StashAugustine posted:

Show him a copy of Korsun Pocket sometime

And to actually engages the Germans did come close to Moscow but that would end up with Stalingrad with subways and theres no guarantee that would even end the war

Polikarpov posted:

Wehraboos seem to think there's a button in the basement of the Kremlin that will make the Red Army stop wanting to kill Germans.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Does he cite any counter-examples of research that "proves you wrong"?

quote:

Answer to the second question: I already did, by correcting your "corrections" in great detail. See my post posted May 26, 2016 01:39 AM.

quote:

Salazar, I have to dispute most of your claimed facts. First of all, I did say Germany was more powerful than any one other nation. Your statement that England and France combined had "more resources, population, GDP, and industrial capacity" only agreed with my statement.

Yes, Germany annexed Austria and some other territories, but that is not the only reason they quickly built themselves up into a military power great enough to challenge the other nations of Europe.

You are quite mistaken in your denial that the Germans could have won WWII. Some military historians who knew what they were talking about have said that the British air force was "on the ropes," and have estimated that if the Luftwaffe had continued their bombardment of British air power only a few more DAYS, Britain would have been unable to oppose a German invasion.

Many military experts have also observed that the Allies were on the verge of defeat, and would have been (after all France had fallen, Poland and the Balkans had fallen, Scandinavia had fallen, all that was left was Britain) if Hitler had not decided to attack Russia instead of finishing the job in the west.

The misguided "Operation Barbarossa" almost succeeded in defeating Russia--at the peak, German tanks were in sight of the Kremlin in the first Autumn after the invasion of Russia.

Germany squandered at least three opportunities to win the war outright. This gave time for America to enter the war and build up troop strength in Britain capable of launching a counter-offensive, that finally turned the tide.

The only other nation that actually fought with Germany was Italy. No other nation in Europe made any major contribution to the German war effort. Bulgaria may have been counted as an ally, but it contributed only minor military forces, that were all used against Russia. While the USA was building up its forces in Britain--and supplementing the British fleet and air force--the US armored forces led by Patton took on Rommel in northern Africa, bailing out the British mechanized units that had been on the defensive, then moved on to attack Italy.

All military analysts of comparative tanks in WWII regard the German Panzers as being the best tanks, at least in the early part of the war. The Sherman tanks were a later addition, that were only a factor after the USA entered the war. The advanced Russian models were not introduced until late in the Russian campaign. At the start of WWII, Germany had the best tanks. Period. That is one reason why their "Blitzkrieg" tactic was so effective, and blew right through the French lines (surrounding the Maginot line), went all the way to Paris, and later almost made it to the Kremlin. (By the way, I used to play a game by Milton Bradley called "The Russian Campaign," and competed with players all across the country by mail. I was even nationally ranked for a while among the top 50.)

That reminds me of another mistake Hitler made that potentially cost Germany the war--his decision to stop using the "Flieger Corp" because of setbacks when it was poorly used in Crete, to which Hitler over-reacted. Actually it was a very effective tactical element, where paratroops were dropped behind enemy lines to cut supply lines and catch enemy forces in a pincers. On the battlefield, the Flieger Corp added a considerable force multiplier effect.

It is really hard to understand how the Germans could have lost the war--they had so many advantages, so many clear opportunities to have won the war. Many blame misjudgements by Hitler.

Germany did have a project to develop an atomic bomb. They might actually have built an atomic bomb before anyone else, if it were not for the Allied bombing of the German heavy water processing plant, and related research facilities. Germany had scientists capable of building the bomb. Here is what Wickipedia says about the Nazi effort to develop nuclear weapons:

"The German nuclear weapon project (German: Uranprojekt; informally known as the Uranverein; English: Uranium Society or Uranium Club), was a clandestine scientific effort led by Germany to develop and produce nuclear weapons during World War II. This program started in April 1939, just months after the discovery of nuclear fission in December 1938, but ended only months later due to the German invasion of Poland, after many notable physicists were drafted into the Wehrmacht.

"A second effort began under the administrative purview of the Wehrmacht's Heereswaffenamt on 1 September 1939, the day of the Invasion of Poland. The program eventually expanded into three main efforts: the Uranmaschine (nuclear reactor), uranium and heavy water production, and uranium isotope separation." Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapon_project

Of course we also should not forget the German rocket program. They virtually invented the military use of rockets like the V-2. At the end of the war, over 1,500 German scientists were recruited by the Allies, mainly the USA.

quote:

One last time, because it is so obvious. Raenir, can you answer the questions WHY the Germans "were screwed" and exactly what caused the "catastrophe waiting above their heads"?*

What if Hitler had continued the air attack against the Royal Air Force for another couple of weeks?

What if Hitler had continued to use the Fliegerkorps against the Allies after the one bad experience in the Mediterranean, and perhaps had landed paratroops in England--perhaps following it up with their planned "Operation Sea Lion"?

What if Hitler had had better sense when he decided to launch Operation Barbarossa, and included cold weather clothing and supplies with his troops?

What if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor when it did, or at least waited a year, or even a few months--so the USA would not have entered the war as soon as it did?

Are you capable of understanding how to evaluate such hypothetical situations honestly, and what they really mean? Yes, the Germans lost because they screwed themselves (mainly Hitler did), but if they had not screwed themselves, they would have won. Right? Do you get it?

quote:

By the way, Raenir, one more thing. You brought up Augustine** in one of your snarky remarks. Apparently you think I should regard him as a spiritual authority. As a Protestant*** who knows church history, I am not high in my regard for Augustine, and do not believe he should be called a saint. It was his idea of the Roman church being obliged to use force to compel acceptance of its authority and teachings, as set forth in his book, The City of God, which Protestant scholars credit with being primarily responsible for the creation of the Inquisition. So well-meaning as Augustine might have been, he helped create one of the greatest evils in human history. Millions of martyrs were killed because of him--most of them because they believed in sound Biblical teachings that happened to contradict the pagan corruptions that had come into the Roman church; and the Protestant Reformation and long-lasting wars in Europe were required to break the persecuting power the Papacy had grown into, which resulted from his doctrine.

quote:

A classic example of German inefficiency in tank production is the Nibelungenwerke in Austria, which was built from scratch between 1939–41 at the cost of RM 65.7 million and was intended to produce 150 Pz IV tanks per month in 1942. However, just as the plant was reaching initial operational capability (IOC) in January 1942, the OKH decided to escalate the long-dormant heavy tank program. The Nibelungenwerke was directed to work with Porsche in developing and building his VK 4501( P) Tiger prototype, while Henschel built its own VK 4501 (H) project. Despite the fact that Porsche’s design was plagued with technical problems, the Nazi hierarchy ensured that it was assigned higher priority than Pz IV production and the two largest workshops at the Nibelungenwerke were given over to Dr Porsche’s project. Enter Karl Otto Saur, Speer’s deputy in the Reichsminister für Bewaffnung und Munition. Saur was also an ardent Nazi and issued orders to both Henschel and Porsche that they would complete their prototypes for the Tiger competition by Hitler’s birthday on 20 April 1942. Remarkably, the Nibelungenwerke was able to meet this arbitrary schedule and assemble a single VK 4501( P) prototype, but this came at the cost of restricting Pz IV production to just 2–8 tanks per month for the first five months of the year. Adding insult to injury, Speer recognized that the VK 4501( P) prototype was technically unreliable and terminated the programme, awarding the production contract for the Tiger to Henschel instead. However, Porsche continued to be one of Hitler’s favourites, so he was handed a consolation prize: the Nibelungenwerke would build 90 VK 4501( P) hulls, which Porsche would convert into an as-yet-undesigned Ferdinand heavy tank destroyer. Just as the Nibelungenwerke was ramping up to build 32 Pz IV tanks in November 1942, the staff were informed that the Ferdinand now had top priority and assembly had to be completed by April 1943. Half the workspace of Workshop VII, intended for Pz IV assembly, was handed over to Porsche for his Ferdinand project. Consequently, thanks to Porsche and Saur’s Nazi cronyism, the Nibelungenwerke only built the miniscule total of 186 Pz IV tanks during 1942 instead of the 1,800 planned. The Ferdinand programme prevented any significant increase in Pz IV production for months and it was not until June 1943 that the Nibelungenwerke was able to raise its monthly output to 120 Pz IV Ausf H. Since the Nibelungenwerke was also responsible for producing spare road wheels for the Pz IV, this output was also significantly impaired until spring 1943. Stalin never tolerated this kind of disruption of critical war production, but it was commonplace in the Third Reich.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

It takes a lot of "What Ifs" to make Germany absolutely 100% guaranteed to win World War 2.

David Stahel, 'Operation Typhoon: Hitler's March on Moscow, October 1941' posted:

While Bock's troops did their best to provide for themselves, there were almost two million men in Army Group Center on 2 October (and over a million more in the remainder of the Ostheer) and there was simply no way of adaquately equipping them all in time for winter. The army command had prioritized fuel and armamant shipments over bulky winter clothing. The idea was to end the war in the east in one final all-out effort, and no resource was to be spared in pursuit of that goal. Requests for winter clothing were not only refused but, according to Guderian, the subordinate armies 'were instructed not to make further unneccessary requests of that type.' The idea that precious transport capacity be reserved for winter clothing was seen within the high vommand almost as an admission of defeat and a resignation that a winter campain had become unavoidable. The result was a steadfast refusal to acknowledge the scale of the problem or to do anything substantive about it...
Not only did the German high command refuse to take steps which actively assisted their troops, they even took steps that worsened their plight. At Riga, thousands of Jewish laborers were employed, some directly under Army Group North's command, tailoring captured sheepskins into articles of clothing for the troops. They produced ear-protectors, fur caps, waistcoats and more. This, however, did not save them. At the end of November 1941 the entire workforce was shot 'in accordance with the Fuhrer's orders' when the Riga ghetto was liquidated.

StashAugustine posted:

That is shifting goalposts a little but good points. There's also the perennial 'gay black Hitler' argument- a Hitler who was rational enough to keep winter supplies with his troops may have been a Hitler rational enough to not invade Russia in the first place.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

What if the Italians had had 3 "Modern" aka ~1940ish Aircraft Carriers with full aircraft compliment and good pilots to go with them (sorta kinda Italian Kiddo Budday). I bet they would've still sucked in the Med.

Raenir Salazar posted:

I think Taranto still happens because it would've been too much of a risk to actually use them in combat!

Jobbo_Fett posted:

What if the Italians had had 3 "Modern" aka ~1940ish Aircraft Carriers with full aircraft compliment and good pilots to go with them (sorta kinda Italian Kiddo Budday). I bet they would've still sucked in the Med.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

In any case, I was pondering a dumb question after that reply.


What if the Italians had had 3 "Modern" aka ~1940ish Aircraft Carriers with full aircraft compliment and good pilots to go with them (sorta kinda Italian Kiddo Budday). I bet they would've still sucked in the Med.

Raenir Salazar posted:

I decided to just go ahead and post Disinterested's and Bobo-Fett's posts (Don't worry I credited you guys), and by the way apparently David Stahel is a liberal?

Because whelp!

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

If Queen Anne of Denmark can have a black attendant in 1617 Tilly can have a black soldier in 16fuckety-five or whenever imo.

HEY GAL posted:

to my mind, that's tied between two attempts by Anglos to invade their Hispanic neighbors to the southwest, by which of course i mean Bay of Pigs and this goddamn thing

quote:

A wave of drunkenness ensued, with few or none of Cecil's force remaining sober.

Raenir Salazar posted:

To be specific, its usually the argument that it was the "nasty Russian winter" that saved the Soviets and that this was somehow Hitler's fault. Did the Germans deliberately choose not to supply the forces invading the Soviet Union with winter uniforms? Was it actually the case that they couldn't?

quote:

do you deny that Germany easily and swiftly conquered Poland, then conquered the vaunted French army, and drove the British Expeditionary Force clear off the continent--and would have wiped them all out if not for the miraculous/heroic Dunkirk evacuation? Do you deny that at that point Germany, with its weaker Italian ally, had virtually unchallenged dominion of Europe? (They did not conquer Switzerland or Spain because they did not need to.) German defenders were so well dug in, that when the D-Day invasion of Normandy was launched, one source I read said that only three men survived the first wave landing at the section of the Normandy coast the Allies designated as "Utah Beach." And that invasion might not have succeeded were it not that two Panzer divisions had been diverted to ward against an invasion at Calais, due to Allied deception that it might attack there. Had those two Panzer divisions been backing up the dug-in defenders at Normandy, the Allied invasion probably would not have succeeded in establishing a beachhead.

Let me add this objection: When I challenged you to provide your arguments for your ridiculous claim that the Germans could not have won WWII, I meant for you to provide succinct statements IN YOUR OWN WORDS, not quote paragraph after paragraph from one incompetent would-be scholar who obviously did not know how to draw valid conclusions about the evidence he was looking at, and seems to have been motivated by a desire to make a name for himself by being an iconoclast. If you had any competent professors, they would have taught you that unless you can express a subject IN YOUR OWN WORDS, then you do not understand it well enough to discuss it.

You are the one who chose to attack me for innocently stating what virtually everyone knows, that Germany did come close to winning WWII, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

And by the way, I take great exception to your blatant lying about my response to your stupidity, and about your projection of your own dishonest behavior onto me.

Raenir Salazar posted:

I decided to just go ahead and post Disinterested's and Bobo-Fett's posts (Don't worry I credited you guys), and by the way apparently David Stahel is a liberal?

quote:

The authors whom you quote were just the kind of liberal scholar wannabes who try to make a name for themselves by seizing on any excuse to go against the established wisdom.

Nebakenezzer posted:

I don't know about everybody else here but for me this post requires a little explaining

Raenir Salazar posted:

This is exhausting.

DiHK posted:

Raenir Salazar posted:

This is exhausting.

hogmartin posted:

One of my cats is named after Lydia Litvyak. I kept trying to put her in a Yakovlev but it was a disaster every time so now she just bounces and mrrrps around the house.

Crazycryodude posted:

This is usually the point where I say screw it, point /r/ShitWehraboosSay in their direction, and move on with my life.

Raenir Salazar posted:

This is exhausting.

Taerkar posted:

Only three guys in the first wave of Utah survived? WTF.

Hunt11 posted:

I feel like the best chance for Germany to win would have Britain move for peace talks with the Axis powers after France fell. This may be a biased view, but I feel that with Britain out of the war, then coordination between the Soviet Union and the US would have been much more difficult, and the Nazi's would have been able to devote more resources to Barbarossa that could have prevented it from turning into the poo poo show that it did in real life.

Hunt11 posted:

I feel like the best chance for Germany to win would have Britain move for peace talks with the Axis powers after France fell. This may be a biased view, but I feel that with Britain out of the war, then coordination between the Soviet Union and the US would have been much more difficult, and the Nazi's would have been able to devote more resources to Barbarossa that could have prevented it from turning into the poo poo show that it did in real life.

Hunt11 posted:

I feel like the best chance for Germany to win would have Britain move for peace talks with the Axis powers after France fell. This may be a biased view, but I feel that with Britain out of the war, then coordination between the Soviet Union and the US would have been much more difficult, and the Nazi's would have been able to devote more resources to Barbarossa that could have prevented it from turning into the poo poo show that it did in real life.

SeanBeansShako posted:

Ah yes war gaming. By that logic, I am better than Napoleon.

Polikarpov posted:

I found a pretty amazing quote in Forcyzk's Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front 1943-1945: Red Steamroller.

Polikarpov posted:

It's easy to forget that Barbarossa wasn't about pushing the magic button in Stalin's office but rather destroying the Red Army in order to cause the collapse of the Soviet state. One kick, rotten edifice, etc. This mistaken expectation of a swift political victory drove the flawed decision making around Barbarossa.

Underestimating the size of Soviet reserves and the rate at which they could be called up didn't help either.