Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The German's greatest mistake in WWII

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by tigersqn View Post




    Bottom line is you can continue to believe if you wish in the fallacy that no mistakes were made by the Germans in WW II, the rest of us can, in the meantime, discuss the mistakes that were made.
    This is a strawman (proving you have no arguments) :where did I say that the Germans did not make mistakes in WWII? Quote please .

    Of course,they were making mistakes(not more than the others) ,but,these mistakes were not preventing the Germans from winning,and did not cause their defeat .
    The effects of these mistakes were marginal,almost negligible .

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by ljadw View Post
      This is a strawman (proving you have no arguments) :where did I say that the Germans did not make mistakes in WWII? Quote please .

      Of course,they were making mistakes(not more than the others) ,but,these mistakes were not preventing the Germans from winning,and did not cause their defeat .
      The effects of these mistakes were marginal,almost negligible .
      You cannot prove this...

      Comment


      • #93
        Well,I am waiting on something that would be considered as a mistake and that can be proved to have costed the Germans the victory .

        I am also waiting for a mistake of which one can say that it caused the German defeat .

        After 22 june 1940,(French capitulation),every week the German strategic situation and the German chances to obtain mat,even pat,were worsening,and this had nothing to do with mistakes they had made;or mistakes they would make ,they were going down,and,there was nothing they could do against this .
        WWII was a war between industrial giants,and in such a battle,the influence of human mistakes is marginal,almost negligible .
        Mistakes could be made and were made (by both sides) during big battles,but,as these big battles never were decisive for the outcome of the war,the influence of these mistakes can be discarded .

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by ljadw View Post
          The US reaction after 9/11 was no mistake,and,history did not show this was the case :GWB took the right decision :the American people wanted blood and expected an easy victory .They got an easy victory. The alternative for Iraq was to do nothing ,and this would not be accepted by the American people .Knowing what he knew,GWB did what a president had to do,he also did what a presidential candidate had to do :he was reelected without any problem .

          Ok, please present proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
          If you can't (and you can"t ) then it must be a mistake.

          There are conspiracy nuts everywhere I suppose.


          It is the same for Passendale :it was Passendale or doing nothing,as doing nothing was no option,the politicians took the decision to start Passendale .And,Passendale was no failure:it killed a lot of Germans .
          LG being the PM took the right decision:he did what a PM had to do,and,a year later,he won the elections .Knowing what he knew,he did what he had to do .
          Blah, blah, blah


          In both cases,only the people who had to take the decisions on the basis of the available decisions,could judge the decisions they were taking,not people living one hundred years later having other informations .
          In june 1970,Harold Wilson took the decision to hold earlier elections on the basis of opinion polls who predicted a Labour victory. He lost the elections .Was the decision wrong ? On the basis of the available informations that Wilson had, :NO

          Oh so wrong
          Political decision are judged by the voters at the ballot box.
          Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by ljadw View Post
            This is a strawman (proving you have no arguments) :where did I say that the Germans did not make mistakes in WWII? Quote please .

            Of course,they were making mistakes(not more than the others) ,but,these mistakes were not preventing the Germans from winning,and did not cause their defeat .
            The effects of these mistakes were marginal,almost negligible .

            Proof please ?
            Last edited by tigersqn; 25 Mar 13, 18:01.
            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by ljadw View Post
              Well,I am waiting on something that would be considered as a mistake and that can be proved to have costed the Germans the victory .

              I am also waiting for a mistake of which one can say that it caused the German defeat .

              After 22 june 1940,(French capitulation),every week the German strategic situation and the German chances to obtain mat,even pat,were worsening,and this had nothing to do with mistakes they had made;or mistakes they would make ,they were going down,and,there was nothing they could do against this .
              WWII was a war between industrial giants,and in such a battle,the influence of human mistakes is marginal,almost negligible .
              Mistakes could be made and were made (by both sides) during big battles,but,as these big battles never were decisive for the outcome of the war,the influence of these mistakes can be discarded .

              The title of the thread is "Germany's greatest mistakes in WW II" NOT "Mistakes that caused Germany to loss in WW II".

              I don't think anybody here is claiming that Germany would have won without making the mistakes that have been listed in these pages.

              Your argument is a huge strawman.
              Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                Ok, please present proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
                If you can't (and you can"t ) then it must be a mistake.

                There are conspiracy nuts everywhere I suppose.




                Blah, blah, blah





                Oh so wrong
                Political decision are judged by the voters at the ballot box.
                1)Immediately after 9/11,a lot of people were convinced that Saddam was the culprit(he was publicly rejoicing)
                2)The electors expected GWB to do something = to kill a lot of Arabs
                3)GWB did something =invading Iraq and killing a lot of Arabs
                4)People were happy and reelected GWB
                5)If GWB did nothing ,he would be defeated in 2004
                6)From a political POV ,GWB did the right thing
                7)Immediately after 9/11,there was panic in Washington,if the terrorists had used nucleair weapons ......
                8)Saddam was suspected to develop ABC weapons,and refused inspections by the UN,thus,a reasonable suspicion was that Saddam was hiding something .
                9)Saddam had already used chemical weapons against the Kurds,thus,he was the man who would not hesitate to use such weapons against Israel and the US
                10)Saddam was a potential danger for the security of the US,after 9/11 no US president could accept such potential danger
                11) Conclusion :from a military POV,from a political POV,from an electoral POV,the decision to go after Saddam was the right conclusion
                12) BTW :there was NO alternative :the electors expected GWB to do something,and,what could do GWB? Invading Iran ?The electors would not be satisfied if GWB decided to give the CIA carte blanche to kill Bin Laden:this would take years .They wanted action,and,immediately .
                9/11 was a new Pearl Harbour,it was even worse,much worse.

                Comment


                • #98
                  About Harold Wilson : you are missing the point : it is not proved that he lost the elections because he dissolve parliament in 1970,it is also not proved that,if he had waited a year,he would have won the elections.
                  Why did he lose in 1970? Because the electors were not satisfied .Would the electors be satisfied in 1971? Maybe,maybe not .
                  The point is that in 1970,the available informations were indicating that Labour had a good chance to win the elections,and that this decided Wilson to hold elections.
                  This decision was reasonable and defensible and can not be considered as a mistake .
                  That the result of a decision was a failure,does not mean that the decision was a mistake .

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                    The title of the thread is "Germany's greatest mistakes in WW II" NOT "Mistakes that caused Germany to loss in WW II".

                    I don't think anybody here is claiming that Germany would have won without making the mistakes that have been listed in these pages.

                    Your argument is a huge strawman.
                    NO:arguing about Germany's greatest mistakes in WWII,is saying that Germany was making great mistakes in WWII.And,a mistake can only be great,if it had great negative results.
                    If a mistake had no great negative results,it was not a great mistake .
                    QED.
                    The title of the thread is biased:it is saying :Germany was making great mistakes,let's discuss them.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                      "Well,I am waiting on something that would be considered as a mistake and that can be proved to have costed the Germans the victory .

                      I am also waiting for a mistake of which one can say that it caused the German defeat ."
                      Apart maybe from invading Poland - which triggered the start of the war - I think you will be struggling to find one.
                      "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                      Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                        The title of the thread is "Germany's greatest mistakes in WW II" NOT "Mistakes that caused Germany to loss in WW II".

                        I don't think anybody here is claiming that Germany would have won without making the mistakes that have been listed in these pages.
                        True.
                        "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                        Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                          Proof please ?
                          Let's play the H CH game.
                          Let's assume that the following were mistakes

                          1) Dunkirk :if the British units at Dunkirk had been lost,would Britain have given up ? Nothing is indicating this,but,there are a lot of things indicating the opposite.
                          Thus the results of Dunkirk would be almost meaningless

                          2)NA:let's assume that Hitler teleported 5 mobile divisions to Tripoli,and that some one in Tripoli could teleport them to the front,and that with these reinforcements,Rommel arrived at the canal. Would Britain give up ? No

                          Thus :the results .........

                          3)Stalingrad :let's assume that the Germans expelled the Soviets from Stalingrad.Would Stalin say :damn, I give up ?
                          :let's assume that the Germans knew of Uranus:would they be able to retreat to a frontline where an encirclment was no more possible?

                          4)DDay :let's assume that DDay succeeded because Adolf was sleeping and could not be waked. Now,if he was waked,would this change anything ? NO

                          I have given 4 exemples (and there are much more)where in an ATL(thus with an other decision);the results would be the same .

                          All these exemples are post war inventions by the German generals ,saying:it is all the fault of Adolf:if he has done differently at Dunkirk,at Stalingrad,at DDay,at,at ,... we would have won the war .

                          And,discussing "the greatest German mistakes in WWII" is only following the German generals in their subterfuges .
                          BTW :such a thread is present in a lot of forums,you always are encountering him,but the thread" the greatest allied mistakes in WWII" is curiously absent .
                          Curiously ? No,the German generals have won eople still think that the German mistakes (meaning the mistakes of Adolf) were much more important than the allied mistakes.
                          And,why are they thinking this? Because the German propaganda machine told this after the war .
                          "This" is : The allies only won,because Adolf was making mistakes,and did not listen to his generals. .
                          And,people are still falling in this trap,people as Bevin Alexander and other

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                            1)Immediately after 9/11,a lot of people were convinced that Saddam was the culprit(he was publicly rejoicing)
                            2)The electors expected GWB to do something = to kill a lot of Arabs
                            3)GWB did something =invading Iraq and killing a lot of Arabs
                            4)People were happy and reelected GWB
                            5)If GWB did nothing ,he would be defeated in 2004
                            6)From a political POV ,GWB did the right thing
                            7)Immediately after 9/11,there was panic in Washington,if the terrorists had used nucleair weapons ......
                            8)Saddam was suspected to develop ABC weapons,and refused inspections by the UN,thus,a reasonable suspicion was that Saddam was hiding something .
                            9)Saddam had already used chemical weapons against the Kurds,thus,he was the man who would not hesitate to use such weapons against Israel and the US
                            10)Saddam was a potential danger for the security of the US,after 9/11 no US president could accept such potential danger
                            11) Conclusion :from a military POV,from a political POV,from an electoral POV,the decision to go after Saddam was the right conclusion
                            12) BTW :there was NO alternative :the electors expected GWB to do something,and,what could do GWB? Invading Iran ?The electors would not be satisfied if GWB decided to give the CIA carte blanche to kill Bin Laden:this would take years .They wanted action,and,immediately .
                            9/11 was a new Pearl Harbour,it was even worse,much worse.
                            I think those are good points. Too bad that no WMDs were found after Iraq was taken. Or maybe it is fortunate that they were not found.

                            But this is OT, of course. We are supposed to be discussing Germany in WW2 here.
                            "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                            Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                              True.
                              A great mistake is a mistake with great negative results,it means also that an other decision would prevent this great negative result .
                              IMHO,there are no such exemples .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                                NO:arguing about Germany's greatest mistakes in WWII,is saying that Germany was making great mistakes in WWII.And,a mistake can only be great,if it had great negative results.
                                If a mistake had no great negative results,it was not a great mistake .
                                QED.
                                The title of the thread is biased:it is saying :Germany was making great mistakes,let's discuss them.
                                I would regard starting the war as a great mistake. I would also regard invading the Soviet Union as a great mistake. Only the first of these could lose Germany the war because a war that is not started cannot be lost. By June 22 1941, it was IMO already unlikely that Germany would end up winning the war but I believe it did make their defeat more certain and more immediate (relatively speaking). Indeed, once we accept that Germany is in an unwinnable war, perhaps any decision that significantly hastens the defeat could be seen either as a mistake or a blessing, depending on one's viewpoint.


                                Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                                A great mistake is a mistake with great negative results,it means also that an other decision would prevent this great negative result .
                                IMHO,there are no such exemples .
                                As per my above, if you don't start a war you won't lose it so that's one example. Beyond that, I think it depends where you draw the line between what is and what is not a "great negative result". If ultimately winning or losing are the only great positive or negative results we are allowed to consider, they you are correct. However, if we accept something short of those things - but still to be considered reasonably significant - as being a great positive or negative then we might be able to find some examples.
                                "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                                Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X