Biggest Mistake of WWII

[morse1001]

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 28 2005, 12:40 AM-->

A counterfactual is another name for a "What if". A type of hypothesis where the facts are known but an alternative is conjectured. It is not a derisive term and does not mean to lie. Is that what you thought?

Quoted post

[/b]

What i mean, is that they tend to end up just being slanging matches as the participants try and force their ideas onto each other.

[spidge]

Originally posted by morse1001+Sep 28 2005, 05:16 PM-->

What i mean, is that they tend to end up just being slanging matches as the participants try and force their ideas onto each other.

Quoted post

[/b]

You can be my "second" anytime!

You know I only get upset when Japanese posters say that the only reason they slaughtered the Chinese in Nanking was because they wouldn't submit and do what they were told!

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally posted by morse1001+Sep 28 2005, 03:16 AM-->

What i mean, is that they tend to end up just being slanging matches as the participants try and force their ideas onto each other.

Quoted post

[/b]

Too true...remember that conjecture is just that...there are so many different ways history could have turned out. Some of it borders on satire. Robert Cowley's crwe at Military History Quarterly did two good books: "What If" and "What If 2," about such departures from military history...the Spanish conquer England in 1588, the Confederates win the American Civil War, the Moslems conquer Europe, the Americans drop the bomb on Cuba in 1962, and so on. Interesting stuff. Also very scary.

[spidge]

[quote=jimbotosome,Sep 28 2005, 02:53 PM]
[quote=spidge,Sep 27 2005, 09:47 PM]

[[quote]]Churchill’s appeal to Roosevelt reminds me of when Ben Franklin appealed to the French for help in our Revolutionary War. Franklin persuaded the French to give us help in supplies and Naval support even though we had been at war with the French only 20 years before. Franklin absolutely charmed the sox off of Louis XIV with his quips and wit. Without this intervention, Cornwallis would never have been trapped at Yorktown and the British would have won the war and the US might still be a colony of Britain. You could even say Franklin was the father of this country instead of George Washington. [/[quote]]

The French didn't decide to join in until after the second Battle of Saratoga gave them a glimpse that America could indeed win the war.

The French didn't decide to join in until after the second Battle of Saratoga gave them a glimpse that America could indeed win the war.

The French stayed out of the war because of economic problems in France, where Turgot, France’s finance minister, advised them to stay out of the war, even if the Americans could win the war it would be costly to the French and offered no benefit other than the fact the French and the British were always at odds. Solely because of the appeals of Franklin and his friendship with Louis XIV and immediately after a meeting between Franklin and Louis XIV, the French formed the alliance with the States in 1778. The French and Louis XIV were extremely impressed with Franklin who was the American Ambassador to France at the time. It was the French that blockaded Chesapeake Bay and then Washington bottled Cornwallis up there and shelled his troops for three weeks. Their lack of supplies forced Cornwallis to surrender his remaining forces and the British lost the will to continue the oppressive colonization of the States. Had the British have been re-supplied or rescued at Yorktown by the British fleet en route from New York; it might have had a completely different outcome.

This to me is exactly like Churchill’s appeal to FDR. If Roosevelt had been able to declare war like Louis XIV could, he would have. After meetings from Churchill, he was very distressed at the situations reported by his friend. It was in this distress that FDR came up with the solution of the Lend/Lease act and championed it before congress to get it passed. My point was that without Franklin’s appeal to Louis XIV, the French would not have intervened and the British would have eventually succeeded though the Americans would take occupation the same as the British would have taken occupation of Germany, it would never be truly over and independence was inevitable in both cases. Likewise, without the friendship between Churchill and his charm on the US and Canadians, it is doubtful that either would have intervened even after Pearl Harbor. I am not saying it is impossible, but I don’t see the passion of FDR going against the strong current of pacifism in the US if it was not fueled by the admiration and personal friendship he had with Churchill. JMHO

Based on spidge’s (Geoff) reference to Hitler's speech declaring war on the US, I decided to read a biography on Hitler (which as of now I have not finished). (he was not a nice fellow, did you folks realize that?) It brought several points to light. When Hitler "annexed" Austria, then "quietly occupied" the Saarland/Rhineland, and "reabsorbed" HIS half of Czech., then later all of Czech, Britain and France did nothing (probably wouldn't have happened that way if Churchill had been PM at the time). The most he got was a "rebuke" from the League of Nations, which it said was inept to follow through with threats sort of like a stern resolution of the UN. He was afraid of Britain and France at the time and boasted how he could push the limits of things without going beyond. All of these cases it said he was prepared to withdraw if it drew potential war with Britain and France. When Poland made a pact with Britain and France, it enraged Hitler. He made a pact with Russia (who trusted Britain less than Germany). He then set up yet another façade of causing trouble and making it look like the fault of those he wishes to conquer and invaded Poland. Britain and France ordered him to withdraw but he refused since they had done nothing before and believed they would again. When they did declare war, he still thought they were bluffing and could defend Poland anyway. (BTW: Is it proper to say France declared war on Germany? Can a government in exile declare war?)

Most people know all that. Then Demark and Belgium. When he invaded Norway, the British sent warships to defend the port town at Narvik. Hitler then sent the Luftwaffe to bomb the British fleet until they withdrew. That sort of settles the fact that the Navy is extremely vulnerable to land bombers. The Royal Navy (nor any Navy) could not have helped protect Britain from a German invasion; they would simply have become museums of honor like the USS Arizona. Their only hope was the RAF. The RAF was three weeks from annihilation (from attrition not from being bested), but were serendipitously saved by the inadvertent bombing of London by the Luftwaffe. But, it was the cunning move of Churchill to retaliate on Berlin whereas another leader would probably have sought an armistice or at least would not have understood that the best way to deal with a psychopath is to hit him in his pride. So, that sort of address the argument that Britain would have survived without Churchill, though it is not certain, it is doubtful.

Of course giving the RAF time to recover made his losses prohibitive and he “delayed” operation Sea Lion until the spring of 1941 (which never happened). Now, this goes to the point I was making about the US not wanting in the war. The reason he invaded Russia was fear that the US would jump into the war with the Allies. His plan was to quickly execute a Blitzkrieg on Russia which he and his generals expected to be at max three months. Then Italy, wanting to make a splash invaded North Africa. Greece stepped in North Africa and put up such a fierce fight that Hitler had to supplement him with troops. Churchill’s choice to move troops to contest them was a stroke of brilliance in retrospect because it forced Germany to attack to prevent the Allies from gaining a permanent foothold in North Africa and to prevent an Axis power from getting its behind kicked. Germany initially won that battle, but the biggest impact was that it delayed the invasion of Russia several months (along with the delays from the opposition of Yugoslavia). Since his generals were so sure that Blitzkrieg would win the war quickly, they only ordered winter uniforms for one fifth of their soldiers.

Since the US was building up its armed forces, Hitler assumed he had plenty of time to finish off Russia and that without Russia in the war, the US would have been reluctant to get involved (which may or may not have been true, I suspect it is true). Had he have just delayed Sea Lion from the start and attacked Russia, he could have taken them down quickly. It was the Luftwaffe that made Lightening war work, not armor, not artillery, but air power. He wasted so many bombers on Britain that he could not execute the same kind of war he did in France. If he had made short work of Russia, then he could have concentrated on Britain without any interference from the US. Despite conjectures from us who typically view things from the perspective of the Allies, I thought Hitler’s intent should weigh in here.

[spidge]

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Oct 5 2005, 09:43 AM
Greece stepped in North Africa and put up such a fierce fight that Hitler had to supplement him with troops. Churchill’s choice to move troops to contest them was a stroke of brilliance in retrospect because it forced Germany to attack to prevent the Allies from gaining a permanent foothold in North Africa and to prevent an Axis power from getting its behind kicked.

Hi Jim,

What do you mean by this?

Churchill withdrew troops from North Africa to "deny" Greece (which is in Europe) to the Germans and was a disaster as was Crete. The Italians were in control of the Dodecanese after their ill-fated invasion of Greece.

With the need to put troops into Greece, General Wavell was not able to advance into Tripolitania and drive the Italians from North Africa. So men were taken from the desert to help out in Greece and Eritrea, where the Italians had been ordered to draw some of Wavell's fire. The 6th Australian Division, along with the New Zealanders and a Brigade from 2nd Armoured Division were sent to Greece, which left the defence of Cyrenaica, to one brigade and the support group of 2nd Armoured Division. At this time the 7th Armoured Division was in the Nile delta awaiting new equipment, but as a fighting force it had virtually disintegrated.

Taking the troops from North Africa denied Wavell & O'Connor the means to clear North Africa of the Italians and solidify it's defence against what was the eventual arrival of Rommel and the Africa Corp in Tripoli on February 13th.

The face of this theatre would have been altered dramatically had the Greek decision not been made.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Geoff, I do believe Jimbo is confusing North Africa with Albania. Indeed The greeks intervened there with Disastrous consequences for the Italians.

As regards Jimbo's question about a Government in Exile declaring war, I am a little confused. The French declared war on Germany in 1939 and its government did not go into exile until after France was invaded in `1940. So I'm not sure why you're asking that question given that it never needed to happen

[spidge]

[quote=Gotthard Heinrici,Oct 5 2005, 06:52 PM]
[/[quote]]Geoff, I do believe Jimbo is confusing North Africa with Albania. Indeed The greeks intervened there with Disastrous consequences for the Italians. [[quote]]

Hi Gothard,

I was having a think about the other parts!!

With respect to the above quote I did take it as Greece from the allied perspective however the allies arrived in Greece only 5 or 6 days after the Italians invaded from Albania.


[[quote]]As regards Jimbo's question about a Government in Exile declaring war, I am a little confused. The French declared war on Germany in 1939 and its government did not go into exile until after France was invaded in `1940.[/[quote]]

You are correct however I did not make a comment in that post as it was unclear of Jimbo's intention here.

The French government did indeed declare war in 1939 however with the German invasion and subsequent capitulation the Vichy government was installed. Theoretically would that have negated the first declaration? Charles de Gaulle declared/offered himself as the Free French leader although he was not the "preferred" leader according to Roosevelt as he disliked and distrusted him.

Having said that, and we do call de Gaulle "the government" in exile would he then indeed have the need to re declare war on Germany as he did not and was not in the legal sense, "a Government"? (I think he was undersecretary for defence or war)
Theoretically there was no French government in exile as Reynaud's ministry resigned in bordeaux and left the government in charge of Marshall Petain.


[

]So I'm not sure why you're asking that question given that it never needed to happen

Quoted post

Gotthard, I have lost the meaning of this last quote.....sorry. I have had a bad week.

Could you please redirect.

I think you are referring to the declaration of war??

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Sorry mate, yes I was referring to the declaration of war and I know see where Jimbo and yourself were going with the conversation The penny didnt so much drop as slowly parachuted to the ground!!!