- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WWII buffs: let's talk about Germany's biggest strategic blunder
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:14 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:14 pm to Ace Midnight
Na I don't buy it, they really fouled up when they went through with it, not considering all of the possibilities, and like Darth said not preparing for the winter
1
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:49 pm to The Cool No 9
Read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin or at least the chapters dealing with the period leading up to the war and the war itself. Just about everything Germany and Japan did including Pearl harbor all revolved around obtaining oil which they were literally starving for. For the second half of the war the Germans spent more time pulling their trucks with oxen than actually driving them bc of no fuel.
A army marches on its stomach. A mechanized army is no different.
A army marches on its stomach. A mechanized army is no different.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:53 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Maybe. Was it certain that the Russians would have attacked if Germany had not started Barbarosa? No one knows for sure, so lets go with a no for this scenario. Had Germany abided by the pact with Russia, that would have eliminated that front and use of resources. That, in itself, would have more than shored up enough for the ETO. And you kid yourself if you think that France was a major power...
Germany was going to invade Russia sooner or later. Even Russia knew that. Russia was hoping for later so that they would have time to build up their armies. Germany would have never gotten as far into Russia as it did if they would have invaded even a year later.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 2:08 pm to RedHawk
Germany should have made peace or come to some settlement in the West after invading Poland, THEN went after Russia. A Two front war was unsustainable in the long run.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 2:15 pm to antibarner
quote:
Germany should have made peace or come to some settlement in the West after invading Poland, THEN went after Russia. A Two front war was unsustainable in the long run.
They tried and were rebuffed time and time again. One of Hitler's fundamental errors was believing the British would not go to war over Poland, even after they made a public guarantee.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 2:17 pm to antibarner
That may/may not have worked as the west placated Hitler, so it is possible. However, I think the West would have come to Russia's aid sooner or later.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 2:20 pm to Jim Rockford
Spain would've been a second Italy. More of a hindrance to the Third Reich than a help.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 2:20 pm to antibarner
quote:
Germany should have made peace or come to some settlement in the West after invading Poland, THEN went after Russia. A Two front war was unsustainable in the long run.
THIS is the correct answer.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 3:37 pm to Godfather1
quote:
THIS is the correct answer.
As pointed out by Chewy Dante, Adolf Hitler sincerely sought peace with both Britain and France in late 39 and early 1940, after the campaign in Poland. Hitler wanted peace with Britain and France at that moment, and, this is clear from the historical record.
The peace efforts were rebuffed, primarily due to the efforts of Mr. Winston Churchill, who no longer sought any result other than continued war with Hitler's Germany.
Churchill was the first world leader to realize that this was the correct course of action.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 8/20/14 at 3:42 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
I think the West would have come to Russia's aid sooner or later.
Both the USA and UK were sending military and economic aid to the Soviet Union almost as soon as 22 June 1941.
The US assistance shipments to the Soviet Union were ongoing while the US was still supposedly a neutral country during the summer of 1941.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 3:48 pm to Champagne
One word: Sitzkrieg. Phony war.
Britain & France, while technically in a state of war with Nazi Germany (primarily due to their pact obligations to Poland) sat on their hands between September, 1939 and March, 1940. Aside from the two sides taking occasional potshots at each other across the border, nothing was happening. shite in the west didn't start getting real until Hitler moved on Norway, the Low Countries, and France.
Britain & France, while technically in a state of war with Nazi Germany (primarily due to their pact obligations to Poland) sat on their hands between September, 1939 and March, 1940. Aside from the two sides taking occasional potshots at each other across the border, nothing was happening. shite in the west didn't start getting real until Hitler moved on Norway, the Low Countries, and France.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 3:51 pm to Godfather1
I know this, of course.
But, that doesn't change anything I said in my posts.
Hitler wanted peace during the Phony War. Churchill rebuffed peace negotiation offers.
But, that doesn't change anything I said in my posts.
Hitler wanted peace during the Phony War. Churchill rebuffed peace negotiation offers.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 3:59 pm to Champagne
quote:
Churchill rebuffed peace negotiation offers.
Dude, Churchill wasn't PM during the Phony War. That was Chamberlain. Chamberlain's government collapsed on May 10, 1940 when the Allies were forced to abandon Norway, and the Wehrmacht was well on it's way to Paris.
After the French surrendered, Hitler made some half-hearted overtures toward Britain for peace. These were the ones rebuffed by Churchill.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 4:08 pm to Champagne
And yes, Chamberlain rebuffed negotiation offers from Hitler as well. However, he wasn't exactly being aggressive in pursuing conflict against Germany, either. Hitler could've played this game indefinitely. Instead, he chose the path of aggression.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 8/20/14 at 4:18 pm to Godfather1
Godfather is correct.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 5:05 pm to Beer Genius
Thanks for the clarification.
Great Britain indeed did rebuff Hitler's peace overtures.
After Churchill took the reins of British government, the chances of Britain accepting Hitler's peace offerings were even less than the chances that Chamberlain would accept the peace offering. And, as you both point out, Chamberlain rebuffed all peace overtures.
In any event, the notion that Hitler could have made peace with Britain and France between October 1939 and May 1940 is false. Chamberlain and Churchill were both committed to war with Hitler's Germany, no matter how much Hitler wanted peace at that moment.
Great Britain indeed did rebuff Hitler's peace overtures.
After Churchill took the reins of British government, the chances of Britain accepting Hitler's peace offerings were even less than the chances that Chamberlain would accept the peace offering. And, as you both point out, Chamberlain rebuffed all peace overtures.
In any event, the notion that Hitler could have made peace with Britain and France between October 1939 and May 1940 is false. Chamberlain and Churchill were both committed to war with Hitler's Germany, no matter how much Hitler wanted peace at that moment.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 8/20/14 at 5:15 pm to Godfather1
quote:
Hitler made some half-hearted overtures toward Britain for peace.
Many would argue that these were not half-hearted, but, were indeed sincere overtures for peace.
There's historical evidence to allow a conclusion that Hitler's peace overtures to Britain and France were sincere. Of course, he wanted to focus his war-making effort on the Soviet Union.
But, assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct and that if Hitler's peace overtures were sincere and not half-hearted, they would have been accepted by Britain and France -- THEN, you are correct and this would be perhaps Hitler's greatest blunder. No doubt about that.
In any event, I've already stated my opinion that the Germany's biggest blunder was its failure to beef-up its war industries even further than they did by September, 1939.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 5:18 pm to Champagne
quote:
In any event, the notion that Hitler could have made peace with Britain and France between October 1939 and May 1940 is false.
My point is, he didn't have to seek peace with them. They weren't doing anything. They were only reluctantly in a technical state of war. Hitler could've allowed the Sitzkrieg to play out indefinitely...but he didn't.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 5:18 pm to Champagne
quote:
Who is up for a game of The War 1939 to 1945?
I like Europe Engulfed......
Posted on 8/20/14 at 5:46 pm to Godfather1
quote:
allowed the Sitzkrieg to play out indefinitely...but he didn't.
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "allowing the Sitzkrieg to play out indefinitely." Do you mean that Germany should have just stayed in a static position of defending their own borders indefinitely and await a Western or Soviet attack?
Why might this be a good option for Germany at that time?
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 5:49 pm
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News