who look to Hitler as a person who got things done and saved the german economy. But the overall point that "Oil" was the essential most strategic resource of WW2 is undeniable, the case of Japan proves this beyond a doubt. The application of that fact to wartime strategy by Hitler was bullshit, but not the principle. Even the British acknowledged that fact with their warships undergone the switch from coal power to oil just decades before.

It is often said that Hitler at least made the trains run on time. On the other hand, he managed to get his country bombed almost out of existence.

Yes, oil was important, and his foray into the Caucasus was aimed at securing the vast oilfields of that region. (His decision to divert the bulk of his Sixth Army from that goal to Stalingrad was politically-motivated stupidity.) It was also part of his reason for taking Romania, and for his forays into northern Africa. But the oil was meant for the military machines. The trains of the day still burned coal, and the German navy (other than the submarine fleet) was nearly nonexistent. To the very end of the war, the Germans never ran short of oil, or airplanes or tanks. They were, in fact, world pioneers in the formulation and production of synthetic petroleum, and those plants cranked the stuff out more or less unmolested until May 1945.

What they ran out of was pilots and tank drivers. And they VASTLY underestimated the ability of the Allies, mainly the US, to pepper the battlefields with tanks and the fill the skies with 1,000 bombers at a time, protected by the best fighter planes (and fighter pilots) in the world. A Bf-109G looked rather silly alongside a P-47D, and a P-51D could outfly just about everything Germany ever put in the air. (There were probably more air-to-air victories involving P-51s shooting down Me-262's than the other way around.) The later Tiger and Panther tanks were indeed awesome fighting machines. But they were unreliable, incredibly difficult to repair and maintain, and there simply weren't ever enough of them. In a sense, they ran short of tanks, but it was because German engineers made those tanks so astoundingly complex and difficult to build and maintain, that their military-industrial complex could never turn 'em out fast enough. And, as I said before, NO Tiger tank, no matter how skilled the crew, can defend itself against 6 or 10 or 17 little Shermans, all manned by skilled crews. Sooner or later, one of those little 75mm shells will hit a track and immobilize the Tiger -- and a tank that can't move is a dead tank.

In the case of Germany, I doubt that the need for oil was a major cause of their aggression. Certainly, Hitler didn't talk much about it, at least at the outset. The Japanese, however, are a much different case, and the war in the Pacific was precipitated by them very much in the pursuit of oil -- and other things like iron and coal and rubber. Being a relatively tiny island nation with really quite limited native natural resources, Japan has always been dependent on imported raw goods like iron ore and rubber and oil. Our moves in the late 1930s helped to deprive them of these things. Despite our stance that our moves were responses to Japanese warmaking in China, Japan saw them as direct attacks. The devastation at Pearl Harbor was facilitated with ships and planes quite literally built from scrap metal and iron ore purchased from the US. And they fueled those machines with the last drops of petroleum fuels they had. Pearl Harbor was immediately followed by conquests of the Dutch East Indies, which offered vast reserves of both oil and rubber.

Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on July 20, 2013, 03:50:47 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on July 19, 2013, 02:29:28 PM
It is often said that Hitler at least made the trains run on time. On the other hand, he managed to get his country bombed almost out of existence.

Well Stalin and all the other tyrants of the twentieth century also made the trains run on time (except Idi Amin and Pol Pot ofc), I don't see how this pragmatist approach too totalitarianism is even remotely connected to conservatism or prosperity for that matter, and the founding fathers would have abhorred it.

Quote from: TboneAgain on July 19, 2013, 02:29:28 PM
Yes, oil was important, and his foray into the Caucasus was aimed at securing the vast oilfields of that region. (His decision to divert the bulk of his Sixth Army from that goal to Stalingrad was politically-motivated stupidity.) It was also part of his reason for taking Romania, and for his forays into northern Africa. But the oil was meant for the military machines. The trains of the day still burned coal, and the German navy (other than the submarine fleet) was nearly nonexistent. To the very end of the war, the Germans never ran short of oil, or airplanes or tanks. They were, in fact, world pioneers in the formulation and production of synthetic petroleum, and those plants cranked the stuff out more or less unmolested until May 1945.

What they ran out of was pilots and tank drivers. And they VASTLY underestimated the ability of the Allies, mainly the US, to pepper the battlefields with tanks and the fill the skies with 1,000 bombers at a time, protected by the best fighter planes (and fighter pilots) in the world. A Bf-109G looked rather silly alongside a P-47D, and a P-51D could outfly just about everything Germany ever put in the air. (There were probably more air-to-air victories involving P-51s shooting down Me-262's than the other way around.) The later Tiger and Panther tanks were indeed awesome fighting machines. But they were unreliable, incredibly difficult to repair and maintain, and there simply weren't ever enough of them. In a sense, they ran short of tanks, but it was because German engineers made those tanks so astoundingly complex and difficult to build and maintain, that their military-industrial complex could never turn 'em out fast enough. And, as I said before, NO Tiger tank, no matter how skilled the crew, can defend itself against 6 or 10 or 17 little Shermans, all manned by skilled crews. Sooner or later, one of those little 75mm shells will hit a track and immobilize the Tiger -- and a tank that can't move is a dead tank.

In the case of Germany, I doubt that the need for oil was a major cause of their aggression. Certainly, Hitler didn't talk much about it, at least at the outset. The Japanese, however, are a much different case, and the war in the Pacific was precipitated by them very much in the pursuit of oil -- and other things like iron and coal and rubber. Being a relatively tiny island nation with really quite limited native natural resources, Japan has always been dependent on imported raw goods like iron ore and rubber and oil. Our moves in the late 1930s helped to deprive them of these things. Despite our stance that our moves were responses to Japanese warmaking in China, Japan saw them as direct attacks. The devastation at Pearl Harbor was facilitated with ships and planes quite literally built from scrap metal and iron ore purchased from the US. And they fueled those machines with the last drops of petroleum fuels they had. Pearl Harbor was immediately followed by conquests of the Dutch East Indies, which offered vast reserves of both oil and rubber.

Thats true, for a good read on the topic I suggest this article

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=23080 (http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=23080)

And also the documentary or book "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" by Daniel Yergin.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kopema on August 31, 2013, 08:51:53 AM
Quote from: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 04:54:28 AM
You'd also have to list Pearl Harbor. While a tactical vicotry for the Japs, it was
perhaps the worse strategic move in history.

There's an urban legend that Yamamoto said:  "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant."  AFTER Pearl Harbor - as if he suddenly started having second thoughts.  But there's no real evidence of that.

On the other hand, there is full documentation of his position BEFORE Pearl Harbor.  He basically laid out the first six months of the war; said he could stage a sneak attack and then run roughshod over the South Pacific; but he made clear, in absolutely no uncertain terms, that Japan could never hope to invade the continental United States, and that the productive power of the US could utterly crush Japan.

There's a saying that armchair generals talk about tactics, while real military leaders talk about logistics.  Well, Yamamoto was a very very real military leader, and the Japanese high command believed every word he told them.  They knew damned well what a genius he was, and practically revered him as a god.

The Imperial Japanese never doubted for a second the might of America.  What they doubted was America's WILL.  They thought Americans would tire of fighting and agree to whatever concessions were asked.

That's exactly what al Qaida thought about the Twin Towers.  However, America's second Pearl Harbor wasn't met with the exact same reaction as the first.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kopema on August 31, 2013, 09:12:20 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 20, 2013, 03:50:47 AM
Well Stalin and all the other tyrants of the twentieth century also made the trains run on time

But did they, really, make the trains run on time?  Or did they just kill everyone who complained about them?  Frankly, that sounds a lot more like a propaganda slogan than the result of a comprehensive analysis of arrival-departure logs.

Totalitarian governments aren't really all that efficient.  Nazi Germany accomplished a lot, unfortunately, but that was only over a very short term.  Germans had been pretty darned punctual for a very long time before that.  And they were also hugely productive before anybody ever heard of Socialism.  Most of the seeming "economic miracle" in Germany was caused by Hitler's final rejection of the hopelessly unpayable debts from the Treaty of Versailles -- a good idea, but not one that required totalitarianism.

What Socialist and Communist governments are "good" at is collectivization:  depriving millions in order to produce a few gigantic projects that people don't necessarily want.  That looks terrific in the propaganda posters, but it tends to do more harm than good to the long-term economy.  The sad fact is that small-minded people are more easily impressed by a few big things than a whole bunch of little things.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: KinnonWaltkowski on September 02, 2013, 07:38:52 AM
It's amazing how many huge missteps were made by such a strong --link removed by taxed .. nice try -- force. It seems very obvious that what killed Hitler, and the Nazis by extension, was his ego. If the Nazis would have won at D-Day, or done better against the Russians, they entire history of the world since then would be dramatically different. The three front war is a horrible idea to start with, when has it ever shown success looking back at military campaigns. However, Germany still might have won despite that had they made good decisions. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they lost, I despise many of the things they espoused, but I still don't understand how they could be so stupid.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: walkstall on September 02, 2013, 07:42:42 AM
Quote from: KinnonWaltkowski on September 02, 2013, 07:38:52 AM
It's amazing how many huge missteps were made by such a strong -- link removed by taxed -- force. It seems very obvious that what killed Hitler, and the Nazis by extension, was his ego. If the Nazis would have won at D-Day, or done better against the Russians, they entire history of the world since then would be dramatically different. The three front war is a horrible idea to start with, when has it ever shown success looking back at military campaigns. However, Germany still might have won despite that had they made good decisions. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they lost, I despise many of the things they espoused, but I still don't understand how they could be so stupid.

Welcome....  I keep saying the same think about b o.   :popcorn:
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kopema on September 02, 2013, 09:58:16 AM
Quote from: KinnonWaltkowski on September 02, 2013, 07:38:52 AM
The three front war is a horrible idea to start with, when has it ever shown success looking back at military campaigns. However, Germany still might have won despite that had they made good decisions. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they lost, I despise many of the things they espoused, but I still don't understand how they could be so stupid.

I once read a detailed analysis of the thought process that lead to Operation Barbarossa.  The short version is that Hitler THOUGHT he could weaken the alliance between England and America, but he KNEW that the Russians were planning to invade once the Red Army had recovered from Stalin's purges.  And when Hitler saw them lose a third of a million troops invading Finland, he figured he'd strike while the iron was hot.

No matter what was going on in Hitler's head, this was no idle decision, like: "Hey, there's not much else going on right now, so let's just invade Russia now."  Germany was under a lot of pressure and running out of key resources.

The real bottom line is that the war was decided when America committed itself fully.  Our military was relatively puny; the day the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we only had 170,000 men in uniform.  Everyone thought we would get our nose bloody and then quit. 

But our industrial capacity dwarfed that of the rest of the world.  Even if Normandy had gone south (or, I guess failed to go south, whatever) or any one of a dozen other things went wrong, we still had the industrial capacity to continue.  The only question now is the same as it was then:  whether or not America's political commitment would falter.  My personal guess is that we'd have fired a few leaders, figured out what went wrong and come back stronger than ever.

As for Russia, even if their military had collapsed, that would still have been an incredibly costly occupation across many millions of square miles Germany didn't remotely have the manpower to cover.  Stalin banned a lot of books, but not Mein Kampf.  The Russians knew damned well that Hitler was fighting a war of extermination.  They resented the Communist dictators, but they would fight to the last man against the Nazis.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: taxed on September 02, 2013, 05:28:18 PM
Thanks for flagging the spam, kopema...

-d
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: walkstall on September 02, 2013, 07:19:37 PM
Quote from: taxed on September 02, 2013, 05:28:18 PM
Thanks for flagging the spam, kopema...

-d


:ohmy:  That one slipped right past me.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on September 29, 2013, 02:50:04 PM
Quote from: walkstall on September 02, 2013, 07:42:42 AM
Welcome....  I keep saying the same think about b o.   :popcorn:
I guess you could put it down to "ego." I put it down to stupidity. Adolf Hitler spent more than three years working his way up the ladder in the German army in WWI... and managed to get two stripes -- a corporal. After three-plus years, the man's a corporal.

I'm thinking he's not exactly a military genius.

His primary victories were either political -- Rhineland, Sudetenland, Austria (Anschluss) -- or just plain easy -- France, Belgium, Poland, etc. Where he came a cropper was where he had to begin to engage his brain. Barbarossa was the beginning of the end for him, and a kindergartener could have pointed it out.

The man was a masterful politician. But he was a military idiot.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kopema on September 29, 2013, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on September 29, 2013, 02:50:04 PM
His primary victories were either political -- Rhineland, Sudetenland, Austria (Anschluss) -- or just plain easy -- France, Belgium, Poland, etc. Where he came a cropper was where he had to begin to engage his brain. Barbarossa was the beginning of the end for him, and a kindergartener could have pointed it out.

The man was a masterful politician. But he was a military idiot.

If Adolph Hitler had dropped dead after signing the Munich Agreement, he'd probably have gone down in history as Germany's greatest statesman.  Most of Germany's early victories were more due to mollifying the Allies than military might.  Hitler himself said that if England and France had kept their promises to protect Czechoslovakia, they could have wiped out the German invasion force easily.

Once World War 2 started in earnest, Germany's early victories were probably more due to Hitler's inexperience than despite it.  He let his generals have their way.  Later, when Hitler bought into his own propaganda, he started trying to micro-manage.  That's when the Allies officially cancelled all plans to have him assassinated.  By the last two years of the war, Hitler had basically become the Allies' single greatest strategic asset.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: rgf on October 01, 2013, 05:26:08 PM
I think the biggest mistake made by Uncle Adolf was the delay in launching Barbarossa in order to clean up the mess in Greece and the Balkans. Not only did it divert front line troops that afterword needed rest and retrofit it cost him maybe 6 weeks of good weather in Russia. If things went as they did and the Germans had another 3 weeks or so of good weather in front of Moscow maybe all the Russkies would be speaking German as a 2nd language.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: walkstall on October 01, 2013, 06:26:30 PM
Quote from: rgf on October 01, 2013, 05:26:08 PM
I think the biggest mistake made by Uncle Adolf was the delay in launching Barbarossa in order to clean up the mess in Greece and the Balkans. Not only did it divert front line troops that afterword needed rest and retrofit it cost him maybe 6 weeks of good weather in Russia. If things went as they did and the Germans had another 3 weeks or so of good weather in front of Moscow maybe all the Russkies would be speaking German as a 2nd language.

:lol: Trust me you don't have to go to war to be invaded with a second languages.  Press 1 for English. press 2 for Spanish or press 3 for Arabic. 
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on October 04, 2013, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: rgf on October 01, 2013, 05:26:08 PM
I think the biggest mistake made by Uncle Adolf was the delay in launching Barbarossa in order to clean up the mess in Greece and the Balkans. Not only did it divert front line troops that afterword needed rest and retrofit it cost him maybe 6 weeks of good weather in Russia. If things went as they did and the Germans had another 3 weeks or so of good weather in front of Moscow maybe all the Russkies would be speaking German as a 2nd language.

Good point, and one I've made many times myself. Onkel Adolf invested far too much time and resources into cleaning up Barney Fife's Mussolini's messes, like Greece and North Africa. June 22 was mighty late in the year to launch what could probably be described as the largest land-based military invasion of all time, into territory where the weather was known to kill people wholesale in the winter. (cf. Napoleon Bonaparte)
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Blauritter on October 05, 2013, 02:20:55 PM
Quote from: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 04:54:28 AM
Definitely Stalingrad. It's where Hitler lost his army. Had he won it D-Day might
have been impossible.

Hitler's officers wanted to go straight to Moscow and sit out the winter before
going to Stalingrad but Hitler wouldn't here of it. The German Army wasn't even
trained for house to house fighting. They liked being in the open.

You'd also have to list Pearl Harbor. While a tactical vicotry for the Japs, it was
perhaps the worse strategic move in history.
You can't prove anything you stated.
Few officers wanted to go on to Moscow and they were overruled by General Winter.

Stalingrad in 42 seemed like the logical thing to do. Not only to take the caucuses but to enter the middle east and hook up with Iran.

Rommel's failure to take Egypt helped to put stalingrad in a more favorable light.

Keep in mind that you can be as  logical as all get out and still fail  miserably.

The British strategy was to defeat the Wehrmacht  through  attrition ; cutting off all resources ,mainly petrol ,meant the panzers would be unable to roll and the luftwaffe would be grounded.
No way to win by standing still as many still believe was the case .
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Blauritter on October 05, 2013, 02:26:06 PM
Quote from: tbone0106 on June 25, 2012, 08:52:22 PM
The monumental stupidity of the whole thing has always befuddled me. Until June 1941, Hitler had achieved every goal he had set and won every battle save one -- the Battle of Britain. He had formed the Axis with Mussolini's Italy, reunited Germany and Austria, subdued Czechoslovakia (first the willing Sudetenland, then the rest), conquered and occupied most of Poland (giving Stalin the rest by secret compact), France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, on and on. England was not defeated, but hardly stood as a competent threat for invasion at the time, or even in the foreseeable future. And folks in the United States were still holding America Firster rallies.
The worst miscalculation for the USA was to get involved in the war in Europe to start with ,unless the deaths of tens of thousands of us servicemen mean so little.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on October 05, 2013, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: Blauritter on October 05, 2013, 02:26:06 PM
The worst miscalculation for the USA was to get involved in the war in Europe to start with ,unless the deaths of tens of thousands of us servicemen mean so little.

Japan made war on the US on December 7, 1941. Adolf Hitler, whose government was one of the parties to the Tripartite Pact, which bound Japan, Germany, and Italy together, declared war on the United States on December 10, 1941. Prior to that, Hitler had ordered his navy to sink US ships wherever and whenever found -- U-boats were slamming torpedoes into US flagged merchant vessels literally within sight of the East Coast.

Please explain what you mean by "miscalculation."
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Blauritter on October 05, 2013, 03:00:08 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 05, 2013, 02:53:28 PM
Japan made war on the US on December 7, 1941. Adolf Hitler, whose government was one of the parties to the Tripartite Pact, which bound Japan, Germany, and Italy together, declared war on the United States on December 10, 1941. Prior to that, Hitler had ordered his navy to sink US ships wherever and whenever found -- U-boats were slamming torpedoes into US flagged merchant vessels literally within sight of the East Coast.

Please explain what you mean by "miscalculation."
by miscalculation I mean involvement in a European conflict could've been averted.

The basic stuff found on wikepedia about the tripartite pact and pearl harbor and dec 10  and so on  ; rings a lot like the Gulf of  Tonkin resolution , the sinking of the Maine by the Spanish , and WMDS in IRAQ!!!

pure sophistry!! oh and I think it was FDR that order all german ships sunk even luxury liners ; right after LEND LEASE went into effect!
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Blauritter on October 05, 2013, 03:15:37 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 05, 2013, 02:53:28 PM
Japan made war on the US on December 7, 1941. Adolf Hitler, whose government was one of the parties to the Tripartite Pact, which bound Japan, Germany, and Italy together, declared war on the United States on December 10, 1941. Prior to that, Hitler had ordered his navy to sink US ships wherever and whenever found -- U-boats were slamming torpedoes into US flagged merchant vessels literally within sight of the East Coast.

Please explain what you mean by "miscalculation."
American involvement in war with Germany was preceded by a long series of steps, not one of which could reasonably be represented as conducive to the achievement of the President's professed ideal of keeping the United States out of foreign wars. The more important of these steps may be briefly listed as follows:

1.The exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland in September, 1940. This was a clear departure from the requirements of neutrality and was also a violation of some specific American laws. Indeed, a conference of top government lawyers at the time decided that the destroyer deal put this country into the war, legally and morally.
2.The enactment of the Lend-Lease Act in March, 1941. In complete contradiction of the wording and intent of the Neutrality Act, which remained on the statute books, this made the United States an unlimited partner in the economic war against the Axis Powers all over the world.
3.The secret American-British staff talks in Washington in January-March, 1941. Extraordinary care was taken to conceal not only the contents of these talks but the very fact that they were taking place from the knowledge of Congress. At the time when administration spokesmen were offering assurances that there were no warlike implications in the Lend-Lease Act, this staff conference used the revealing phrase, "when the United States becomes involved in war with Germany."
4.The inauguration of so-called naval patrols, the purpose of which was to report the presence of German submarines to British warships, in the Atlantic in April, 1941.
5.The dispatch of American laborers to Northern Ireland to build a naval base, obviously with the needs of an American expeditionary force in mind.
6.The occupation of Iceland by American troops in July, 1941. This was going rather far afield for a government which professed as its main concern the keeping of the United States out of foreign wars.
7.The Atlantic Conference of Roosevelt and Churchill, August 9-12, 1941. Besides committing America as a partner in a virtual declaration of war aims, this conference considered the presentation of an ultimatum to Japan and the occupation of the Cape Verde Islands, a Portuguese possession, by United States troops.
8.The orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines, formally announced on September 11. The beginning of actual hostilities may be dated from this time rather than from the German declaration of war, which followed Pearl Harbor.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on October 05, 2013, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: Blauritter on October 05, 2013, 03:15:37 PM
American involvement in war with Germany was preceded by a long series of steps, not one of which could reasonably be represented as conducive to the achievement of the President's professed ideal of keeping the United States out of foreign wars. The more important of these steps may be briefly listed as follows:
1.The exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland in September, 1940. This was a clear departure from the requirements of neutrality and was also a violation of some specific American laws. Indeed, a conference of top government lawyers at the time decided that the destroyer deal put this country into the war, legally and morally.
And with a war going on in Europe, the US wouldn't have any interest in advance Bases ON OUR SIDE OF THE OCEAN?
Quote2.The enactment of the Lend-Lease Act in March, 1941. In complete contradiction of the wording and intent of the Neutrality Act, which remained on the statute books, this made the United States an unlimited partner in the economic war against the Axis Powers all over the world.
I can understand how some neo Nazis might be irritated that the United States looked at the situation in Europe and decided it would be better for the US if the Nazis lost. The Axis powers had years of aggression to look back on. Why should the US assume they would just stop at Europe?
Quote3.The secret American-British staff talks in Washington in January-March, 1941. Extraordinary care was taken to conceal not only the contents of these talks but the very fact that they were taking place from the knowledge of Congress. At the time when administration spokesmen were offering assurances that there were no warlike implications in the Lend-Lease Act, this staff conference used the revealing phrase, "when the United States becomes involved in war with Germany."
That still doesn't change the fact that Hitler declared war on the US; in the end proving just as mindlessly aggressive as the US had feared. It should also be pointed out that there were ties between the US and Great Britain going back to the Monroe Doctrine.
Quote4.The inauguration of so-called naval patrols, the purpose of which was to report the presence of German submarines to British warships, in the Atlantic in April, 1941.
And Nazi Germany felt they had a right to have hostile armed warships off the coast of the United States because?
Quote5.The dispatch of American laborers to Northern Ireland to build a naval base, obviously with the needs of an American expeditionary force in mind.
So what? Those bases were manned by British ships and planes originally.Are you claiming that the US had no right to conduct commerce with Great Britain?
Quote6.The occupation of Iceland by American troops in July, 1941. This was going rather far afield for a government which professed as its main concern the keeping of the United States out of foreign wars.
Considering that Iceland was a Danish possession, and that Denmark had been attacked and occupied by Germany, it's obvious that the US might have a vested interest in not allowing the Germans to occupy a base so close to the US.
Quote7.The Atlantic Conference of Roosevelt and Churchill, August 9-12, 1941. Besides committing America as a partner in a virtual declaration of war aims, this conference considered the presentation of an ultimatum to Japan and the occupation of the Cape Verde Islands, a Portuguese possession, by United States troops.
It seems that you're laboring under the delusion that the US should take no steps, to prepare itself in case a war that had already been ongoing for two years already, drew us in.
Quote8.The orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines, formally announced on September 11. The beginning of actual hostilities may be dated from this time rather than from the German declaration of war, which followed Pearl Harbor.
Why don't we start the war from the moment U-652 fired on the USN Greer, which is the genesis of FDR's shot on sight order.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on October 06, 2013, 09:42:12 PM
Quote from: Blauritter on October 05, 2013, 03:15:37 PM
American involvement in war with Germany was preceded by a long series of steps, not one of which could reasonably be represented as conducive to the achievement of the President's professed ideal of keeping the United States out of foreign wars. The more important of these steps may be briefly listed as follows:

1.The exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland in September, 1940. This was a clear departure from the requirements of neutrality and was also a violation of some specific American laws. Indeed, a conference of top government lawyers at the time decided that the destroyer deal put this country into the war, legally and morally.
2.The enactment of the Lend-Lease Act in March, 1941. In complete contradiction of the wording and intent of the Neutrality Act, which remained on the statute books, this made the United States an unlimited partner in the economic war against the Axis Powers all over the world.
3.The secret American-British staff talks in Washington in January-March, 1941. Extraordinary care was taken to conceal not only the contents of these talks but the very fact that they were taking place from the knowledge of Congress. At the time when administration spokesmen were offering assurances that there were no warlike implications in the Lend-Lease Act, this staff conference used the revealing phrase, "when the United States becomes involved in war with Germany."
4.The inauguration of so-called naval patrols, the purpose of which was to report the presence of German submarines to British warships, in the Atlantic in April, 1941.
5.The dispatch of American laborers to Northern Ireland to build a naval base, obviously with the needs of an American expeditionary force in mind.
6.The occupation of Iceland by American troops in July, 1941. This was going rather far afield for a government which professed as its main concern the keeping of the United States out of foreign wars.
7.The Atlantic Conference of Roosevelt and Churchill, August 9-12, 1941. Besides committing America as a partner in a virtual declaration of war aims, this conference considered the presentation of an ultimatum to Japan and the occupation of the Cape Verde Islands, a Portuguese possession, by United States troops.
8.The orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines, formally announced on September 11. The beginning of actual hostilities may be dated from this time rather than from the German declaration of war, which followed Pearl Harbor.

Um, this is a copy/paste job. Would you be kind enough to credit your source? Thanks.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Blauritter on October 07, 2013, 02:24:07 PM
"That still doesn't change the fact that Hitler declared war on the US; in the end proving just as mindlessly aggressive as the US had feared. It should also be pointed out that there were ties between the US and Great Britain going back to the Monroe Doctrine."

War was in play long before any  declaration was made. Was Lend lease an act of neutrality?
Was Germany entitled to maybe have its own  MONROE DOCTRINE . or was that only a [perogative of American foreign policy allowing for the great westward expansion and the genocide of indigenous  tribes .? Selfrighteous is no way to read history.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: PatriotGuard on October 07, 2013, 02:27:32 PM
Most definitely Stalingrad. Hitlers Army was all but depleted.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kopema on October 07, 2013, 03:14:59 PM
Quote from: PatriotGuard on October 07, 2013, 02:27:32 PM
Most definitely Stalingrad. Hitlers Army was all but depleted.

A lot of historians think it was Hitler's order to change the plan and to split his forces that did in the German Army.  Originally the plan was to secure the Caucus oil fields and shore up its flanks before advancing.  But Hitler accelerated the campaign, and ordered the siege of Stalingrad take place at the same time. 

Even with the German forces split, Stalingrad's defenders were at one point down to a toehold.   If the Germans had hit in full force, the city would probably have been taken fairly quickly.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Blauritter on October 07, 2013, 03:44:21 PM
that's not entirely true. The impression was made by the OKW  that Stalingrad could be taken without heavy armour . The order by Hitler  to send panzers to take Moscow was a concession to OKW . It wasn't his idea. He didn't want to take Moscow ,it made little sense to try it.
If Leningrad was left untaken due to scarcity in manpower  ,why expend scarce personnel on  moscow. The soviets wouldn't have surrendered in any event.

It  had little strategic value ,even as a communication center ,since soviet forces were already in disarray. and had little cohesion from moscow or anywhere else.
get real!!
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on October 08, 2013, 07:29:31 AM
Quote from: Blauritter on October 07, 2013, 03:44:21 PM
that's not entirely true. The impression was made by the OKW  that Stalingrad could be taken without heavy armour . The order by Hitler  to send panzers to take Moscow was a concession to OKW . It wasn't his idea. He didn't want to take Moscow ,it made little sense to try it.
If Leningrad was left untaken due to scarcity in manpower  ,why expend scarce personnel on  moscow. The soviets wouldn't have surrendered in any event.

It  had little strategic value ,even as a communication center ,since soviet forces were already in disarray. and had little cohesion from moscow or anywhere else.
get real!!
Is it my imagination, or are you now making excuses for Hitler. The fact of the matter is that the Wehrmacht was a horse drawn army. You can see where that might present a problem in the vastness of Russia. If the Germans had mechanized their armies before they entered Russia they might have one. But this takes us back to the old saying: "Amateurs talk about strategy and tactics, professionals talk about logistics". Both in the First and Second World War, the Germans showed themselves to be amateurs.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kopema on October 08, 2013, 09:24:45 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on October 08, 2013, 07:29:31 AM
Is it my imagination, or are you now making excuses for Hitler. The fact of the matter is that the Wehrmacht was a horse drawn army. You can see where that might present a problem in the vastness of Russia. If the Germans had mechanized their armies before they entered Russia they might have one. But this takes us back to the old saying: "Amateurs talk about strategy and tactics, professionals talk about logistics". Both in the First and Second World War, the Germans showed themselves to be amateurs.

The GERMANS were (and are) extraordinarily proficient at strategy, tactics and logistics.  The Kaiser and Hitler were both hopelessly inept at all three of those things.  But their generals were very, very good at their jobs.

I once heard that up to 90 percent of German supplies were delivered by horse and wagon during WW2.  Germany had only a very few fully-mechanized divisions; however, when properly applied they were amazingly effective.  There is every reason to believe that Operation Barbarossa could have accomplished its objectives if Hitler hadn't overruled his generals.  In doing so, he made two major mistakes:

1)  He changed the Case Blue operational plan for southern Russia because it was going too smoothly; and

2)  He neglected a primary requirement of any siege:  to mass sufficient mobile forces to outflank the city and preclude re-enforcement and counterattack.

Like everything else Blaupunk has ever said, the notion that Hitler's supreme command talked him into this is not only historically inaccurate but also patently asinine.  There was a REASON Hitler's own generals tried to assassinate him, and it was most definitely not because he was too gosh-darned malleable to their suggestions.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Blauritter on October 08, 2013, 03:02:31 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on October 08, 2013, 07:29:31 AM
Is it my imagination, or are you now making excuses for Hitler. The fact of the matter is that the Wehrmacht was a horse drawn army. You can see where that might present a problem in the vastness of Russia. If the Germans had mechanized their armies before they entered Russia they might have one. But this takes us back to the old saying: "Amateurs talk about strategy and tactics, professionals talk about logistics". Both in the First and Second World War, the Germans showed themselves to be amateurs.

it's not your imagination ,it's your lack of knowledge about the war in the east.
You need to separate fact from contrived myth.   the wehrmacht could've been better prepared for the vastness of the russian steppes but in war you can't always predict the future.

They were far better mechanized than the soviets and  far better trained .

Germans  lacked  the manpower to continue as well as the petrol and other resources. Lend lease was also extended to soviets lest you forget, But nice try..

I'm not making excuses for anyone. Hitler played his cards in logical sequence but as any poker player will tell you you can play each card logically and you can still lose the hand. Hitler was a gambler.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on October 08, 2013, 06:02:43 PM
Quote from: Blauritter on October 05, 2013, 03:15:37 PM
American involvement in war with Germany was preceded by a long series of steps, not one of which could reasonably be represented as conducive to the achievement of the President's professed ideal of keeping the United States out of foreign wars. The more important of these steps may be briefly listed as follows:

1.The exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland in September, 1940. This was a clear departure from the requirements of neutrality and was also a violation of some specific American laws. Indeed, a conference of top government lawyers at the time decided that the destroyer deal put this country into the war, legally and morally.
2.The enactment of the Lend-Lease Act in March, 1941. In complete contradiction of the wording and intent of the Neutrality Act, which remained on the statute books, this made the United States an unlimited partner in the economic war against the Axis Powers all over the world.
3.The secret American-British staff talks in Washington in January-March, 1941. Extraordinary care was taken to conceal not only the contents of these talks but the very fact that they were taking place from the knowledge of Congress. At the time when administration spokesmen were offering assurances that there were no warlike implications in the Lend-Lease Act, this staff conference used the revealing phrase, "when the United States becomes involved in war with Germany."
4.The inauguration of so-called naval patrols, the purpose of which was to report the presence of German submarines to British warships, in the Atlantic in April, 1941.
5.The dispatch of American laborers to Northern Ireland to build a naval base, obviously with the needs of an American expeditionary force in mind.
6.The occupation of Iceland by American troops in July, 1941. This was going rather far afield for a government which professed as its main concern the keeping of the United States out of foreign wars.
7.The Atlantic Conference of Roosevelt and Churchill, August 9-12, 1941. Besides committing America as a partner in a virtual declaration of war aims, this conference considered the presentation of an ultimatum to Japan and the occupation of the Cape Verde Islands, a Portuguese possession, by United States troops.
8.The orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines, formally announced on September 11. The beginning of actual hostilities may be dated from this time rather than from the German declaration of war, which followed Pearl Harbor.

Please do us the kindness of quoting the source of this obvious copy/paste job. You'll note that this is the second time I've asked you to do so. Thanks.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: walkstall on October 08, 2013, 07:03:55 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 08, 2013, 06:02:43 PM
Please do us the kindness of quoting the source of this obvious copy/paste job. You'll note that this is the second time I've asked you to do so. Thanks.

It has to be a copy and paste job as the punctuations are in the right place. 

Solar gave him the (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cowboyclipart.net%2Fgraphics%2Fcowboygear%2Fbootsbwkicking.gif&hash=35b18d677b78399a433f7e9b1795f7c41666d9d8)
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Solar on October 08, 2013, 07:12:58 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 08, 2013, 06:02:43 PM
Please do us the kindness of quoting the source of this obvious copy/paste job. You'll note that this is the second time I've asked you to do so. Thanks.
Interesting note, google ranked us first under the original source. :cool:

https://www.google.com/#q=3.The+secret+American-British+staff+talks+in+Washington+in+January-March%2C+1941.+Extraordinary+care+was+taken+to+conceal+not+only+the+contents+of+these+talks+but+the+very+fact+that+they+were+taking+place+from+the+knowledge+of+Congress.+At+the+time+when+administration+spokesmen+were+offering+assurances+that+there+were+no+warlike+implications+in+the+Lend-Lease+Act%2C+this+staff+conference+used+the+revealing+phrase%2C+%22when+the+United+States+becomes+involved+in+war+with+Germany.%22+4.The+inauguration+of+so-called+naval+patrols%2C+the+purpose+of+which+was+to+report+the+presence+of+German+submarines+to+British+warships%2C+in+the+Atlantic+in+April%2C+1941.+ (https://www.google.com/#q=3.The+secret+American-British+staff+talks+in+Washington+in+January-March%2C+1941.+Extraordinary+care+was+taken+to+conceal+not+only+the+contents+of+these+talks+but+the+very+fact+that+they+were+taking+place+from+the+knowledge+of+Congress.+At+the+time+when+administration+spokesmen+were+offering+assurances+that+there+were+no+warlike+implications+in+the+Lend-Lease+Act%2C+this+staff+conference+used+the+revealing+phrase%2C+%22when+the+United+States+becomes+involved+in+war+with+Germany.%22+4.The+inauguration+of+so-called+naval+patrols%2C+the+purpose+of+which+was+to+report+the+presence+of+German+submarines+to+British+warships%2C+in+the+Atlantic+in+April%2C+1941.+)
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on October 09, 2013, 09:22:36 AM
Quote from: Blauritter on October 08, 2013, 03:02:31 PM
it's not your imagination ,it's your lack of knowledge about the war in the east.
You need to separate fact from contrived myth.   the wehrmacht could've been better prepared for the vastness of the russian steppes but in war you can't always predict the future.

They were far better mechanized than the soviets and  far better trained .

Germans  lacked  the manpower to continue as well as the petrol and other resources. Lend lease was also extended to soviets lest you forget, But nice try..

I'm not making excuses for anyone. Hitler played his cards in logical sequence but as any poker player will tell you you can play each card logically and you can still lose the hand. Hitler was a gambler.
The Germans made the worst of all possible military decisions. They assumed they were so much better, that their enemies would simply collapse before them. It didn't happen because UNLIKE WESTERN EUROPE AND POLAND the Red Army had hundreds of miles of territory to retreat into. Didn't they read anything about Napoleons campaign? The only reason the Wehrmacht had any success at all was the pre invasion disposition of the Red Army. They had moved forward to occupy territory they had just acquired, and had not even prepared many of their defensive positions. They were still in flux between their pre-war borders and their new borders in Poland, The Baltic States, Finland and Moldavia. The Soviets indeed weren't as well trained as the Wehrmacht, but they could replace their losses, the Wehrmacht couldn't. As for Lend Lease, the thing that the US gave to the Soviets that gave them the advantage, was the 21/2 ton truck. By 1943, Soviets were riding to battle, with their supplies following them in other trucks. The Wehrmacht was walking, hoping the horses pulling their supplies didn't die of the cold. Speaking of the cold, the Red Army wore clothing suitable for their environment; the Wehrmacht just froze. Jackboots and those helmets are great for goose stepping in parades, they suck in the cold of Russia. And the invasion might have worked better if the Wehrmacht hadn't made it plan to the Russian people that they were fighting for their lives.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on October 09, 2013, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on October 09, 2013, 09:22:36 AM
The Germans made the worst of all possible military decisions. They assumed they were so much better, that their enemies would simply collapse before them. It didn't happen because UNLIKE WESTERN EUROPE AND POLAND the Red Army had hundreds of miles of territory to retreat into. Didn't they read anything about Napoleons campaign? The only reason the Wehrmacht had any success at all was the pre invasion disposition of the Red Army. They had moved forward to occupy territory they had just acquired, and had not even prepared many of their defensive positions. They were still in flux between their pre-war borders and their new borders in Poland, The Baltic States, Finland and Moldavia. The Soviets indeed weren't as well trained as the Wehrmacht, but they could replace their losses, the Wehrmacht couldn't. As for Lend Lease, the thing that the US gave to the Soviets that gave them the advantage, was the 21/2 ton truck. By 1943, Soviets were riding to battle, with their supplies following them in other trucks. The Wehrmacht was walking, hoping the horses pulling their supplies didn't die of the cold. Speaking of the cold, the Red Army wore clothing suitable for their environment; the Wehrmacht just froze. Jackboots and those helmets are great for goose stepping in parades, they suck in the cold of Russia. And the invasion might have worked better if the Wehrmacht hadn't made it plan to the Russian people that they were fighting for their lives.

Well said, Giles, but I think a holistic view works better for this question. Simply stated, Hitler's Germany NEVER prepared itself for a long-range strategic war.

This fact is so apparent in so many things! As you pointed out, Germany was never fully mechanized, even in terms of transport. Walking or riding a horse across the Russian steppes might have been the fashion in Napoleon's day, but not, as you point, when your enemy was riding to the front lines in American deuce-and-a-half's. The Luftwaffe, rightly appreciated and devastatingly applied as an integral part of blitzkrieg, was a tactical force, meant for short-range, short-term campaigns. Almost every plane Germany turned out before and during the war was a close-support vehicle; one of Hitler's standing orders to the Luftwaffe was that EVERY new fighter or bomber had to be capable of dive-bombing. Bf109s escorting little twin-engine He111's to London from French airfields had less than 20 minutes over the target because of their tiny fuel tanks.

Germany's efforts at strategic destruction came with the V weapons, but far too little and far too late to make a difference. Their efforts at developing atomic weapons died in the womb. They beat everybody to the jet age, fielding the first operational jet fighter -- but the Me262 had been redesigned (and hampered) to be dive-bombing capable.

Perhaps Germany's best stab at strategic thinking was naval. Forget Bismarck and Tirpitz -- misbegotten wastes of money and time. But the U-boats! But even with them, the military failed to provide adequate support and protection, to the point where they were essentially useless and stuck in their pens, more vulnerable at sea than the prey they hunted.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on October 09, 2013, 01:32:55 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 09, 2013, 10:42:59 AM
Well said, Giles, but I think a holistic view works better for this question. Simply stated, Hitler's Germany NEVER prepared itself for a long-range strategic war.

This fact is so apparent in so many things! As you pointed out, Germany was never fully mechanized, even in terms of transport. Walking or riding a horse across the Russian steppes might have been the fashion in Napoleon's day, but not, as you point, when your enemy was riding to the front lines in American deuce-and-a-half's. The Luftwaffe, rightly appreciated and devastatingly applied as an integral part of blitzkrieg, was a tactical force, meant for short-range, short-term campaigns. Almost every plane Germany turned out before and during the war was a close-support vehicle; one of Hitler's standing orders to the Luftwaffe was that EVERY new fighter or bomber had to be capable of dive-bombing. Bf109s escorting little twin-engine He111's to London from French airfields had less than 20 minutes over the target because of their tiny fuel tanks.

Germany's efforts at strategic destruction came with the V weapons, but far too little and far too late to make a difference. Their efforts at developing atomic weapons died in the womb. They beat everybody to the jet age, fielding the first operational jet fighter -- but the Me262 had been redesigned (and hampered) to be dive-bombing capable.

Perhaps Germany's best stab at strategic thinking was naval. Forget Bismarck and Tirpitz -- misbegotten wastes of money and time. But the U-boats! But even with them, the military failed to provide adequate support and protection, to the point where they were essentially useless and stuck in their pens, more vulnerable at sea than the prey they hunted.
One of their worse decisions was not to go to a war economy, immediately upon entering the war. Instead Hitler decided to feed the fiction that all the wars campaign were going to be as short as those in Western Europe. In any case, I think part of the reason for Germany not mechanizing was their shortage of oil. Of course if he had put off the invasion of Russia, and finished off the English in the Middle East, the oil problem would taken care of itself. I can see why the allies came to see Hitler as their "best general".
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on October 09, 2013, 04:54:56 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on October 09, 2013, 01:32:55 PM
One of their worse decisions was not to go to a war economy, immediately upon entering the war. Instead Hitler decided to feed the fiction that all the wars campaign were going to be as short as those in Western Europe. In any case, I think part of the reason for Germany not mechanizing was their shortage of oil. Of course if he had put off the invasion of Russia, and finished off the English in the Middle East, the oil problem would taken care of itself. I can see why the allies came to see Hitler as their "best general".

I think Germany's oil shortage is overplayed. That being said, I don't see how not going to "a war economy" would have made much difference. If there were no oil to be had, a mountain of German money wouldn't have changed a thing.

In the end, what Hitler ran out of was not so much oil -- though the stuff was in short supply. He ran short of skilled personnel, especially pilots. Oil and the like can be taken by force, to immediate gain. Pilots and tank drivers and competent officers take years to develop, and there is no substitute for that time.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kopema on October 09, 2013, 05:16:06 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 09, 2013, 04:54:56 PM
I think Germany's oil shortage is overplayed. That being said, I don't see how not going to "a war economy" would have made much difference. If there were no oil to be had, a mountain of German money wouldn't have changed a thing.

In the end, what Hitler ran out of was not so much oil -- though the stuff was in short supply. He ran short of skilled personnel, especially pilots. Oil and the like can be taken by force, to immediate gain. Pilots and tank drivers and competent officers take years to develop, and there is no substitute for that time.

Germany started the war with more experienced soldiers than any other country -- because of their involvement in the Spanish Civil War.  And they had the most advanced equipment - simply because they built up from scratch and knew when the war would start.  By the end, Luftwaffe pilots were joking that the only way out was with either an Iron Cross -- or a wooden cross.  And the U-Boat seamen suffered a mortality rate second only to that of the Kamikazes.

Meanwhile, America was cycling Aces out to train new pilots.  And by the end of the war, when Japan couldn't make one new carrier, America was producing a top-of-the-line carrier every month - along with all the planes, trained sailors, support ships, and everything else the military could possibly need.

Tactical mistakes were made by everyone, and trying to second-guess incredibly difficult decisions seventy years later is really pointless.  But strategically speaking, the war was over the day America entered it.  That's the elephant in the living room.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on October 10, 2013, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 09, 2013, 04:54:56 PM
I think Germany's oil shortage is overplayed. That being said, I don't see how not going to "a war economy" would have made much difference. If there were no oil to be had, a mountain of German money wouldn't have changed a thing.

In the end, what Hitler ran out of was not so much oil -- though the stuff was in short supply. He ran short of skilled personnel, especially pilots. Oil and the like can be taken by force, to immediate gain. Pilots and tank drivers and competent officers take years to develop, and there is no substitute for that time.
Funny you should mention pilot training. Both the Nazis and the Japanese used the same system. You flew until you were shot out of the air. The Americans and British had you fly a certain number of missions, then you were rotated back to teach a new batch of pilots. That's why you see Japanese and Germans aces with those ridiculous numbers of victories. They had to shoot down a hundred enemy fighters to simply still be alive. In any case, the Americans and British had a large number of fairly well trained pilots. Whereas with the Nazis and Japanese, you were either fighting a super ace or - far more common - you were fighting complete novices.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on October 10, 2013, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on October 10, 2013, 04:29:58 PM
Funny you should mention pilot training. Both the Nazis and the Japanese used the same system. You flew until you were shot out of the air. The Americans and British had you fly a certain number of missions, then you were rotated back to teach a new batch of pilots. That's why you see Japanese and Germans aces with those ridiculous numbers of victories. They had to shoot down a hundred enemy fighters to simply still be alive. In any case, the Americans and British had a large number of fairly well trained pilots. Whereas with the Nazis and Japanese, you were either fighting a super ace or - far more common - you were fighting complete novices.

Good points, Giles. I would point out that one reason you see German aces "with those ridiculous numbers" was the fact that they mainly flew on the Eastern Front, where they went up against poorly trained Soviet airmen in generally inferior aircraft. One that comes to mind is Erich Hartmann, credited with 352 kills, most of which were racked up in a ridiculously short time on the Eastern Front. As that front moved in reverse back toward Germany, he engaged more and more Western pilots. But in his early career, he had it pretty easy poking Soviet novices in crappy planes out of the sky.

And, as you point out, German -- and Japanese -- airmen served from beginning to end. There was no "cycle" for them. Hartmann, as just one example, flew for nearly four year. His last confirmed kill took place on May 8, 1945, when the war in Europe was essentially over. He had been flying fighters since 1942.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Classic American Cars on November 03, 2013, 11:37:44 AM
I would agree that is the worst mistake on the Europe side of the war.  Overall, I would say the biggest mistake of World War 2 was bombing Pearl Harbor.  I don't think anything compares to that.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on November 08, 2013, 03:34:24 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on October 09, 2013, 01:32:55 PM
One of their worse decisions was not to go to a war economy, immediately upon entering the war. Instead Hitler decided to feed the fiction that all the wars campaign were going to be as short as those in Western Europe. In any case, I think part of the reason for Germany not mechanizing was their shortage of oil. Of course if he had put off the invasion of Russia, and finished off the English in the Middle East, the oil problem would taken care of itself. I can see why the allies came to see Hitler as their "best general".

Indeed Hitler was gambling that the Soviets would be crushed even easier than during world war 1 since the french and british was already crushed and to capture the caucasus oil fields with Operation Edelweiss.

Quote from: TboneAgain on October 09, 2013, 04:54:56 PM
I think Germany's oil shortage is overplayed. That being said, I don't see how not going to "a war economy" would have made much difference. If there were no oil to be had, a mountain of German money wouldn't have changed a thing.

The Germans had developed good process for creating synthetic fuel from coal (something South Africa would pretty much perfect when the west embargoed SA in order to get the communist into power). But that wasn't enough, Rommel did not have the fuel necessary to fight back the Americans effectively, it probably would not have a difference in the end but they did have oil supply shortages that made it impossible to defend efficiently.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Egg on December 13, 2013, 01:20:41 PM
Sorry if I'm repeating someone else here, but let's not forget how stupid Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was. 

The American people were very ambivalent, if not downright hostile, to fighting another World War, especially one which looked far away from the US.  Until Pear Harbor. Then it became personal.  In fact, even throughout the war, the American people had blood red hatred for the Japanese and far less hatred for Germany, and many resented FDR's "Germany first" strategy. 

It was America's industrial might (and millions of Russian lives thrown at the Wermacht by Stalin) that won the war.  After Pearl Harbor Hitler was compelled to immediately declare war on the US, but there's plenty of reason to believe he didn't really want to, knowing that American industrial capacity would wreck him.  Had the Japanese never attacked Americans or their holdings in the Pacific, or did so much later, it may have given Hitler a chance in Europe. 
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on December 16, 2013, 08:16:44 AM
Quote from: Egg on December 13, 2013, 01:20:41 PM
Sorry if I'm repeating someone else here, but let's not forget how stupid Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was. 

The American people were very ambivalent, if not downright hostile, to fighting another World War, especially one which looked far away from the US.  Until Pear Harbor. Then it became personal.  In fact, even throughout the war, the American people had blood red hatred for the Japanese and far less hatred for Germany, and many resented FDR's "Germany first" strategy. 

It was America's industrial might (and millions of Russian lives thrown at the Wermacht by Stalin) that won the war.  After Pearl Harbor Hitler was compelled to immediately declare war on the US, but there's plenty of reason to believe he didn't really want to, knowing that American industrial capacity would wreck him.  Had the Japanese never attacked Americans or their holdings in the Pacific, or did so much later, it may have given Hitler a chance in Europe.
The most amazingly stupid thing about the Japanese attack is that it was unnecessary. They could have bypassed the Philippines. America simply was not going to war to protect European colonial possessions.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Egg on December 16, 2013, 08:49:54 AM
You are completely correct about that.  And being an island, you'd think they would have put more energy into naval resources.  Their naval power was used in a primarily defense, rather that offensive, manner by '43. 
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on December 16, 2013, 02:17:28 PM
Quote from: Egg on December 16, 2013, 08:49:54 AM
You are completely correct about that.  And being an island, you'd think they would have put more energy into naval resources.  Their naval power was used in a primarily defense, rather that offensive, manner by '43.

In terms of proportion, it's probably accurate to say that Imperial Japan invested a larger fraction of its military budget into naval resources than any other combatant in WWII. But to compare the size of Japan's "resource pie" with that of, say, the U.S. is just silly. I think the Japanese rolled the dice in a very big way with the attack on Pearl Harbor, seeking not to keep the U.S. out of the war in the Pacific, but to delay meaningful U.S. action long enough for the IJN and the Army to establish a defensible perimeter that protected the resources the Japanese so desperately needed, especially oil and coal and rubber. Yamamoto is said to have estimated that he could run wild in the Pacific for six months if the Pearl Harbor operation succeeded. He was pretty close. Almost six months to the day after Pearl Harbor, an American task force fought a Japanese invasion force to a standstill at Coral Sea.

But a month after that, the Japanese came to Midway Island with an attack force that included four of the carriers that had participated in the Pearl Harbor attack. Two of those were Kaga and Akagi, the biggest and best aircraft carriers in the IJN at the time. All four Japanese carriers were lost. The IJN never recovered from Midway. Replacement fleet carriers with similar aircraft capacity didn't come into service until late 1944 -- and they were promptly sunk, for the most part, by a U.S. Navy that by that time had mastered the Pacific Ocean.

In short, the Japanese naval forces were primarily on the defensive by 1943 because they had lost their primary offensive weapons at Midway and could not replace them.

Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kopema on December 16, 2013, 07:44:12 PM
Quote from: Egg on December 13, 2013, 01:20:41 PM
Sorry if I'm repeating someone else here

When you say you're "sorry" WHILE your doing something, all that does is take away any excuse you could possibly have.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on December 17, 2013, 07:17:01 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on December 16, 2013, 02:17:28 PM
In terms of proportion, it's probably accurate to say that Imperial Japan invested a larger fraction of its military budget into naval resources than any other combatant in WWII. But to compare the size of Japan's "resource pie" with that of, say, the U.S. is just silly. I think the Japanese rolled the dice in a very big way with the attack on Pearl Harbor, seeking not to keep the U.S. out of the war in the Pacific, but to delay meaningful U.S. action long enough for the IJN and the Army to establish a defensible perimeter that protected the resources the Japanese so desperately needed, especially oil and coal and rubber. Yamamoto is said to have estimated that he could run wild in the Pacific for six months if the Pearl Harbor operation succeeded. He was pretty close. Almost six months to the day after Pearl Harbor, an American task force fought a Japanese invasion force to a standstill at Coral Sea.

But a month after that, the Japanese came to Midway Island with an attack force that included four of the carriers that had participated in the Pearl Harbor attack. Two of those were Kaga and Akagi, the biggest and best aircraft carriers in the IJN at the time. All four Japanese carriers were lost. The IJN never recovered from Midway. Replacement fleet carriers with similar aircraft capacity didn't come into service until late 1944 -- and they were promptly sunk, for the most part, by a U.S. Navy that by that time had mastered the Pacific Ocean.

In short, the Japanese naval forces were primarily on the defensive by 1943 because they had lost their primary offensive weapons at Midway and could not replace them.
What fascinates me is the total Japanese fixation on offensive warfare, to the exclusion of defensive operations that ANY island nation MUST have - like anti submarine warfare. This ties into another pet peeve I have about German submarine warfare. The UK was desperate for convoy escorts, to the point of buying old destroyers from the US. So why wasn't it a priority of German U-boats to sink the escort craft. It takes much longer to build and train the crew of an escort craft, than it does to build and train the crew of a freighter. I always see the attack on a convoy in two phrases. The first U-boat group was to attack and sink as many of the escorts as possible. The second phrase was for the rest of the wolfpack to attack the now defenseless convoy.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Egg on December 17, 2013, 08:35:29 AM
Quote from: kopema on December 16, 2013, 07:44:12 PM
When you say you're "sorry" WHILE your doing something, all that does is take away any excuse you could possibly have.

Well, I hadn't read through every single post on the thread and wanted to chime in.  Hope I haven't ruined your day. 
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kopema on December 17, 2013, 11:29:17 AM
Quote from: Egg on December 17, 2013, 08:35:29 AM
Well, I hadn't read through every single post on the thread and wanted to chime in.  Hope I haven't ruined your day.

I never ONCE said you weren't an asshole and a jerk.  You can try all you like, but you won't "ruin my day" by whining about how perfectly you agree with me.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Egg on December 17, 2013, 04:41:50 PM
Quote from: kopema on December 17, 2013, 11:29:17 AM
I never ONCE said you weren't an asshole and a jerk.  You can try all you like, but you won't "ruin my day" by whining about how perfectly you agree with me.

What in the world are you so angry about? 
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Mountainshield on December 18, 2013, 07:05:42 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on December 17, 2013, 07:17:01 AM
What fascinates me is the total Japanese fixation on offensive warfare, to the exclusion of defensive operations that ANY island nation MUST have - like anti submarine warfare. This ties into another pet peeve I have about German submarine warfare. The UK was desperate for convoy escorts, to the point of buying old destroyers from the US. So why wasn't it a priority of German U-boats to sink the escort craft. It takes much longer to build and train the crew of an escort craft, than it does to build and train the crew of a freighter. I always see the attack on a convoy in two phrases. The first U-boat group was to attack and sink as many of the escorts as possible. The second phrase was for the rest of the wolfpack to attack the now defenseless convoy.

One reason might have been that the "wolfpack" doctrine designed by Karl Dönitz was originally intended for a much larger submarine fleet, Dönitz believed he still had 5 more years before they would attack and even though he had done his best to gear up the submarine fleet in 1939 it was still wholly inadequate for the purpose it was designed for and Dönitz knew this, he was not in the inner circle in this time and was caught off guard when they started the blitzkrieg into Poland. It is reported that when Dönitz got the memo that they are now at war he sighted and said "lets try and make the best of it".
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Dan on January 07, 2014, 05:00:08 AM
The worst miscalculation of WW II was Hitler taking on Russia before England had been knocked out of the war. He overestimated the ability of his blitzkreig tactics. And once the Russian campaign started he vasilated back and forth between deep penetrations for strategic goals and envelopment strategies to take massive amounts of Russian POWs. Thereby, dithering away the warm months and leaving his troops in the middle of a Russian winter without the proper supplies.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kalash on June 07, 2014, 10:09:09 PM
Quote from: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 12:31:25 PM
Great point about the Russians hating Stalin. He killed almost as many of them as Hitler did
-
Where this info came from? Dr. Goebbels?
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: kalash on June 07, 2014, 10:27:26 PM
Quote from: kopema on October 07, 2013, 03:14:59 PM
Even with the German forces split, Stalingrad's defenders were at one point down to a toehold.   If the Germans had hit in full force, the city would probably have been taken fairly quickly.
If, if... They could not. The same time battle of Stalingrad was raging, up north was bloody fighting near city Rzhev, where soviet army tied down german group of armies  "Center" by constant attacking. The fighting there was almost as bloody as at Stalingrad
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on June 08, 2014, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: kalash on June 07, 2014, 10:27:26 PM
If, if... They could not. The same time battle of Stalingrad was raging, up north was bloody fighting near city Rzhev, where soviet army tied down german group of armies  "Center" by constant attacking. The fighting there was almost as bloody as at Stalingrad

Through the late 1930s and until early 1941, Hitler was certainly the most able active politician and strategist -- though certainly not the best tactician -- in Europe. The list of significant victories achieved by German arms under his direction is impressive during this period. Alsace-Lorraine, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, politicization and eventual conquest of the idiotic Danzig corridor, the Anschluss with Austria, occupation of the Sudetenland, treaties with Mussolini and Stalin to protect his eastern and southern fringes, repudiation of the Treaty of Versailles (perhaps not formally, but in deed and effect), participation in the Spanish Civil War (and the honing of his new war machine in the bargain), the brutal invasion of Poland and the nation's partition by agreement with Stalin, nearly-bloodless conquests in Norway and Holland, ejection of the BEF from the European mainland -- minus their weapons, the magnificent six-week campaign to subdue France and Belgium.

But on June 22, 1941, Adolf Hitler's death warrant was signed by his own hand, and along with him, Nazi Germany had to die.

Stalingrad was a completely avoidable operation conducted by the German 6th Army, which was actually on its way elsewhere (Caucasus, I think). It was a one-item subset of a very large set of shitty decisions made by the Fuhrer after 1940. Attacking and attempting to capture a distant city primarily because it's named for someone you don't like is not rational. Few of Hitler's consequential decisions after 1940 produced positive results for Germany's war.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: SVPete on June 08, 2014, 08:00:06 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on April 29, 2013, 12:44:32 AM
Oh, for sure, from the Japanese point of view, PH in the long run was stupid. But it was planned to give them the short time they thought they could use to consolidate their "Southeast Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Say that twice and go gargle.

Yamamoto knew, though the quote about "awakening a sleeping giant" is apocryphal. But he had a singular advantage over his peers -- he was educated in, and had vast experience of, the US. He understood the monumental differences between Japanese culture and society and the same things American. He also had a deep appreciation for the simple geographic SIZE of the United States, and an understanding of our natural and technological resources.

His own prediction was six months of free rein for the Japanese in the South Pacific. In fact, his prediction came true almost to the day -- that day being the Battle of Midway, just a day or two short of six months after PH. The loss of four precious aircraft carriers in the waters off that nearly worthless island gutted the Japanese Imperial Navy, and underlined the inability of Japan to produce replacements for them.

I think one paradox about Pearl Harbor that is seldom commented upon is the (to me) obvious fact that the Japs showed up with aircraft carriers (the same ones they lost six months later at Midway) and proved for all the world to see that the age of battleships was over. And they did so by sinking... battleships. There were three carriers attached to our Pacific Fleet at the time, and despite continuous, real-time intelligence provided by Japanese agents and sympathizers in Hawaii, the attack went in KNOWING that no carriers were in the harbor.

I know this is an old post, but I wanted to toss in some semi-quibbles and some extra info. The Pacific Fleet had three carriers (CVs): Lexington, Saratoga, and Enterprise. Sara was in San Diego for work, and the IJN may have known that. But Lex and Enterprise were in and out of PH. Had the attack been a day later, Enterprise would have been in PH; IJN planes attacking PH encountered and fought planes from Enterprise's home-bound air group.

The PH attack was a huge strategic mistake. In CVs, Saratoga was in San Diego, Yorktown and Ranger were in the Atlantic, and Hornet and Wasp were going to be joining the fleet soon. Re battleships (BBs), Arkansas, New York and Texas were in the Atlantic, deemed unsuitable for Pacific service, but if need came ... . The four BBs of the New Mexico class were in the Atlantic. The Colorado was in Bremerton for upgrade. The modern North Carolina was being worked up, and her sister Washington was not far behind. Of the four new South Dakota class BBs, SoDak and Indiana were going to be joining the fleet soon, with the remaining SoDaks and the Iowa class coming. After Hornet and Wasp were the Essex class CVs, and a number of CVLs, converted from Cleveland class light cruiser hulls. Even if Lex and Enterprise were sunk at PH and not salvageable, Japan was going to be buried!

Midway was a huge blunder for the Japanese.

Savo Island was a big, avoidable, disaster for the USN.

I don't know what adjective fits the Mark XIV submarine torpedo and its sibling destroyer and airborne torpedoes. Its magnetic exploder was utterly unreliable; its contact exploder was unreliable; its mechanism for maintaining the set depth was flawed and the things ran way deeper than set. Other than that ...
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on June 08, 2014, 08:34:14 PM
Quote from: SVPete on June 08, 2014, 08:00:06 PM
I know this is an old post, but I wanted to toss in some semi-quibbles and some extra info. The Pacific Fleet had three carriers (CVs): Lexington, Saratoga, and Enterprise. Sara was in San Diego for work, and the IJN may have known that. But Lex and Enterprise were in and out of PH. Had the attack been a day later, Enterprise would have been in PH; IJN planes attacking PH encountered and fought planes from Enterprise's home-bound air group.

The PH attack was a huge strategic mistake. In CVs, Saratoga was in San Diego, Yorktown and Ranger were in the Atlantic, and Hornet and Wasp were going to be joining the fleet soon. Re battleships (BBs), Arkansas, New York and Texas were in the Atlantic, deemed unsuitable for Pacific service, but if need came ... . The four BBs of the New Mexico class were in the Atlantic. The Colorado was in Bremerton for upgrade. The modern North Carolina was being worked up, and her sister Washington was not far behind. Of the four new South Dakota class BBs, SoDak and Indiana were going to be joining the fleet soon, with the remaining SoDaks and the Iowa class coming. After Hornet and Wasp were the Essex class CVs, and a number of CVLs, converted from Cleveland class light cruiser hulls. Even if Lex and Enterprise were sunk at PH and not salvageable, Japan was going to be buried!

Midway was a huge blunder for the Japanese.

Savo Island was a big, avoidable, disaster for the USN.

I don't know what adjective fits the Mark XIV submarine torpedo and its sibling destroyer and airborne torpedoes. Its magnetic exploder was utterly unreliable; its contact exploder was unreliable; its mechanism for maintaining the set depth was flawed and the things ran way deeper than set. Other than that ...

I'm not sure how I could agree with you more, but I don't see the parts where we disagree.

As I pointed out, Pearl Harbor was a self-destructive and somewhat contradictory demonstration by the Japanese that the age of the battleship was over, and that the age of the aircraft carrier had begun. Yes, PH was a strategic catastrophe, but it was a tactical victory. That was a point I was trying to make. Japan, like Germany, never advanced beyond tactical thinking. Devastating PH -- the US Pacific Fleet -- was what they wanted to do, and they did that fairly well. What they completely failed to do was establish the core of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," the crossroads of which would be, of course, Japan. The long-range strategic planning and execution never got done.

Pearl Harbor losses and torpedo problems aside, Japan was doomed from the start in any sort of protracted war that involved the US. Sure, they managed to gain control of a lot of China and pushed the weak and over-spread British and Dutch out of their distant colonies, but kicking America in the shins was a guarantee for an ass-whippin'. It was just a matter of time.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: SVPete on June 09, 2014, 05:58:37 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on December 16, 2013, 08:16:44 AM
The most amazingly stupid thing about the Japanese attack is that it was unnecessary. They could have bypassed the Philippines. America simply was not going to war to protect European colonial possessions.

Because of the relatively narrow straight between the Philippines and Formosa (i.e. Taiwan), Japan feared blockade at that choke point. Between the Asiatic Fleet (then composed of cruisers, destroyers and submarines, all suitable for blockade) based in Manila Bay and the embargo over the Japanese invasion of China, that fear was far from unrealistic.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: SVPete on June 09, 2014, 06:16:21 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on December 16, 2013, 02:17:28 PM
In terms of proportion, it's probably accurate to say that Imperial Japan invested a larger fraction of its military budget into naval resources than any other combatant in WWII. But to compare the size of Japan's "resource pie" with that of, say, the U.S. is just silly. I think the Japanese rolled the dice in a very big way with the attack on Pearl Harbor, seeking not to keep the U.S. out of the war in the Pacific, but to delay meaningful U.S. action long enough for the IJN and the Army to establish a defensible perimeter that protected the resources the Japanese so desperately needed, especially oil and coal and rubber. Yamamoto is said to have estimated that he could run wild in the Pacific for six months if the Pearl Harbor operation succeeded. He was pretty close. Almost six months to the day after Pearl Harbor, an American task force fought a Japanese invasion force to a standstill at Coral Sea.

But a month after that, the Japanese came to Midway Island with an attack force that included four of the carriers that had participated in the Pearl Harbor attack. Two of those were Kaga and Akagi, the biggest and best aircraft carriers in the IJN at the time. All four Japanese carriers were lost. The IJN never recovered from Midway. Replacement fleet carriers with similar aircraft capacity didn't come into service until late 1944 -- and they were promptly sunk, for the most part, by a U.S. Navy that by that time had mastered the Pacific Ocean.

In short, the Japanese naval forces were primarily on the defensive by 1943 because they had lost their primary offensive weapons at Midway and could not replace them.

Like Lexington and Saratoga, Kaga and Akagi were not purpose-designed carriers. Lex, Sara, and Akagi started construction to be battlecruisers, and Kaga was going to be a battleship. These conversions were due to naval treaties that limited nations' battleship and battlecruiser fleets and stopped new construction. Lex, Sara and Akagi were fast, due to their battlecruiser heritage, but Lex and Sara, at least, were somewhat lacking in maneuverability (I don't know if that was true of Akagi); due to its battleship heritage, Kaga was not as fast as Akagi and other IJN fleet carriers. Shokaku, Zuikaku (neither present at Midway), Hiryu, and Soryu were designed as carriers; likewise the Yorktown class Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet. The purpose-designed ships were better-balanced and more resilient (Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu were doomed by having large quantities of ordnance and fully fueled planes on deck and out of magazines when the dive bombers from Enterprise and Yorktown hit them, but Shokaku and Zuikaku fought long and hard).

Losing Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu at Midway was huge; losing their air groups - pilots, 2nd-seaters, and deck personnel - may have been an even bigger loss. Japan was unable to replace the ships (I think Japan built two large carriers during the war, plus converting several merchant ships to light carriers) or the personnel.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: SVPete on June 09, 2014, 06:34:09 AM
CombinedFleet has an exxcellent article (http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm) about how Japan's defeat was all but foredoomed.

Admirals in the IJN and USN had a tendency toward heavy metal tunnel vision. They were, metaphorically at the least, raised on the surface battles of Tsushima Straight and Jutland. The USN learned the lesson of PH a little better than did the IJN; maybe having fewer BBs available for use forced developing/learning air-oriented strategy and tactics. IMO, the greater loss at PH was the ~2400 trained men who were killed; the 191Xs- and 192Xs-vintage BBs were not able to sail with the CVs (too slow), which limited their usefulness.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: mdgiles on June 16, 2014, 11:57:59 AM
Quote from: SVPete on June 09, 2014, 05:58:37 AM
Because of the relatively narrow straight between the Philippines and Formosa (i.e. Taiwan), Japan feared blockade at that choke point. Between the Asiatic Fleet (then composed of cruisers, destroyers and submarines, all suitable for blockade) based in Manila Bay and the embargo over the Japanese invasion of China, that fear was far from unrealistic.
IF the US went to war, and that's an awful large if. If the US wasn't going to war over Europe, why would they go to war over little brown Filipinos. You don't take into account the level of racism in the US at that time. The only reason the US cared about China, was political pressure from missionaries and their churches. If the Japanese hadn't attacked PH and had left the Philippines alone, the US would most likely have stayed out. Consider this. Nazi Germany had all the stolen wealth of Europe to pay for war supplies; how could Great Britain have kept the US from delivering those supplies - without going to war with the US. And once factories started up producing and hiring, the political pressure to cut Great Britain lose would have been tremendous.
Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: Goose on June 19, 2014, 02:28:43 PM
How about Germany's failure to press the offensive in Britain.  What do you think the possible ramifications of German occupation of England would have been to the tactical and strategic prosecution of the war?

The US could have still entered the European theater from Africa through Italy, but without England D-Day could not have happened.  All the forces that were tied down for so many years guarding against the threat of an invasion into France could have been deployed to block forces in Italy and prosecute the war in Russia, possibly with greater effect.

I think that coupled with the invasion of Russia at the very least, ended the war 5 or more years earlier than it might have.  The only way it may have ended earlier would have been capitulation and German ownership of Europe and North Africa at least.

Title: Re: The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II
Post by: TboneAgain on June 19, 2014, 05:17:11 PM
Quote from: Goose on June 19, 2014, 02:28:43 PM
How about Germany's failure to press the offensive in Britain.  What do you think the possible ramifications of German occupation of England would have been to the tactical and strategic prosecution of the war?

The US could have still entered the European theater from Africa through Italy, but without England D-Day could not have happened.  All the forces that were tied down for so many years guarding against the threat of an invasion into France could have been deployed to block forces in Italy and prosecute the war in Russia, possibly with greater effect.

I think that coupled with the invasion of Russia at the very least, ended the war 5 or more years earlier than it might have.  The only way it may have ended earlier would have been capitulation and German ownership of Europe and North Africa at least.

I'm not sure how you're defining "failing to press the offensive in Britain." The only offensive there ever was was the Luftwaffe bombings, plus the more generic submarine warfare in the Atlantic. Goering and his Luftwaffe "pressed" that pretty hard, but came up short.

The Germans started well, using their 100% tactical air force to achieve tactical goals -- eliminate the radar stations, shoot down lots of defenders, and bomb hell out of the airfields. But then orders came down from on high that a shift to bombing cities must be made, the "Blitz" began, and the whole thing unraveled. The Luftwaffe failed to achieve strategic goals because it had no strategic bombers and no strategic mindset. I am in no way trying to minimize the suffering that took place during the Blitz in London and surrounding areas, but compared to the REAL strategic bombing that took place later, when American and British fleets of 1,000+ heavy bombers blanketed German targets with tens of thousands of bombs in a single raid, the German raids on London were pinpricks.

The entire German war machine was built around the principles of blitzkrieg -- lightning war. (One ridiculous example of this mindset is the edict from Hitler that EVERY plane fielded by the Luftwaffe -- even the world-beating Me-262 jet fighter -- had to be capable of dive-bombing.) England was simply too remote and too well protected for blitzkrieg to succeed. Operation SeaLion, the German plan to invade England, depended as a precondition on mastery of the air, and the tactically masterful Luftwaffe could never accomplish that strategic goal. When the German losses during the Battle of Britain reached the point of nearly no return, Hitler had no choice but to cancel the whole thing and depend on his hold on Western and Northern Europe to keep the British at bay. That idea actually worked for more than three years, long enough for his forces to meet rolling defeat on his eastern and southern fronts.

To say that "without England D-Day could not have happened" is just silly. D-Day came about because it obviously COULD happen. Had such a scheme been an impossibility, for example because of the absence of England as a base, something else would have happened. D-Day itself, as it came to be, was not an inevitability or a requirement for victory. It was a thing that was done under the circumstances at the time. Had England been conquered, no doubt we'd be celebrating some other event, no less magnificent.