What was the most pivotal battle of WW2?
Moderator: maddog986
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
-
IronDuke_slith
- Posts: 1385
- Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Manchester, UK
You're right, Sarge, you don't see a great deal about Oran. It strikes me as quite an emotive subject, even now. The one time I saw it discussed (on a napoleonic gaming forum of all places) it provoked quite a heated debate that got a little out of hand.
It's a minefield and needs to be handled sensitively.
Leningrad is a bit strange in that it has never provoked the comment that Kursk, Stalingrad, Moscow, Kharkov has etc, but when you look at the scale of it all....
I wonder whether discussion of the war in the east is still pretty german centric. They besieged Leningrad for years, but never seemed to devote to it the resources they did to Stalingrad or other sectors of the front. It rates low on the interest scale for them, and as a result isn't discussed like the other battles mentioned
Some other thoughts on the pivotal battles that started this all off. I was thinking maybe Dunkirk. I can't imagine churchill could have continued in office on a policy of fighting to the bitter end if the entire BEF had surrendered, there. Even if you fight on, many of those men would have fought in the desert, so that would have been lost, and in '44 the US would have had to commit more (probably green) divisions on D-day to make up the numbers.
We might never have reached the low countries before the Russians did.
It's a minefield and needs to be handled sensitively.
Leningrad is a bit strange in that it has never provoked the comment that Kursk, Stalingrad, Moscow, Kharkov has etc, but when you look at the scale of it all....
I wonder whether discussion of the war in the east is still pretty german centric. They besieged Leningrad for years, but never seemed to devote to it the resources they did to Stalingrad or other sectors of the front. It rates low on the interest scale for them, and as a result isn't discussed like the other battles mentioned
Some other thoughts on the pivotal battles that started this all off. I was thinking maybe Dunkirk. I can't imagine churchill could have continued in office on a policy of fighting to the bitter end if the entire BEF had surrendered, there. Even if you fight on, many of those men would have fought in the desert, so that would have been lost, and in '44 the US would have had to commit more (probably green) divisions on D-day to make up the numbers.
We might never have reached the low countries before the Russians did.
How do non-events rate in the pivotal scale?
Like the annexation of the sudentland and non-response, etc. What would have happened if there was a fierce and immediate response to one of the earlier "incorporations" of land?
Would this have served notice and cooled Hitler down? Or would it have provoked an earlier start (to WWII)? Who would have benefited from an earlier start?
Very interesting thread, this.
Like the annexation of the sudentland and non-response, etc. What would have happened if there was a fierce and immediate response to one of the earlier "incorporations" of land?
Would this have served notice and cooled Hitler down? Or would it have provoked an earlier start (to WWII)? Who would have benefited from an earlier start?
Very interesting thread, this.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Very possible Iron Duke
Best way to look at Lenningrad is try to play Advanced Third Reich and stay in the war as the Russians after losing it.
Same with UK actually. I always hate defending the British at the beginning. To much turf not enough men.
When I play allies I usually play planning on losing France and try to be stingy with the British there.
The French have always been an odd country. But the strain was never so great during the war as when the French fleet was attacked.
To this day it has always been a subject not easy to relate to , why the French would doggedly refuse the British their original allies the fleet assets.
I always use the French fleet in as outrageous a fashion as possible before the fall of France just so the fleet will either drive axis insane of go down with as much axis naval power as possible.
But that is a gamey technique and not representative of the history of the time.
Best way to look at Lenningrad is try to play Advanced Third Reich and stay in the war as the Russians after losing it.
Same with UK actually. I always hate defending the British at the beginning. To much turf not enough men.
When I play allies I usually play planning on losing France and try to be stingy with the British there.
The French have always been an odd country. But the strain was never so great during the war as when the French fleet was attacked.
To this day it has always been a subject not easy to relate to , why the French would doggedly refuse the British their original allies the fleet assets.
I always use the French fleet in as outrageous a fashion as possible before the fall of France just so the fleet will either drive axis insane of go down with as much axis naval power as possible.
But that is a gamey technique and not representative of the history of the time.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
why?
Because the French felt that the British were ********
That had bailed on them at Dunkirk, and they were correct.
That had bailed on them at Dunkirk, and they were correct.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
AFAIK that lunatic called Hitler wanted the war to start already in 1938. Though it was obvious that the Wehrmacht wasn't yet ready.Originally posted by Dare2
How do non-events rate in the pivotal scale?
Like the annexation of the sudentland and non-response, etc. What would have happened if there was a fierce and immediate response to one of the earlier "incorporations" of land?
Would this have served notice and cooled Hitler down? Or would it have provoked an earlier start (to WWII)? Who would have benefited from an earlier start?
So the Munich Conference was more some kind of a disappointment to him, than satisfactory.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Lord Acton
Lord Acton
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Not sure if I have this correct Raverdave but I think it was 42 that Hitler had plans for kicking butt.
Hitler's ambitions though, were greatly influenced by his easy early successes. Gave him the delusion he was more than a corporal at the game of war. Also made it hard for his General staff that were good at it, to say anything negative about him.
A strong smack down in 38 would likely have great reduced his chances of getting the war moving. Probably wouldn't have stopped him though.
It would mean that the RAF might have better planes to start with, the Germans would have better tanks, the Russians yet more quantities of their well designed but poorly led forces etc. Only people that would not have benefited would be the US (because the US wasn't interested in war machinery until they had the war forced on them). The US might have gone more naval in the Pacific vs the Japanese though (the Japanese were not constrained by Germany's chances).
Hitler's ambitions though, were greatly influenced by his easy early successes. Gave him the delusion he was more than a corporal at the game of war. Also made it hard for his General staff that were good at it, to say anything negative about him.
A strong smack down in 38 would likely have great reduced his chances of getting the war moving. Probably wouldn't have stopped him though.
It would mean that the RAF might have better planes to start with, the Germans would have better tanks, the Russians yet more quantities of their well designed but poorly led forces etc. Only people that would not have benefited would be the US (because the US wasn't interested in war machinery until they had the war forced on them). The US might have gone more naval in the Pacific vs the Japanese though (the Japanese were not constrained by Germany's chances).
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Pearl Harbor
Apparently Churchill's vote would have been in favor of Pearl Harbor. In his history of World War II, he states that when he heard the news he felt a great relief, he finally knew that the Allies would win the war.
Also keep in mind that largely the war was won on the American industrial front. America fought the war out of one-half of the increase in the American GNP and with that out-produced all of the other combatants. (Incidentially, American life expectancy rose during the war years and in the military population as a whole). The economy expanded at rates of about 25% per year. The Russians might have stopped the German attack without American aid, but their army would have been to immobil to ever get back to Germany. An American effort of the same quality as WWI (similar to the industrial effort of the Germans) would not have been sufficient to support the Russians and reestablish the Western Front.
On another note, the Japanese undoubtedly accepted as a truism that they had to go to war or run out of oil within 6 months. I have read, however, that with the delays in resuming oil production and the toll later exacted by American subs, that the Japanese never acquired enough additional oil flow to overbalance the increased demands of active combat against the Americans. Thus, it would seem that they could have hunkered down in China and Indochina and awaited world events, then negotiated, if necessary, once Allied victory seemed sure.
By the way, the decision to embargo Japanese oil was not a conscious decision at the top. The President just wanted to get the authority to embargo anything and apparently intended to play diplomatic games with the Japanese, one trade item at a time. He left town for a long isolated weekend. While he was out, one of the warhawks in Ickes' hawkish department implemented an immediate total embargo. Upon return, the question became whether to back down and appear weak, which was heightened when the British and Dutch followed our lead. The Westerners in the US couldn't contemplate the loss of "face" required to reverse course.
Also keep in mind that largely the war was won on the American industrial front. America fought the war out of one-half of the increase in the American GNP and with that out-produced all of the other combatants. (Incidentially, American life expectancy rose during the war years and in the military population as a whole). The economy expanded at rates of about 25% per year. The Russians might have stopped the German attack without American aid, but their army would have been to immobil to ever get back to Germany. An American effort of the same quality as WWI (similar to the industrial effort of the Germans) would not have been sufficient to support the Russians and reestablish the Western Front.
On another note, the Japanese undoubtedly accepted as a truism that they had to go to war or run out of oil within 6 months. I have read, however, that with the delays in resuming oil production and the toll later exacted by American subs, that the Japanese never acquired enough additional oil flow to overbalance the increased demands of active combat against the Americans. Thus, it would seem that they could have hunkered down in China and Indochina and awaited world events, then negotiated, if necessary, once Allied victory seemed sure.
By the way, the decision to embargo Japanese oil was not a conscious decision at the top. The President just wanted to get the authority to embargo anything and apparently intended to play diplomatic games with the Japanese, one trade item at a time. He left town for a long isolated weekend. While he was out, one of the warhawks in Ickes' hawkish department implemented an immediate total embargo. Upon return, the question became whether to back down and appear weak, which was heightened when the British and Dutch followed our lead. The Westerners in the US couldn't contemplate the loss of "face" required to reverse course.
Re: why?
British Army divisions were still in position on the Somme R. after Dunkirk and continued to fight the Germans until France surrendered.Originally posted by Chiteng
Because the French felt that the British were ********
That had bailed on them at Dunkirk, and they were correct.
Peux Ce Que Veux
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt
Yeah I was not sure of the year, come to think of it '42 sounds more like it.Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Not sure if I have this correct Raverdave but I think it was 42 that Hitler had plans for kicking butt.
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Re: Re: why?
Originally posted by CCB
British Army divisions were still in position on the Somme R. after Dunkirk and continued to fight the Germans until France surrendered.
Some British units fought on upto two weeks after Dunkirk IIRC.
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Some one is laying a beating on yeah and the rich kid next door that takes them judo classes walks over and says hey I think you better let my friend up or else....yeah I guess that becomes the really important detail in your mind heheh.
Can't fault Churchill for seeing the US entry as being the most significant event I suppose.
Can't fault Churchill for seeing the US entry as being the most significant event I suppose.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
yes
yes but we are talking about perceptions, not reality.
That is how they felt.
Sure the 51st Highlander was trapped and destroyed
in an attempt to fullfill the alliance. I often wonder what happened to those men.
That is how they felt.
Sure the 51st Highlander was trapped and destroyed
in an attempt to fullfill the alliance. I often wonder what happened to those men.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
U.S. diplomacy with Japan
"Some one is laying a beating on yeah and the rich kid next door that takes them judo classes walks over and says hey I think you better let my friend up or else....yeah I guess that becomes the really important detail in your mind heheh. "
If this is a response to my post, I want to make clear that I have no problem with either the morality of the U.S. diplomatic position nor the effectiveness of how it turned out. I was just commenting on the inadvertance of it all. As Bismark once resentfully noted about the favorability of the U.S. diplomatic-strategic position in the world "God looks after fools, drunkards, and the United States of America."
The events on the China front during World War II are considerably more clouded than those in Europe because neither the Japanese nor the Chinese were such fanatics about record-keeping as the Germans and civil war in China overlapped and followed the war with Japan, but an examination of the Rape of Nanking and similar incidents of the conquest, the Japanese record of biological warfare, and such information as we have on Chinese death rates suggest that the Japanese Army possessed a guilt probably at least commensurate with Hitler and the SS and Stalin during the "peace" time of the 20's and the 30's. I think it is most fortunate that the U.S. stumbled into war with Japan, never agreed to a peace based upon a continuation of the war in China, or the acquiesence in Japanese conquest. However, the U.S. military, and most of the "aid to the Allies" crowd (all my heroes, BTW) definitely felt that war with Japan in 1941 or the first half of 1942 was war "at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy" and were partially successful in pursuading Roosevelt to that view. Ultimately, once the step of the embargo was taken, however, Roosevelt was unwilling to propose a peace initiative on his own part that would involve the abandonment of the Chinese.
If this is a response to my post, I want to make clear that I have no problem with either the morality of the U.S. diplomatic position nor the effectiveness of how it turned out. I was just commenting on the inadvertance of it all. As Bismark once resentfully noted about the favorability of the U.S. diplomatic-strategic position in the world "God looks after fools, drunkards, and the United States of America."
The events on the China front during World War II are considerably more clouded than those in Europe because neither the Japanese nor the Chinese were such fanatics about record-keeping as the Germans and civil war in China overlapped and followed the war with Japan, but an examination of the Rape of Nanking and similar incidents of the conquest, the Japanese record of biological warfare, and such information as we have on Chinese death rates suggest that the Japanese Army possessed a guilt probably at least commensurate with Hitler and the SS and Stalin during the "peace" time of the 20's and the 30's. I think it is most fortunate that the U.S. stumbled into war with Japan, never agreed to a peace based upon a continuation of the war in China, or the acquiesence in Japanese conquest. However, the U.S. military, and most of the "aid to the Allies" crowd (all my heroes, BTW) definitely felt that war with Japan in 1941 or the first half of 1942 was war "at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy" and were partially successful in pursuading Roosevelt to that view. Ultimately, once the step of the embargo was taken, however, Roosevelt was unwilling to propose a peace initiative on his own part that would involve the abandonment of the Chinese.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
wpurdom I was merely commenting on the comment made concerning Mr Churchill being able to consider the US entry to be a pivotal matter.
Britain was very well served with the US entry into the broader war. That's a comment that is nothing more than what it is though. The British fight against Germany would have gotten quite nasty without the US being more actively involved.
That the US had many levels of interest in WW2 though goes without saying. That their interests in the Pacific were to some extent not entirely identical in motivation to those experienced in Europe is also obvious. To some, the war in Europe was not the same war as the war in the Pacific.
But once the allied powers were all messed up in it, it became global by virtue of it being just that, global.
Britain was very well served with the US entry into the broader war. That's a comment that is nothing more than what it is though. The British fight against Germany would have gotten quite nasty without the US being more actively involved.
That the US had many levels of interest in WW2 though goes without saying. That their interests in the Pacific were to some extent not entirely identical in motivation to those experienced in Europe is also obvious. To some, the war in Europe was not the same war as the war in the Pacific.
But once the allied powers were all messed up in it, it became global by virtue of it being just that, global.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Well hindsight is kinda handy though Gyblin heheh.
Today we can look back and see how dumb so many of Hitler's choices were.
I am not so sure though, if in say 42, that anyone was in a hurry to say, "oooooh don't go in there Adolf, or the Russians will get you":)
Biggest problem with "what if" threads I have noticed, is the Americans being unable to properly understand, that Pearl Harbour, and Normandy, were not the be all and end all of the war.
Sure they were important, but it is a natural Americocentric stance to think the Western Allies folded spindled and mutilated the Germans. By the time the Allies were in France in 44, the Germans had already had the asses whipped in Russia.
The Germans, were just unwilling to quit (or rather Hitler was unwilling to quit). Then again, he had gone far enough that the Allies were not interested in "terms" they wanted Hitler on a platter. So in that light, it was going to go till it was finished totally.
Today we can look back and see how dumb so many of Hitler's choices were.
I am not so sure though, if in say 42, that anyone was in a hurry to say, "oooooh don't go in there Adolf, or the Russians will get you":)
Biggest problem with "what if" threads I have noticed, is the Americans being unable to properly understand, that Pearl Harbour, and Normandy, were not the be all and end all of the war.
Sure they were important, but it is a natural Americocentric stance to think the Western Allies folded spindled and mutilated the Germans. By the time the Allies were in France in 44, the Germans had already had the asses whipped in Russia.
The Germans, were just unwilling to quit (or rather Hitler was unwilling to quit). Then again, he had gone far enough that the Allies were not interested in "terms" they wanted Hitler on a platter. So in that light, it was going to go till it was finished totally.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Re: Re: why?
the French blamed everyone for failure in may-june 1940.Originally posted by CCB
British Army divisions were still in position on the Somme R. after Dunkirk and continued to fight the Germans until France surrendered.
truth is they had great airplanes (too many different planes though) and in sufficient amounts;
they had better tanks than germans (B1Bis or even Somuas were a better match than PzI,II, III and even IV (no armor piercing capability).
They had as many men as need;
they had a very good fleet (just behind Royal Navy)
they had the Maginot line.
So they lost.
Therefore : someone else's fault :
British : they bailed out
Belgian : they surrendered after 18 days (betrayal !)
Netherlands : they surrendered even faster.
What they don't say is :
no tactics, no srategy, no spirit, no leader, no transmission.
no tank division, wrong disposition of troops (too many being Maginot), they couldn't even get their warindustry back on track after the stikes of 1936. So many D520 never flew because they lacked this or this equipment for example.
Gamelin sent his army to meet Germans in Belgium, with no other plan. Nothing was envisioned except fight back : if it fails : no plan, it it suceeds : no plan.
9th French army (CORAP) didn't really fight.
troops were engaged piecelike, and got beaten one after the other.
no recon, no fast order transmission : when an order arrived, situation had changed.
As for the Brits, what could have they done more on the continent ?
they were on the left, belgian army on center and french on right.
the french kept going back and kind of sucked the front back. The Brits stayed close to ports (prudent) and the belgian had to withdraw from good lines of defense (Escaut, Canal Albert) and had to fight on less imposant positions. So we surrendered in the end. And of course the French called it a betrayal. it is interesting to note that King Leopold sent notes to French and Brits and prolonged the fight an extra day or so to give "somehow" more time to reorganize.
The French fought better in June, but it was too late and the brits wouldn't send their aircraft to help. Even over Dunkirk they sent the minimum. And after that, Montoire, with Petain and Laval didn't come out of nowhere. they ar the result of the lack of fighting spirit of a whole nation in may 1940.
Also note that the Resistance really begun with the communist, after 22.06.1941.
So no, the Brits were no *****.
best regards
Ben
Verzage ni
Verzage ni
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am