Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by dmf01 View Post
    Wasn't it shown in Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" that Germany was bankrupt already in 1940?
    Bankrupt is a legal or accounting term that doesn't correlate well with war time economies. From an accounting standpoint Germany was bankrupt in 1940, yet fought a massive war of attrition for 4+ years beyond that point and was stopped by occupation. If not occupied it would appear that this bankrupt nation would have fought on. Finance was not the main reason of Axis defeat in Europe, it was military manpower attrition and resource shortages.
    "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
    -Omar Bradley
    "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
    -Anonymous US Army logistician

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
      I stand by my evaluation that Russia could not have won on their own.

      The nationalistic argument is the same nonsense as calling anyone you disagree with a racist etc.

      Then the thread moves on to virtue signaling by recounting the contribution of females. Like most things today discourse seems to follow a script. Just as our music and entertainment industries rely on formulas not creativity so does most conversation. Where in the past propaganda and patriotism made the history books sound as through Britain and the U.S. defeated Germany on their own it is now fashionable to say Russia won the war. Both positions are equally simplistic.

      Unless you believe that Russia had already won the war in 1941 I don't see how you could be convinced that the Germans were never close to over running the Soviets.
      If the war between the Soviet Union and Germany was fought without either nation suffering from external threats then Germany is the winner by a considerable margin.

      The conditions are a bit far fetched. No Lend Lease to Russia, no strategic bombing campaign and no the threat of invasion for Germany. Basically 100% of the warmaking potential of each nation focused on the other.

      Simply removing the bombing campaign allows Germany to field 1000s of AA tubes as anti-tank guns against Russia. Another example is with no lend lease trucks Russia either has to do without some tanks or suffer reduced logistics and troop movement.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Jazsa View Post
        If the war between the Soviet Union and Germany was fought without either nation suffering from external threats then Germany is the winner by a considerable margin.

        The conditions are a bit far fetched. No Lend Lease to Russia, no strategic bombing campaign and no the threat of invasion for Germany. Basically 100% of the warmaking potential of each nation focused on the other.

        Simply removing the bombing campaign allows Germany to field 1000s of AA tubes as anti-tank guns against Russia. Another example is with no lend lease trucks Russia either has to do without some tanks or suffer reduced logistics and troop movement.
        Remove the external threat of Japan and you'll get an extra 1.2 million soliders and several thousand tanks positioned in the Far East throughout the entire war. Gotta love these "calculations" from someone who counts all the beans on the German side and knows jack shyte about the major facts related to the Soviet side. Unfortunately, it's way too common on historical forums.
        www.histours.ru

        Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by ShAA View Post
          Remove the external threat of Japan and you'll get an extra 1.2 million soliders and several thousand tanks positioned in the Far East throughout the entire war. Gotta love these "calculations" from someone who counts all the beans on the German side and knows jack shyte about the major facts related to the Soviet side. Unfortunately, it's way too common on historical forums.
          Some Germans are much the same. They only think about WWII as being a European war forgetting the vastness of the Pacific/Far East Theater. and forces involved.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by ShAA View Post
            Remove the external threat of Japan and you'll get an extra 1.2 million soliders and several thousand tanks positioned in the Far East throughout the entire war. Gotta love these "calculations" from someone who counts all the beans on the German side and knows jack shyte about the major facts related to the Soviet side. Unfortunately, it's way too common on historical forums.
            Is this accurate for the Soviet Far East June 1941? http://www.niehorster.org/012_ussr/4...ast-front.html

            I don't think this include the Trans-Baikal forces.
            "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
            -Omar Bradley
            "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
            -Anonymous US Army logistician

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
              Surely the one salient aspect of World War II that nowadays is overlooked the outcome.
              Right DiD triumph.The forces of totalitarianism WERE defeated.The evils of Concentration Camp and mass murder WERE averted. History by-and-large DID move into Churchill's "broad,sunlit uplands".
              One can,of course,argue that we've seen troubles aplenty since and the fruits of victory have been largely squandered,but imagine the world now if the Axis had triumphed.
              maybe for the time being,...but WW2 caused the greatest upheaval/turmoil afterwards ..many civil wars...evils not averted
              still 'mad'/evil men after WW2--Pol Pot, Amin, etc
              we still had many genocides/massacres/wars/etc long after WW2
              ..there will always be evil in the world
              ....hitler/etc were defeated--but some of the victors were not ''nice''/right people
              ....aspects over looked?
              --some 'victors'/groups on winning side/ were 'bad' people
              --the world had it's greatest turmoil after the war

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Moulin View Post
                maybe for the time being,...but WW2 caused the greatest upheaval/turmoil afterwards ..many civil wars...evils not averted
                still 'mad'/evil men after WW2--Pol Pot, Amin, etc
                we still had many genocides/massacres/wars/etc long after WW2
                ..there will always be evil in the world
                ....hitler/etc were defeated--but some of the victors were not ''nice''/right people
                ....aspects over looked?
                --some 'victors'/groups on winning side/ were 'bad' people
                --the world had it's greatest turmoil after the war
                Agreed, most of the "right" and moral principles that the US/UK fought for were more or less ignored in the immediate post war re-drawing of national boundaries and subsequent ethnic cleansing with its very high and unnecessary mortality rate. The Germans experienced the complete opposite of living space in the East post war. It may have been an eye for an eye, but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical of Western leaders to have agreed to it.
                "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
                -Omar Bradley
                "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
                -Anonymous US Army logistician

                Comment


                • #98
                  It may have been an eye for an eye, but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical of Western leaders to have agreed to it.
                  It ws a combination of:
                  - Screw you; 2 devastating wars in 20 years and you expect any sympathy?
                  - Continuation of pos-1918 policy for trying to arrange statehood to smaller groups
                  but..
                  - Impotence to enforce this in the case of Russian occupation

                  Myopic, flawed, and sometimes cynical yes, but not sure it was inherently hypocritical. After all, the UK and France went to war primarily to stop Germany upsetting the balance of power which also meant guaranteeing security of neighbouring states. The 2 are not necessarily contradictory, even if they were not realised.

                  The withdrawal from Empire is a different kettle of fish, however, suffering from the contemporary view that what was unacceptable in Europe did not count in Africa and Asia.
                  History is not tragedy; to understand historical reality, it is sometimes better to not know the end of the story.

                  Pierre Vidal-Naquet

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Jazsa View Post
                    If the war between the Soviet Union and Germany was fought without either nation suffering from external threats then Germany is the winner by a considerable margin. .
                    A physical impossibility given the existence of Poland between the two.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dmf01 View Post
                      Wasn't it shown in Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" that Germany was bankrupt already in 1940?
                      No. What Tooze demonstrated was the Germany was short of foriegn currency reserves with which to pay for imported raw materials. ie the Americans wanted to be paid in US dollars, the English in Pounds, the French in Francs etc Of course gold was accepted by all. To get foriegn currency, you had to sell something overseas to someone who would pay you in the desired currency. That was problematic as Germany's products were relatively expensive.

                      This is very very different from bankruptcy.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Javaman View Post
                        Agreed, most of the "right" and moral principles that the US/UK fought for were more or less ignored in the immediate post war re-drawing of national boundaries and subsequent ethnic cleansing with its very high and unnecessary mortality rate. The Germans experienced the complete opposite of living space in the East post war. It may have been an eye for an eye, but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical of Western leaders to have agreed to it.
                        ....one example was the US backing and paying for France's colonialism right after the war--which started the Vietnam ''fiasco'' that cost millions of lives
                        ....the US should've known the ''right'' thing to do was for France to get out of there ASAP

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Moulin View Post
                          ....one example was the US backing and paying for France's colonialism right after the war--which started the Vietnam ''fiasco'' that cost millions of lives
                          ....the US should've known the ''right'' thing to do was for France to get out of there ASAP
                          That would not have stopped US involvement as the premise for this involvement was the protection of 'Western' influence sphere. Or more to the point: Keep communism from expanding.
                          The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Moulin View Post
                            maybe for the time being,...but WW2 caused the greatest upheaval/turmoil afterwards ..many civil wars...evils not averted
                            still 'mad'/evil men after WW2--Pol Pot, Amin, etc
                            we still had many genocides/massacres/wars/etc long after WW2
                            ..there will always be evil in the world
                            ....hitler/etc were defeated--but some of the victors were not ''nice''/right people
                            ....aspects over looked?
                            --some 'victors'/groups on winning side/ were 'bad' people
                            --the world had it's greatest turmoil after the war
                            There has never been a 'War to End Wars", which was the sanguine expectation, in some quarters, after 1918.
                            But are you arguing that there's no such thing as a righteous war? Should we just hold up our hands, admit that humankind is inherently flawed, and leave it at that ?
                            "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                            Samuel Johnson.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                              Remove the external threat of Japan and you'll get an extra 1.2 million soliders and several thousand tanks positioned in the Far East throughout the entire war. Gotta love these "calculations" from someone who counts all the beans on the German side and knows jack shyte about the major facts related to the Soviet side. Unfortunately, it's way too common on historical forums.
                              It's not enough. They get to bring their equipment but there is no extra industrial capacity to replace it once it's gone. Without lend lease Russian industry will not be able to meet historical production let alone provide replacement equipment for those additional troops in combat.

                              Not even taking into account the extra production resulting from not having it's factories bombed the Germans can field an extra 10000 fully crewed and supplied heavy anti-aircraft guns (alot of 88s) against the Russian's. Work crews utilised repairing bomb damage can be used to improve the logistical situation on the eastern front.

                              Plus the Russians would never achieve air superiority over the battlefield with the full weight of the luftwaffe facing it. Again, without lendlease aircraft, I would question the ability of the VVS to even gain parity.

                              It's simple once you start looking at the numbers. It would be good if you could explain how you think Russia stands a better chance.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Javaman View Post
                                True, no quibble there.... Overall though, it goes against common sense to believe that a country that just finished a bloody civil war a generation before the Axis invasion and went through various civilian purges, suppressions, collectivization, etc. would show a patriotic solidarity. There is bound to be a large segment that was going to welcome change in just about any form, at least initially.
                                Never intervene in a family feud. The family will instantly unify, beat you to a pulp, and then resume their own internecine squabble.

                                There were a good number of older people in the occupied areas of the USSR who remembered the German occupation during WWI and expected similar behavior in 1941. For many, the WWI conditions under the Germans would have been an improvement over 1941 conditions under Stalin. Nazi behavior quickly disabused them of that notion.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X