Biggest Mistake of WWII

[Harry Ree]

(Gnomey @ Feb 5 2006, 08:39 AM) [post=45294]You could say it is but perhaps the biggest mistake of the war was the failure of the French to attack into the Rhineland in 1936 or again in 1939 before the Phoney War started. The war also became a wider war than Hitler planned, as he only planned on going East, but the Western Allies declared war on him as a result of Poland which he did not expect.
[/b]

The occupation of the Rhineland by Hitler should have been challenged by both the French and the British, not just the French who had reservations about the territory immediately after the war.The French wished the Rhineland to be an independent state and be free of German influence as far as it was possible.They were not listened to at Versailles and when it came to initiatives in 1936,Britain's political will was in the hands of the appeasers and the US had adopted their so called "splendid isolation" foreign policy towards Europe.The French had earlier occupied the Ruhr in 1923 when Germany withheld reparations but received no international support apart from Belgium who also took part in the occupation.

Regarding Poland,Hitler took the gamble that Britain and France would not declare support for Poland having seen Britain "concede" the Sudtenland to Germany 12 months before and not a wimper from Britain in March 1939 when he annexed the remaining territory of Czechoslovakia.

You know, this brings up that there is a lesson to be learned, in some respects learned by the current coalition nations, but it still must be learned by all nations as well since it applies universally. When you have a ruthless leader, you have to stop him before he gets out of hand and obtains too much offensive power. It is true that Britain and France could have taken a stand and had less trouble stopping Germany before 1939 but just like the American's the peoples of these nations were sick of war from WWI. Nobody relishes war not even for a demonstration of the “cool” equipment that your scientists and engineers have developed. We have similar types of problems today with Iran and the disagreements over the invasion of Iraq. While it's debatable whether Hussein was not an immediate threat, he could have easily become one, everyone knows that. The same is true for Iran. They have a hardline leader that is analogous to a dictator. If he gets a nuclear weapon, would he use it? Would he hold the world hostage? And if he used it on Israel as he indicates, how many nations would retaliate? I am sure the US would and so would Israel itself. How do you retaliate against a nuclear attack? What would happen to the economies of the world? The fallout radioactive fallout? If the leader of Iran is like the suicide bombers he sponsors, as would sacrifice his country for an ideal of hatred against the Jews isn’t he even worse than Hitler?

So, here we have the same thing. People wanting to avoid war at all costs (very understandable) but perhaps the lessons of WWII are not as understood by certain nations because of their social changes. But does ignorance of this truism that a dictator does not change his spots make it untrue and hence we will never have a problem out of Iran or would never have had a problem out of Iraq? Is there anyone here that truly believes that taking it to the UN is of any consequence? In a sense, the US had lost all of its political capital to go to war with Iran. It would certainly join a coalition but it would have to be sponsored by one of the European nations or even the EU itself but it is not capable of the initiative because of the politics in the states.

Folks, is history simply repeating itself and we are going to need another massive worldwide war someday? Will there come a day when the genie is out of the bottle? How do you know the difference between pessimism and realism in situations like these? Not trying to get off topic, in fact, in the abstract, they are precisely the same topic.

[Herroberst]

</div><div class='quotemain'>You could say it is but perhaps the biggest mistake of the war was the failure of the French to attack into the Rhineland in 1936 or again in 1939 before the Phoney War started[/b]

But would have the French succeeded using dispersed armor tactics. Had the French grouped their armor on mass I believe their Char B was superior in firepower to the German tanks.

[Gnomey]

The French tanks at the time of the German invasion where in most ways superior to the panzers mounting bigger guns. The main drawbacks where that these guns where hull mounted and therefore the whole tank had to be exposed before it could fire, resulting in a large target for opposing gunners as opposed to the hull down position that can be achieved with turreted tanks.

Another thing that didn't help were the French tactics and German control of the air over the battlefield. I also believe that the French had the attitude that the couldn't beat the Germans even though they had more men and equipment (except aircraft) in the line.

(Gnomey @ Feb 5 2006, 05:08 PM) [post=45333]The French tanks at the time of the German invasion where in most ways superior to the panzers mounting bigger guns. The main drawbacks where that these guns where hull mounted and therefore the whole tank had to be exposed before it could fire, resulting in a large target for opposing gunners as opposed to the hull down position that can be achieved with turreted tanks.

Another thing that didn't help were the French tactics and German control of the air over the battlefield. I also believe that the French had the attitude that the couldn't beat the Germans even though they had more men and equipment (except aircraft) in the line.
[/b]

Gnomey,
Any info on the use of tactical air in France? Did the Stukas have a good go at the French armor?

[Gnomey]

I don't have much info on what the Germans attacked with their tactical airforce but it was similar to how they used it in Poland, the main targets would of been bridges, communications and armour.

[ourbill]

The main mistake by Germany was in not taking Logistics seriously. There was not the thought in planning and building trucks that were able to travel in all conditions. The army paid too much reliance on the rail network and horses for the movment of all supplies and during battles ammunition comes first. In Russia the rail network was in chaos and the difference in guages between Germany and Russia caused vast areas of stockpiled equipment, including winter clothes, waiting for transport to the front. Germany took, if my memory serves me correct, 75,000 horses.
It seems that Hitler didn't read any of Napoleon's books. An invading army in Russia can't live off the land.

The Allies post D-day were better prepared and the red-bull run ran on and on thanks to the duce and a half.

Roger

[Exxley]

(ourbill @ Feb 10 2006, 09:19 PM) [post=45578]The main mistake by Germany was in not taking Logistics seriously. There was not the thought in planning and building trucks that were able to travel in all conditions. The army paid too much reliance on the rail network and horses for the movment of all supplies and during battles ammunition comes first. In Russia the rail network was in chaos and the difference in guages between Germany and Russia caused vast areas of stockpiled equipment, including winter clothes, waiting for transport to the front. Germany took, if my memory serves me correct, 75,000 horses.
It seems that Hitler didn't read any of Napoleon's books. An invading army in Russia can't live off the land.

The Allies post D-day were better prepared and the red-bull run ran on and on thanks to the duce and a half.

Roger
[/b]

Well Roger, according to Ziemke, the Barbarossa force initially had 3,350 tanks, 7,184 artillery pieces, 600,000 motor vehicles, and 625,000 horses (!!).

[Glider]

(Gnomey @ Feb 6 2006, 10:14 AM) [post=45344]I don't have much info on what the Germans attacked with their tactical airforce but it was similar to how they used it in Poland, the main targets would of been bridges, communications and armour.
[/b]

Couldn't agree more

[ourbill]

Exxley

I have a bad memory these days, I knew it was a large number of horses but not that many! Thanks for jogging my memory.

I don't quite understand if you agree with my theory or not. The first really bad snow and frost killed off most horses and stopped the trucks because the Russians destroyed all the fodder in the fields and the trucks had the wrong oils. etc.

I suppose the Germans thought it a good idea at the time, I've never read anywhere the reasons for the reliance on horse power, I suppose it was to keep up with the following infantry and most of the trucks went with the attacking front lines. I must look into that further but at the moment I'm still in the desert with the First Army, perhaps, as it appears, you are far more informed than I am and can point me in the right direction.

Roger