Das Boot or the American Fleet Boat

[msalama]

Gotcha Ducimus

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by msalama

They tried however, and even had some initial success. Google "Operation Drumbeat" for details.



Directly? Baloney. It's of course true that the U.S. industrial might helped the Allies tremendously, but what really was decisive in the defeat of Nazis was Hitler's stupid decision to open a second front in the East and the bloodbath that ensued. Google "Operation Barbarossa" for details.

Y'know, Robbins, for a self-confessed non-nationalist you sometimes sound like one a lot nevertheless

Hey pal! The Russkies couldn't even have fought the Germans without the American ordinance imported through the Murmansk convoys. No America in the war means no shipments. Now the Germans fight a fatally weakened Russia and don't have to fight the USA. No matter how you cut it, submarines brought the US into the war. That directly resulted in the end of the 3rd Reich.

Hitler also had opportunities to keep Britain out of the war. Without the extreme provocation of the U-Boats, Hitler could have let the Brits escape Dunkirk and then declare peace on the European continent. It probably would have worked as Britain was similar to the US in that it had a lot of fans of Germany. They also lost a complete generation in WWI and the horror had not left their consciousness. I don't think with the U-Boats out there that the Brits would have been of a mind to accept any kind of peace. Without them and with a significantly strengthened German Wehrmacht across the Channel, there is a decent chance that even Britain could have been persuaded to exit the war.

Of course Hitler wasn't sane. Of course his decisions were irrational and trying to apply logic to their options is something like applying a screen door to a submarine.

But it is fun to speculate even if people get sensitive parts of their anatomy in the proverbial wringer.

And it is a fact that the U-Boats were next to useless. Of all the convoys crossing the Atlantic, the mighty U-Boats sank less than 1% of the ships. They could well have been ignored if it weren't so easy to kill them. Even Operation Drumbeat was only good for propoganda. It did nothing to limit US war production. It did nothing to prevent the US military from reaching Britain. It merely provoked the Americans to greater resolve while sinking insignificant resources which were easily replaced. America could well afford what the Germans deemed catastrophic losses. They merely changed some policies, ramped up production to exceed the sinkings and trudged on unhindered. Operation Drumbeat was a failure. The U-Boats were ultimately chased from the shores of the American continent with their tails between their legs.

Based on the abyssmal ineffectiveness of the U-Boats even in their Happy Times, based ot their function of bringing the US into the war, strengthening all the Allies, based on the possibilities for resolution of the conflict being totally negated by the U-Boats, it is not nationalistic, it is not an exaggeration, and it is not unreasonable to credit U-Boats as one of many fatal mistakes of the Third Reich, which was sufficient on its own to doom Germany.

The U-Boat, no matter if it were a perfect machine, was an inappropriate weapon for Germany to employ in World War II. A fleet of US subs wouldn't have made one bit of difference. A fleet of Type XXIs would have made no difference. In order to starve Britain it was necessary to sink American ships. Any fool could have seen that and reasoned that in view of it, the resources devoted to U-Boats would better have been placed elsewhere.

[Noren]

OK.

Hey pal! The Russkies couldn't even have fought the Germans without the American ordinance imported through the Murmansk convoys.

Im sure sovjet was'nt best friends with USA and would not even say thank you for those supplies but they were'nt mandatory in keeping the sovjets fighting. Just drop it.

Hitler could have let the Brits escape Dunkirk and then declare peace on the European continent.

Yeah right, even if Hitler wanted that Churchill would never had made peace, well perhaps forced into one if the island was starved out. England would never accept a solid enemy state in mainland Europe and churchill was hellbent on a steadfast war effort- there were many quotes on that.

significantly strengthened German Wehrmacht across the Channel

True, like Napoleon an army could have invaded the british islands and surround London etc. But you forget that the luftwaffe did what they could and got their arrogance shot out of the sky by RAF.

And it is a fact that the U-Boats were next to useless.

Oh really, is that why Britain got 50 old destroyers as a stop gap measure to escort their convoys or why churchill's only real fear was the uboat menace?

In the end you claim that the uboat was a wrong kind of weapon to produce. Its not like they did'nt try surface ships but the royal navy was always the double size, making the stealthy sub the only viable weapon available at the time (though germany had som commercial raiders).

This is all only theories...and nothing is 100% sure. I belive it would have a bit different had the XXII been availabe in numbers early on. Then the subs had'nt been so ridiculusly easy to sink as you claim.

Please stop waving the american flag in every post you make and ridicule other forces - thanks in advance. Now read this 5 times before you answer and chill.

[msalama]

Hey Robbins,

I've no problems whatsoever with anything you say except for the "directly" part, because what really was "direct" was those almost 30 million Russians dead, AND MOST OF THEM CIVILIANS TOO, who had to die because of a genocidal war against "slawische untermenschen" perperated by the Nazis. So putting things into _that_ perspective a claim of the U.S. "directly" causing the downfall of Nazi Germany really sounds a bit daft, now doesn't it?

No-one in their right mind denies the importance of the U.S. involvement in WW2, and your industrial capacity was undoubtedly one of the deciding factors of the war. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it really was the Russians who did most of the dirty work against the Nazis by waging massive land warfare against them, and that said land warfare was actually what carried the day in the end (although not in isolation of course). American war materiel was of course all-important, but when one thinks of what the Russkies had to endure during Operation Barbarossa I'd say it really would be sensible to tone down the hyperbole a bit when boasting of _your_ nation's thriumphs in the European war, no?

When you compare the losses, the Russians more than anyone else paid in sheer blood. And that, my friend, really is "direct" more than anything else. And that's all I have to say concerning this matter I think...

PS. I'm a Finn, and as you may know we fought the Russians in the war - and for a good reason too. But even that doesn't change my opinion on this on a more universal scale, because hey, the war's over already and as you grow older you tend to take a more objective view of things anyway. Because human suffering really is universal, now is it not?