All-out aerial war between Germany and the Allies

GregP · Mar 8, 2013

Speaking only for myself Parsifal, I was in both the US Army and the US Air Force and participated in military planning in both as both an enlisted man and an officer. Perhaps you presume the people in here aren't militarily knowledgeable, but that may not be enirely the case.

Inventing war games doesn't make someone a military expert. It might make them good model builders. Successful prosecution of a military exercise with specific objectives tends to make good commanders better. A tactician doesn't always have the strategic view, either. You can win the battle and still lose the war.

In WWII the Germans were masters at tactics and absolutely the worst in the world at promoting capable leaders with a good strategy to achieve the objectives outlined by the government. I don't believe Hitler even HAD an objective other than to "win," which doesn't qualify as an objective to start with. The only good choices he made as commander in chief were Galland, Donitz, Udet, Milch, and Rommel, and he lost three in the end. Had Donitz been in charge, things might actually have worked out much more peacefully. At least he was a trained military man, unlike the erstwhile former corporal. Hitler should have stuck to painting.

He executed 84 German Generals. That doesn't do much for inspiring loyalty in the officer corps.

rank amateur · Mar 8, 2013

I know he had a lot off officiers executed, but I would think the majority of those were killed after april 20th 1944 after which we are dealing with an all together different ballgame.

Jenisch · Mar 8, 2013

Criticism of leadership is popularily only direct to Germany...

One can criticise the German leadership during the war, but it's wrong to put the blamme of Germany's defeat only on it. In large part the war didn't turned out in the way Germany wanted. The RKKA was to be destroyed in the first 500 km of penetration. This didn't happened not because flawed strategy, but because the Soviets didn't behave like they "should" have behaved. Actually there was leadership mistake: wild gambling.

Tante Ju · Mar 8, 2013

Njaco said:
As far as the term 'British warmongers', you need to brush up on British history in the 1930s. There was nothing but a bunch of peace activists and nay-sayers about the world view from Germany - except Churchill who was provided with info secretly from those concerned in Germany and elsewhere.

This is much Churchillian propaganda - you know, the elderly lion coming to save Britain, and world of nazi danger when everyone else was blind and stuff. In reality, the man who has prepeared Britain for war was Chamberlain, who has started all the British rearmemant programmes in the 1930s. Churchill just took the credit for it. He was always good at it.

Balljoint · Mar 8, 2013

GregP said:
In WWII the Germans were masters at tactics and absolutely the worst in the world at promoting capable leaders with a good strategy to achieve the objectives outlined by the government. I don't believe Hitler even HAD an objective other than to "win," which doesn't qualify as an objective to start with. The only good choices he made as commander in chief were Galland, Donitz, Udet, Milch, and Rommel, and he lost three in the end. Had Donitz been in charge, things might actually have worked out much more peacefully. At least he was a trained military man, unlike the erstwhile former corporal. Hitler should have stuck to painting.

He executed 84 German Generals. That doesn't do much for inspiring loyalty in the officer corps.

Though the Army swore an oath of loyalty to Hitler, there was a good bit of dissension among the professional officer corps. Hitler saw fit to have his personal army, the SS, independent of the professional army. In any event, the OKW was micromanaged by Hitler and allowed the army little strategic input. Even the talent he chose wasn't used.

I agree. Too bad Hitler wasn't admitted to the Vienna Art Institute.

Njaco · Mar 8, 2013

Tante Ju said:
This is much Churchillian propaganda - you know, the elderly lion coming to save Britain, and world of nazi danger when everyone else was blind and stuff. In reality, the man who has prepeared Britain for war was Chamberlain, who has started all the British rearmemant programmes in the 1930s. Churchill just took the credit for it. He was always good at it.

Tante, its painfully obvious you haven't read anything past 'Mein Kampf".

Gixxerman · Mar 8, 2013

GregP said:
The only good choices he made as commander in chief were Galland, Donitz, Udet, Milch, and Rommel, and he lost three in the end.

I'd agree on Galland, Donitz, Milch Rommel but Udet?

Maybe I've been unfair but I always pictured him as a man largely responsible for the disaster of 'Bomber B' the dive-bombing He177.

I know he was a 'star' of his day good PR man, he even might have been a nice guy
(he liked to party I've read tho his wife probably didn't appreciate that)
but I always thought him out of his depth professionally, a man over-promoted and
whose choices early on set the LW in profoundly the wrong direction for years to come.

As much as one might imagine his suicide was a coming to his senses as to the sort of people he had hitched his wagon to I suspect it
was a realisation of failure - deep profound and what it implied for Germany what was to come - that was really behind it.

GregP · Mar 8, 2013

Hi Gixxer (I suppose you ride a GSXR, huh?),

You could be right about Udet, but I tend to believe he was an excellent pilot who tried very hard to train his men in valid fighter tactics. He may well have procured the wrong aircraft, but I think was a good leader otherwise ... I could be wrong.

My entirte point was that Hitler didn't choose his top leaders very well, and also didn't listen to the ones he chose much at all. He seemed to thrive on chaos and was all too happy to let them fight among themsleves when he should have been building a team that worked together to achieve specific objectives.

N4521U · Mar 8, 2013

I should know better than to try and read these threads......
Knife please.

GregP · Mar 8, 2013

Why not contribute intead?

Matt308 · Mar 8, 2013

Perhaps because it might be suicidal? Surely Chamberlain's contributions to God and Country are empirically demonstrative.

parsifal · Mar 9, 2013

Matt308 said:
Perhaps because it might be suicidal? Surely Chamberlain's contributions to God and Country are empirically demonstrative.

That one flew past me without me understanding what your point is.....can you rephrase please for a doddering member bordering on senility?

rochie · Mar 9, 2013

so it was Chamberlin who set the world on its course for WW2 by dressing the British Army up as the German Army and annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia then !

all the while fooling us brits with his bits of white paper whilst saying peace in our time.

all the while planning to start the war so we could hand out V.C's like lollypops to our brave troops and the poor Germans didnt really want any war so they lost it on purpose despite everything they built being vastly superior to every other countries equipment in everyway possible.

please don't tell me my country is responsible for the Holocaust that is if it really happened that is ?

did not realise what arseholes us folks over here realy were untill now, all this time i've been told Hitler and his caring sharing national socialists were the bad guys, it has all become clear now.

i'm with you Bill i really will have to stick to the modelling section from now on !

Shortround6 · Mar 9, 2013

I believe the truth between the two British leaders is somewhere in between. Chamberlain bought time and got some of the programs going. Churchill gets a bit more credit than deserved for "turning things around". shadow factories take several years to build, equip and get into operation.

How much Chamberlain really believed "Peace in our Time" I don't know but he could not have got off the plane and announced " Look, you silly buggers, I have just sold Czechoslovakia down the river (into slavery) to buy us another 12-18 months so put your petty bickering aside and get on with it (rearmament)" without being run out of office on a rail.

Chamberlain was dying of cancer even during the BoB and not only is history written by the winners, it is often written by the survivors.

Jenisch · Mar 9, 2013

rochie said:
so it was Chamberlin who set the world on its course for WW2 by dressing the British Army up as the German Army and annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia then !

It wasn't like that. But Britain and France didn't wanted Germany ruling Eastern Europe. It's populariy said that the Germans started the war, but actually it was Britain and France. Not that Germany did not want wars of it's own (Poland, USSR), but Britain and France could have not entered in war with Hitler, but for that they would have to accept Hitler's expansionist ideas, what they didn't want. Germany of course, didn't need war, but the Germans wanted to achive their interestes by war. When there's a big clash of interests, there's war.

and the poor Germans didnt really want any war so they lost it on purpose despite everything they built being vastly superior to every other countries equipment in everyway possible.

Again the myth of the superior German techonology...

rochie · Mar 9, 2013

and my last post in this section and i am hopefull it is not my last post ever.

i do not believe everything my country and its armed forces have ever done was brilliant and for the best but i am dissapointed at the very anti british feeling i am gettting from more than a few members of this forum so if allowed i will stick to the modelling section from now on

rant over

parsifal · Mar 9, 2013

Churchill prewar was banished to the back bench because of his constant criticism about the lack of rearmament. It was Baldwin and Chamaberlain that eventually began the rearmament process, so they do deserve credit, but Winston also has to receive credit for his unrelenting dogged persevereance in getting a virtually pacifist British Government to finally start to prepare for what was coming.

Once in office, Churchill galavanised the nation never to surrender and continue the fight whatever the cost and however long it would take to rid the world of Nazism and Hitler. He was tireless in his efforts to form a grand alliance to defeat the germans. He inherited a broken alliance as the French fell to Nazi aggression. He rebuilt a newer, stronger special relationship with the Americans, held some rather intransigent Commonwealth partners to task, kept the Indian subcontinent largely loyal even in Britains darkest hours, and even managed to achieve a temporary rapprocement with the Soviets. He tirelessly supported the underground movements across Europe that stood up to tyranny despite a terrible cost in blood and tears at times.

He galvanised the nation to fight on regardless. He never lost sight of the promises made in Eastern Europe until it was shown to be just not possible to protect them from Stalin.

He was a truly remarkable man. The British people, and most other freedom loving people do well to fete him for his achievements and forgive him for his failures.

Jenisch · Mar 9, 2013

rochie said:
but i am dissapointed at the very anti british feeling i am gettting from more than a few members of this forum

I hope that I'm not one of those "few members", because I make my geopolitical analyzes of Nazi Germany, Britain, USSR, etc, without any sort of emotion. I try to enter in their perspetives and interests.

Jenisch · Mar 9, 2013

parsifal said:
He never lost sight of the promises made in Eastern Europe until it was shown to be just not possible to protect them from Stalin.

Parfisal, I don't think there was much that Britain could do against a Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Even if France hadn't fall in 1940, and the Allies managed to defeat Germany by 1943-44, the Soviets would probably overrun the rest of Poland as the German Army fights for the homeland. And the Soviets were already stationed in other Eastern European countries due to to the MR Pact. To be frank, I think that perhaps the Russians could have been intimidated by the Anglo-French forces depending of their size, and even more if the US treatned Stalin. But I'm not certain of that.

Tante Ju · Mar 9, 2013

parsifal said:
He never lost sight of the promises made in Eastern Europe until it was shown to be just not possible to protect them from Stalin.

Percentages agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All-out aerial war between Germany and the Allies

Major

Airman 1st Class

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Senior Airman

The Pop-Tart Whisperer

Senior Airman

Major

Plastic Pirate

Major

Glock Perfection

Colonel

Moderator

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Moderator

Colonel

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads