Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is the most overlooked, undervalued, underestimated aspect of WWII?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Nobody likes there myths challenged :-).

    Russia defeated Hitler and it is likely if Hitler had not been obsessed with invading the East Britain may have fallen. The question however is if Russia alone could have defeated Hitler.

    There was never however a scenario in which Russia was not going to be invaded. Win or lose Germany was going to be depleted by invading Russia and Hitler's dream of the vast resources were not going to offset the losses because Russia had always deployed a scorched earth retreat when invaded.

    So we can establish that there is no realistic scenario in which Britain is invaded. There is also no realistic scenario in which Germany is not going to break itself in the East. There is also no realistic scenario in which the U.S. had to fight a defense war in the Pacific.

    That leaves us with only one semi realistic scenario and that is Germany defeating Russia. The only way that was going to happen is if there was never born or elected a man named Winston Churchill. If Britain had made a peace agreement with Hitler the massive amount of additional forces freed up would make a 1944 defeat of Russia possible.

    The only way the Axis are then defeated is by turning Europe radioactive. It is a long shot for sure because if Britain capitulated most of the remaining free nations may have followed suit. It is also unlikely that the U.S. could have built enough nuclear weapons before Germany had their own. However unlikely this scenario is it is still more likely than Russia winning on it's own.

    I would argue that the war played out pretty much the way Yatomoto predicted. To some extent the alternative histories are always fantasy. The piece of history most underrated is the defeat of the Japanese at Khalkhin Gol.

    If the Russians would have had to fight on two fronts they very well may have lost. So while the instrumental rule Russia played in defeating Hitler should go unchallenged some of the key elements are often omitted from the history books
    You have probably won some of kind of prize there. Something like "How to put as much historical errors by line of text".

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
      The question however is if Russia alone could have defeated Hitler.
      Of course it could. As well as Great Britain alone or USA alone. But the matter lies in the inevitability of anti-Axis alliance.
      "Keep Calm. Use Less X's"

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
        The soviets made the human sacrifice to defeat Germany but the idea that they won the war is just socialist fantasy. A simplistic fantasy at that. If Stalin had not made a pack with Hitler and had prepared for an invasion the war could have been shortened and millions of lives saved.
        Your posts about it are politics/nationalistic bias/made up on the spot rhetoric, not military history.
        Zhitomir-Berdichev, West of Kiev: 24 Dec 1943-31 Jan 1944
        Stalin's Favorite: The Combat History of the 2nd Guards Tank Army
        Barbarossa Derailed I & II
        Battle of Kalinin October 1941

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
          Nobody likes there myths challenged :-).

          Russia defeated Hitler and it is likely if Hitler had not been obsessed with invading the East Britain may have fallen. The question however is if Russia alone could have defeated Hitler.

          There was never however a scenario in which Russia was not going to be invaded. Win or lose Germany was going to be depleted by invading Russia and Hitler's dream of the vast resources were not going to offset the losses because Russia had always deployed a scorched earth retreat when invaded.

          So we can establish that there is no realistic scenario in which Britain is invaded. There is also no realistic scenario in which Germany is not going to break itself in the East. There is also no realistic scenario in which the U.S. had to fight a defense war in the Pacific.

          That leaves us with only one semi realistic scenario and that is Germany defeating Russia. The only way that was going to happen is if there was never born or elected a man named Winston Churchill. If Britain had made a peace agreement with Hitler the massive amount of additional forces freed up would make a 1944 defeat of Russia possible.

          The only way the Axis are then defeated is by turning Europe radioactive. It is a long shot for sure because if Britain capitulated most of the remaining free nations may have followed suit. It is also unlikely that the U.S. could have built enough nuclear weapons before Germany had their own. However unlikely this scenario is it is still more likely than Russia winning on it's own.

          I would argue that the war played out pretty much the way Yatomoto predicted. To some extent the alternative histories are always fantasy. The piece of history most underrated is the defeat of the Japanese at Khalkhin Gol.

          If the Russians would have had to fight on two fronts they very well may have lost. So while the instrumental rule Russia played in defeating Hitler should go unchallenged some of the key elements are often omitted from the history books
          This is not correct : Russia could have defeated Germany on its own , as could do US and UK without the help of the SU .

          It is also not correct to claim that the only way to defeat Germany that had defeated the SU, was the massive use of nuclear weapons: ONE nuclear bomb would suffice, and maybe it would not be necessary to use a nuclear weapon ;

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Metryll View Post
            You have probably won some of kind of prize there. Something like "How to put as much historical errors by line of text".
            I'm thinking he wins the prize for most grossly innaccurate post of 2017. However the jury is out on which one of his two posts in this thread is the winner.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
              1. The failure of Britain, and especially France to immediately attack Germany after Hitler seized Poland. What is the sense of declaring war and then sitting around for months and months so you could organize properly and bring all your forces to bear in a set piece attack leaving nothing to chance. Two thirds of Germany's forces were deployed in Poland after the fall of Poland. This was the time for action by the French and British.

              2. The Soviet Red Army's will to persevere no matter what happened 22 June 1941-November 1941. They were a determined bunch totally underestimated by Hitler and his General Staff and their intelligence department.

              3. United States listening to Churchill's "soft underbelly" theory of defeating Germany in Africa and by creeping up Italy at a snails pace instead of an invasion in NW Europe 1 year earlier.

              Regards,Kurt

              1. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The French and British were in no position to 'attack' Germany and even if they had been, at that point with appeasement and negotiation still an option, albeit a tenuous one, politically and logistically it would have escalated hostilities, and not subdued Germany or even sent a shot across their bows, let alone defeated them.

              On a forum in 2017 it all sounds so easy to say the British and French 'should have', but in 1939 given the economic and political climate, and the internal social and political concerns of all the major players - an Anglo/French attack on a Germany invading Poland could never have happened. Easy for the 2017 revisionist to say 'they should have done it', but other than that, a moot point.

              2. I don't understand at all what point you are are making here. What I will say though is to call the Soviet Army in WW2 a 'determined bunch' has to be the understatement of the 20th and 21st centuries.

              3. Again I'm bemused. Churchill who was Hitler's greatest opponent, at that time, got it wrong (according to you) by telling the Americans the way to defeat the Nazis was to attack from the south. And those stupid Americans believed him despite obviously having their own access to intelligence, their own generals, their own military strategists. And instead they should have attacked via North West France a year earlier and it would all have been hunky dory. So they all got it wrong, and you, in 2017 know better?

              I just love it when someone in a few trite sentences on a forum tells us that all those who were actually there in 1939-1945, facing Hitler and the Nazi war machine, measuring and calculating the Allies' intelligence and resources, trying to feed and keep their own people safe, and attempting to ensure their fighting forces were most successful and effective in all arenas ... were in fact wrong.
              "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
              - Mad Jack Churchill.

              Comment


              • #52
                Female emancipation. Once again, women could prove to be equal to men in all things.
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                  Female emancipation. Once again, women could prove to be equal to men in all things.
                  Well they couldn't be equal to men in all things because of pure physical make up and muscular strength .. but what the war did do was allow some to do the jobs previously done by men and do them superbly.

                  From women making munitions in factories, to women in the resistance to women working in military intelligence to women working in the fire service, mechanics, engineers, tank drivers, ship builders, air raid wardens, plumbers, ambulance drivers and nurses, WRVS and my absolute heroes ...

                  The Women's Air Auxiliary ....





                  "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
                  - Mad Jack Churchill.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
                    Well they couldn't be equal to men in all things because of pure physical make up and muscular strength .. but what the war did do was allow some to do the jobs previously done by men and do them superbly.
                    You don't live where I do . The women here tend to be strong.

                    While traditional in many respects, the women in 'my' village would be able to carry the kit to take out a Tiger tank at least as well as any bloke. Some might be able to haul a 17pdr despite a 2+ ton weight.
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      You don't live where I do . The women here tend to be strong.

                      While traditional in many respects, the women in 'my' village would be able to carry the kit to take out a Tiger tank at least as well as any bloke. Some might be able to haul a 17pdr despite a 2+ ton weight.

                      I'm Welsh born and bred from further west than from where you are, and come from a long line of strong women. My great grandmother ran a sizeable smallholding on her own with sheep, goats, chickens and market garden until she was 90 and a neighbour of hers in the small hamlet where she lived in rural Pembrokeshire ran a similar smallholding until she was 98. No mains water, no electricity, no cars or motor vehicles .... and I am talking into the 1960s.

                      My mother's aunt Edna had 14 children, the last one when she was 48 - so I know plenty about 'strong' women. I am one myself.

                      But I'm also not so delusional or romantic to kid myself that the strongest woman is as strong as a man physically. If that were the case then women would have ruled the world, gone into battle and reigned supreme through the centuries.

                      Physically, through hormonal, muscular and glandular construction - men are physically stronger in terms of endurance and strength. Dress it up how you like about 'where you live' but it's an indisputable fact.
                      "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
                      - Mad Jack Churchill.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        The portable food ration. For the first time, most militaries were providing troops in the field some sort of standardized, portable, food ration that they could carry with them wherever they went. It was a big improvement on the often improvised or very marginal portable foods available in previous wars.
                        Canned foods have been available since the 19th century. Variety of foods only limited by commercial popularity.
                        The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
                          Well they couldn't be equal to men in all things because of pure physical make up and muscular strength .. but what the war did do was allow some to do the jobs previously done by men and do them superbly.

                          From women making munitions in factories, to women in the resistance to women working in military intelligence to women working in the fire service, mechanics, engineers, tank drivers, ship builders, air raid wardens, plumbers, ambulance drivers and nurses, WRVS and my absolute heroes ...

                          The Women's Air Auxiliary ....





                          Not sure about the ATA or WAA extension of it. I thought many of the ladies already held pilot licences before joining, but please educate me if I am wrong on this matter.
                          The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by dutched View Post
                            Not sure about the ATA or WAA extension of it. I thought many of the ladies already held pilot licences before joining, but please educate me if I am wrong on this matter.
                            I don't need to 'educate' you.

                            There's a whole internet out there. You just type your question into a search engine and thousands of links will emerge.

                            Yes 'many of the ladies' did have pilots' licenses pre-war, and some didn't, but that doesn't detract from any of their accomplishments, least alone their wartime role.

                            They flew all the 'cutting edge' craft of the day from Spits to Lancasters and all variations in between. They also flew them alone and without radio or radar communication.

                            Their role was vital and courageous and in terms of 'women's lib', unprecedented. Like the Battle of Britain pilots who saved my country - those women are my WW2 heroes and the accolade is richly deserved.

                            "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
                            - Mad Jack Churchill.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
                              Their role was vital and courageous and in terms of 'women's lib', unprecedented. Like the Battle of Britain pilots who saved my country - those women are my WW2 heroes and the accolade is richly deserved.

                              Well said that man...



                              The long toll of the brave
                              Is not lost in darkness
                              Over the fruitful earth
                              And athwart the seas
                              Hath passed the light of noble deeds
                              Unquenchable forever.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                The Soviets had female COMBAT pilots

                                Not to take anything away from the great courage and daring of Western female pilots who served so bravely ...but...the Soviets had female COMBAT pilots.

                                The really are unsung. At least in the West.

                                Imagine if there had been a Briton or an American female combat pilot? Just one.

                                WE WOULD NEVER HEAR THE END OF IT!
                                Books, movies (Paltrow?, Streep?, Winslet?, Blanchett?, Foster?, Portman?, Knightley?), TV mini-series, documentaries, the works.

                                But then sometimes... when its not one of our guys or gals its kinda not the same is it?
                                Or am I being too unfair?

                                As I nearly always stress with my thread-starters: it's about PERSPECTIVE. Or at least it should be.
                                Always was with my tutes back in the day and will be again if I ever get back in the ring (and they can be a real contest if they're run properly)

                                Good discussion. Hope my above observations don't dry it up.

                                Regards
                                lodestar

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X