It is just that with Adolf, his mad ramblings are treated as well thought out policies and facts when they are actually ideas that came into his head from nowhere in particular.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It is just that with Adolf, his mad ramblings are treated as well thought out policies and facts when they are actually ideas that came into his head from nowhere in particular.As were/are most politicians .
But all this does not prove that Hitler was responsible for the defeat of Germany .
There is no proof that if Group 11 retreated, the German bombers could drop more bombs on London .To the point about Bomber Command's (and 8th AF's) campaign against Berlin, the geographic, political, strategic and operational contexts for that campaign were entirely different than those facing Britain in May/June 1940.
My theory for a potential way for Britain to lose the BoB does not involve Germany bombing Britain into submission. It's about Germany demonstrating that it could attack Britain at will be neutralizing the key front-line defences of Fighter Command. Such a chain of events, coming on the back of the ignominious retreat from Dunkirk, and acknowledging that the British Army left most of its heavy equipment behind in France, could have have resulted in tectonic political shifts in Whitehall.
In 1944, Germany still had a substantial army and its factories were still producing massive quantities of war materiel. Although the Allies were advancing, Germany proper was still not under immediate threat of invasion, and still posed a substantial threat. The political environment was also entirely different. The Fuhrer was a dictator, and killing him was the only way to remove his grip on power. He couldn't be reasoned with, couldn't be voted out of power, and he steadfastly refused to change his mind, even when events didn't go as planned.
For all these reasons, and more, we can't compare the response of Germany to the Allied bombing campaign with Britain's potential response to a retreat by 11 Group in 1940.
His criminal ( not mad ) ramblings did not come from nowhere, their origin was to find in the ideas that were supported by a big part of the populations of Britain, US, Germany in the 19th and 20th century .It is just that with Adolf, his mad ramblings are treated as well thought out policies and facts when they are actually ideas that came into his head from nowhere in particular.
Well they are mad as well as criminal, Adolf and Goebbels talking of a master race is like dogs proclaiming the superiority of cats. I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about his pronouncements on situations and events. He may have thought he had the most fearsome airforce and army in the world, that didnt make it a fact, he didnt have the capacity to beat the RAF and only had the resources to conquer a quarter of Russia, so he declared war on the USA to leave the world in no doubt about his stupidity.His criminal ( not mad ) ramblings did not come from nowhere, their origin was to find in the ideas that were supported by a big part of the populations of Britain, US, Germany in the 19th and 20th century .
Hitler executed what a lot of people ( people as G.B. Shaw and Churchill ) were talking about .
Euthanasia, racism, eugenics,antisemitism did not appear on April 20 1889
As were/are most politicians .
But all this does not prove that Hitler was responsible for the defeat of Germany ..
You can call his DOW a stupidity, but the reality isWell they are mad as well as criminal, Adolf and Goebbels talking of a master race is like dogs proclaiming the superiority of cats. I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about his pronouncements on situations and events. He may have thought he had the most fearsome airforce and army in the world, that didnt make it a fact, he didnt have the capacity to beat the RAF and only had the resources to conquer a quarter of Russia, so he declared war on the USA to leave the world in no doubt about his stupidity.
Just happened to come across your answer. Not only the Germans, but everyone else that saw the RN as a potential adversary was scared of them. The Japanese did not feel confident in their plans to attack the US Navy unless the RN was otherwise tied down in another conflict. As for those that saw the Royal Navy as a potential ally; I've read contemporary accounts of senior USN officers praising the RN and saying that the USN could do well in adopting more of it's features.No offense but at the time I think the Germans would have been more scared of the Royal Navy then the US Navy.
I am referring to his speech when he declared war, as part of his "European Crusade" on 11 December 1941You can call his DOW a stupidity, but the reality is
a he could not remain idle while US would destroy Japan
b PH would inevitably result in a US DOW on Germany
c It took more than one year for US army units fighting against Germans . In Tunisia .
Thus, his DOW on December 11 was not that important .
There are a number of histories on the Battle of Crete as well as others that have chapters on it. I once came across a history of intelligence operations in WWII written by an English author who included a chapter on Crete and said the following. British intelligence had uncovered information on the upcoming German invasion of Crete and knew how, when and where the German forces would be operating. British forces that were to be sent to other areas under their control for rest and refit were instead, rerouted to Crete. They were then given the supplies to the maximum then readily available to counter the invasion. As a consequence they were able to affect terrible losses on the German forces, especially the Fallschirmjager. I do not know how accurate this author was but even if partly true this would be another reason for those losses.One thing is for sure, just the terrain of Crete would have made it very very difficult to take. If the British forces there had been fresh troops with good moral and well supplied it very well may have been different.
Wow you two really are starting to go at it!I wonder how much I can sell tickets for.
I am sorry but you are wrong. There are two types of fuel shortage 1) Quantity and 2) QualityShortage of oil was, till the Autumn of 1944, not caused by production problems but by transport problems .
Are you serious about this, really!! Please give any evidence to support this, from any source or any example.The importance of Radar in 1940 is much overestimated
Please tell me where and when these people were proved to be liarsLiddell Hart, Guderian and Halder have been proved to be liars
True but the majority of Americans were against getting involved and Willkie only just scraped through as the other candidate. This definitely didn't make it a certainty.Willkie was as anti-German as FDR and supported also the New Deal .On a lot of points he was more to the left than FDR .
In 1944 the Germans had difficulty transporting their oil from behind Russian lines.I am sorry but you are wrong. There are two types of fuel shortage 1) Quantity and 2) Quality
Quantity you have a point but the shortage started to bite from mid 43 onwards. However it wasn't able to supply the Italians who had a desperate shortage. Additional fuel would certainly have helped.
Quality you are far off the mark. Until the end of the war the Luftwaffe never had enough C4 fuel which was the equivalent of 100 Octane, any cursory research you do will support that. As mentioned in an earlier post this can make a huge difference to the performance of an aircraft.
On other topics
Are you serious about this, really!! Please give any evidence to support this, from any source or any example.
Please tell me where and when these people were proved to be liars
True but the majority of Americans were against getting involved and Willkie only just scraped through as the other candidate. This definitely didn't make it a certainty.
Words,only words .I am referring to his speech when he declared war, as part of his "European Crusade" on 11 December 1941
Quote "Today I am at the head of the strongest Army in the world, the most gigantic Air Force and of a proud Navy. Behind and around me stands the Party with which I became great and which has become great through me. "
If he wasnt aware that his airforce was not gigantic at all let alone the most gigantic it shows how daft and ill advised he was. At the time of his lengthy rant, his "strongest army in the world" was starting to die of cold and was eating its means of transport. Far too much respect is shown for this buffoon.
If he had considered and tried to find out the truth he would have realised even then the situation was hopeless, instead he carried on like a petulant child, telling millions to fight to the death, something he himself famously didnt do.Words,only words .
Would you expect him to say : I am at the head of an Army that had failed in Russia, of an Air Force that failed in the skies of Britain and of a small U Boat force that has failed in the Atlantic Ocean ,with an admiral who failed to admit that it was better to sink one oil tanker than 10 merchant vessels transporting food ?
He was not daft and ill advised,but was not that stupid to tell the truth .
Once the LW aircraft had passed the Radar installations, no one knew what their direction was : London, Birmingham, Coventry, Liverpool ?I am sorry but you are wrong. There are two types of fuel shortage 1) Quantity and 2) Quality
Quantity you have a point but the shortage started to bite from mid 43 onwards. However it wasn't able to supply the Italians who had a desperate shortage. Additional fuel would certainly have helped.
Quality you are far off the mark. Until the end of the war the Luftwaffe never had enough C4 fuel which was the equivalent of 100 Octane, any cursory research you do will support that. As mentioned in an earlier post this can make a huge difference to the performance of an aircraft.
On other topics
Are you serious about this, really!! Please give any evidence to support this, from any source or any example.
Please tell me where and when these people were proved to be liars
True but the majority of Americans were against getting involved and Willkie only just scraped through as the other candidate. This definitely didn't make it a certainty.
YOU were using Lukacs as a source for your arguments .
But, what did I find when I googled John Lukacs?
'' In Lukacs's view, Barbarossa was not inspired by anti-Communism or any long-term plan to conquer the Soviet Union,but it was rather an ad hoc reaction forced on Hitler in 1940-1941 by Britain's refusal to surrender .''
And the article on Wiki gives as source :The Hitler of History, P 133 & 149-150 .
Thus, even Lukacs is disagreeing with you . And Kershaw was going in the same direction .
Other point : you are unable to understand that a plan ( not Otto ) being ''initiated'' in July 1940,does not mean that the political leadership had decided to execute this plan .
FYI :
there were several ''plans '' not ONE plan ,and the final plan was composed of elements of these several plans .
There were (and the list is not exhaustive )
Operationsentwurf Ost (5 August ) by Marcks who estimated the Soviet strength on 119 divisions and 28 brigades and expected a campaign of 9-17 weeks .
There was also the Operationsstudie Ost from Lossberg (15 September )
And Paulus also was involved (29 )ctober )
On December 18 Hitler signed the Barbarossa Weisung, but even then,the preparations continued:
On January 31 1941 the OKH presented its Aufmarschanweisung Barbarossa .
Hitler did not decide in July 1940 to attack the SU ,but at the end of 1940.
Hitler did not decide in July 1940 to attack the SU ,but at the end of 1940, always with the caveat that if Britain capitulated before the start of Barbarossa, this would make Barbarossa not only unnecessary , but also impossible :
140 combat divisions were committed for Barbarossa and 10 Security divisions who would kill Jews and potential partisans . Bit if Britain gave up, Germany would need at least 40 divisions for the occupation of the British Islands (including Ireland ).As there were no 40 divisions available in Germany, the only solution would be to take away 40 divisions from the Ostheer .which would make Barbarossa impossible .
Once the LW aircraft had passed the Radar installations, no one knew what their direction was : London, Birmingham, Coventry, Liverpool ?
The Radar could only tell that German aircraft were crossing the Channel . Nothing more .The Radar did not say what city would be attacked .
I think this response more than most shows how shallow your reading and research is. Radar warns you about the initial build up of the forces, this gives you time to ready your defences. It tells your the direction the forces are coming in from and an estimate of the numbers involved. It gives you a good idea which are fighters and those that are bombers which need more concentration so you can concentrate your forces. It enables you to intercept the incoming forces before they reach the coast and once past the radar installations the Observer corps took over and generally did a good job. Few, very few raids reached their target without warning.Once the LW aircraft had passed the Radar installations, no one knew what their direction was : London, Birmingham, Coventry, Liverpool ?
The Radar could only tell that German aircraft were crossing the Channel . Nothing more .The Radar did not say what city would be attacked .
As for his military career, you do know that he was badly gassed in combat and had two mild heart attacks probably the result of his injuries. Was he perfect, No, did he blow his own trumpet, yes so did others, Montgomery, Patton, Clark, MacArthur, to name but a few and I have no doubt that others could easily be added to the list. Were they all incompetent, no.About Liddell Hart : look at what Mearsheimer said of him .He was an imposter who lectured the military hierarchy before the war, while his military career lasted only 4 years . He left as a captain .He did not hesitate to ask after the war Guderian ( an enemy ) to say that the theory of the Blitzkrieg was inspired by him , Liddell Hart ,and Guderian , a Nazi, said yes , of course .Frau Rommel received the same question,but refused . She had some dignity.
Calling a man who served well and with considerable success a fool is a strong statement. Interestingly it was one of Liddells main theories that infantry should be carried in protected vehicles with the tanks, which is a basic structure of nearly all modern units Excepting specialised units. Not bad for an im,poster in the 1930'sIt were Guderian and Liddell Hart who were spreading after the war the myth that the escape of the BEF was made possible by the Halt Order and that this order was given by Hitler and that the generals protested .
It was Guderian who said that the only thing that was important in a Panzer Division,was the number of tanks, proving his incompetence .( Panzer Leader P 139 ) In 1943 he wanted to restore Panzer Divisions with 400 tanks ,proving that he was a fool .
Hitler would have been a complete idiot if he would not demand the occupation of Britain : a neutral Britain could always become again a hostile Britain .I sourced Lukacs' book about the political disagreements in Parliament about whether to continue the war or sue for peace in May 1940. That does not mean I agree with everything he has ever written.
Interesting that you call me out for citing Lukacs when, in post #862 you said "I have not much faith in Lucacs .He writes fiction." So, which parts of Lucaks' writings are fiction/ Is it the stuff about London in May 1940 or his views on Barbarossa and anti-Communism.
FWIW, I'm glad to see you're citing Wikipedia instead of actually reading the scholarly works for yourself. It's a great way to win an argument.
Some observations on military planning:
1. Military planning precedes the commander's decision which directs the action. You don't decide and then plan; you plan in order to make smart, informed decisions. The commander directs the planning to start because (a) he expects to conduct operations, or (b) he's developing a contingency plan in case of operations.
2. Planning typically involves the development of multiple courses of action (COAs) which are presented to the commander who decides which COA, or combination of COAs, will be executed.
3. Planning is not a linear activity. It is highly iterative as new information and new senior leader direction is received.
4. Planning NEVER starts with a blank sheet of paper. You ALWAYS start with an existing plan as a jumping-off point. The planning effort may integrate components from multiple prior plans.
Again, I will stress that I do this stuff for a living. I know of what I speak. To give you an example of the amount of time it takes to plan major operations, we have an existing OPLAN on the shelf that is massive in scope. Updates to it take at least 3 months to complete...and it's far less complex than Barbarossa.
If Hitler had no intention of attacking the Soviet Union, then all the planning for Barbarossa was nothing more than a contingency plan. Bell has the following to say, which I've transcribed for you, that tallies well with my comments above (P.M.H. Bell "The Origins of the Second World War in Europe", 2nd Ed pp.323-324):
Not all plans are carried out - the directive of November 1940 for an attack on Gibraltar, for example, came to nothing. The absolute certainty of an attack on the Soviet Union cannot, therefore, be assumed on the basis of the military plans alone. But the scale of the military preparations, and the time and energy devoted to them, put the planning for Barbarossa in quite a different category from that of Gibraltar. Certainly from December 1940 onwards it was clear that this was no mere contingency plan, but, short of something extraordinary, would be put into effect. The question is why?
One answer is that it was the fulfilment of a long-formed intention. Alan Bullock concluded firmly in his biography of Hitler that: 'Hitler invaded Russia for the simple but sufficient reason that he had always meant to establish the foundation of his thousand-year Reich by annexation of the territory between the Vistula and the Urals.' Other motives, at most, only reinforced a decision he had already reached. This conclusion has been widely shared and evidence for it may be found throughout Hitler's writings and talks to Nazi and service leaders over a long period. His mind appeared to be firmly set in this mould by the 1920s and the longer his dictatorship lasted the less open he was to new ways of thought.
By 1940 it is probable that the mould was unbreakable. Hitler took up other ideas - an invasion of Britain, a move through Spain, a Mediterranean Campaign, a grand alliance to include the USSR - but he dropped them again. To an attack on the Soviet Union he constantly returned.
The bottom line is that Hitler ordered planning to start for an invasion of Russia. The scale of effort and level of preparation strongly suggests that this was no mere contingency plan. Once planning was complete, 5 months later (a not-unreasonable amount of time given the complexity of the plan), Hitler directed that the plan be executed.
Again, you're assuming that a British capitulation would require occupation of the British Isles by German forces. That is an entirely false assumption to make. If a Parliamentary vote of no-confidence went against Churchill and he was replaced by someone who was willing to agree peace terms with Hitler, then it's far more likely that Britain would adopt a neutral stance, particularly if the constituent parts of the British Empire were no longer under threat of German attack. As I've said all along, the loss of the Battle of Britain didn't need to be an all-out military defeat followed by invasion and occupation. Hitler's aims of knocking Britain out of the war could have been achieved by influencing Parliament to replace Churchill with a more peace-minded alternative.