Unsolved History: Conspiracies to Kill Hitler

[STEED]

Operation Citadel was a bloody disaster in wasting all that German Armour for nothing, it should have never happen. Mind you Case Blue should have never happen, over extending the lines was asking for trouble.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by STEED

Operation Citadel was a bloody disaster in wasting all that German Armour for nothing, it should have never happen. Mind you Case Blue should have never happen, over extending the lines was asking for trouble.

Generally speaking, there are just so many reasons why a prolonged invasion of Russia (or whatever it's calling itself ATM) is never a great idea.

[JokerOfFate]

The only reason that the Germans lost the war was the Japanese.
Attacking the US bad idea . But Italy were the worsed.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by JokerOfFate

The only reason that the Germans lost the war was the Japanese.
Attacking the US bad idea . But Italy were the worsed.

Huh?

Explain further, please.

[JokerOfFate]

What about Italy or Japan??

[Raptor1]

Let's see.

Originally Posted by JokerOfFate

The only reason that the Germans lost the war was the Japanese.

What was it about the Japanese that was 'the only reason the Germans lost the war'? I can think of a whole bunch of different reasons that have nothing to do with the Japanese.

Originally Posted by JokerOfFate

But Italy were the worsed.

The Italians did what, where, when?

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

What was it about the Japanese that was 'the only reason the Germans lost the war'? I can think of a whole bunch of different reasons that have nothing to do with the Japanese.

I expect he means that the attack on Pearl Harbor is what brought the US fully and officially into the conflict, with our declaration of war against Japan resulting in Germany's declaration of war against the United States.

Whether we would've declared war on any or all Axis powers, or had them declare war on us, later rather than sooner without the provocation of Japan's attack is of course debatable. As is the theory that our entry at that particular time was the most important factor in Germany's eventual defeat.

[JokerOfFate]

The Japanese attacked the US of course, sealing Germany's fate with a bit of strategy they may have beaten the Russian alone, but two superpowers knocking on their door... although it was a good start to fight, but due to bad command and strategy not to mention the amount of recourses wasted through "Banzai" and "Kamikaze" attacks and on top of all that their troops don't have the right weapons for the job

The Italians... well they didn't have a clue what they were doing, I think Africa was where they show just bad they play ball, very bad leadership with bad quality equipment and to add to that I dough the troops had any combat Exp.. But to be fair the Brits had a strategy.

Maybe if Germany had better allies they might of won the war

I think that should do.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Huh?

Explain further, please.

I think he means that when Japan attacked the US it brought the industrial and manpower might of the USA in on the Allied/Comintern side, while at the same time the Japanese did nothing to draw off the Soviets in the eastern front (Like attack in to Mongolia).

When people think of the Japanese they always jump to the Carriers, the Yamato and the Zero Fighters but they don't think of their Army, it was huge! They started off with 1,700,000 million troops in 51 divisions plus a Marine Corps (Incl. Paras) in the IJN. By the end of the War they had 5.5 million men in the Army.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Generally speaking, there are just so many reasons why a prolonged invasion of Russia (or whatever it's calling itself ATM) is never a great idea.

The only thing Hitler got right was 1941 as the Red Army was in transition apart from that, Barbarossa was pants! It all comes down to logistics and most part the Germans used horse power!

[Raptor1]

The Swedes and the French had similar problems in Russia...

[Gerald]

But then we go back in history....

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by STEED

The only thing Hitler got right was 1941 as the Red Army was in transition apart from that, Barbarossa was pants! It all comes down to logistics and most part the Germans used horse power!

Well if he had stuck to his initial plan... Don't forget that after the ill fated Italian attack on Greece in Autumn '40 and the Yugoslavian overthrow of a pro Nazi regime in Winter '41, he diverted assets to the balkans and lost time to initiate Barbarossa. Of course even if he blitzed Leningrad and paraded in Moscow, as planned, the question is would that be enough? Because the problem is that "European" Russia is just a part of Russia...and Siberia is just plain BIG.

.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Well if he had stuck to his initial plan... Don't forget that after the ill fated Italian attack on Greece in Autumn '40 and the Yugoslavian overthrow of a pro Nazi regime in Winter '41, he diverted assets to the balkans and lost time to initiate Barbarossa. Of course even if he blitzed Leningrad and paraded in Moscow, as planned, the question is would that be enough? Because the problem is that "European" Russia is just a part of Russia...and Siberia is just plain BIG.

.

The Balkans were never a fatal delay to Barbarossa, it could only have been launched a couple of weeks before it actually was because of the weather, as the late Russian mud season only ended in early June.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

The Balkans were never a fatal delay to Barbarossa, it could only have been launched a couple of weeks before it actually was because of the weather, as the late Russian mud season only ended in early June.

Statements from Field Marshal Keitel:

Link: http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Keitel/Keitel.zip, page 153

Of course one can only muse on what might have been had things only worked out differently. Even if it was too much to ask of our good fortune that Italy should have stayed out of the war altogether as a benevolent neutral, just consider the difference if Hitler had been able to prevent
their irresponsible attack on Greece. What would we not have saved by way of aid to Italy for her senseless Balkan war? In all probability there would not have been any uprising in Yugoslavia in an attempt to force her entry into the war on the side of the enemies of the Axis, just to oblige Britain and the Soviet Union. How differently things would then have looked in Russia in 1941. We would have been in a far stronger position, and above all we should not have lost those two months. Just imagine: we would not have frozen to a standstill in the snow and ice, with temperatures of minus forty-five degrees just twenty miles outside
Moscow, a city hopelessly encircled from the north, west and south, at the end of that November. We should have had two clear months before that infernal cold weather closed in - and there was nothing like it in the

winters that followed anyway!

And also (from the Nuremberg Trial, Ithink): "The unbelievable strong resistance of the Greeks delayed by two or more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different in the eastern front and in the war in general, and others would have been accused and would be occupying this seat as defendants today".


Anyway, even If the rivers were swolen they wouldn't just put one of the largst invading forces ever "on hold" just outside the Soviet borders. Call it "mobilization inertia" () if you want, but they would have pressed on.

I still maintain, though that even if they succeeded in fullfilling Barbarossa's objectives it would not be enough in the end.


.