Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Thank you parsifal. Thats what I was somewhat getting to.
Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?
- Thread starter Jenisch
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
michaelmaltby
Colonel
No "ouch" intended. Sorry.
MM
MM
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
".... Any article that uses Surovov as one of its main sources should be questioned deeply..."
Perhaps, but the article quotes David Glantz way more extensively than Surovov. It's actually a pretty reasonable argument for Stalin's objectives -- without flying tanks or other strange mutations.. You should give it a quick read, Jsbberwocky.
MM
This is getting well of topic, but its not the first time that I've been pointed to that article. Citing Glantz in support of the article's main thrust is disingenuous in the extreme, as Glantz has activly argued against the thesis for more than a decade.
If you look past the raw numbers, to the actual deployment of Soviet forces in Poland/Western USSR, their manning and officer levels, training, readiness and supply states, then the notion that a Soviet attack on Germany was imminent is patently ridiculous.
Soviet formations weren't in a defensive or an offensive positions, they were in an occupation positions or undergoing a scheduled training, rest and refit cycle. In June 1941, nearly half of the man-power in the Western military district was employed in engineering works, constructing military and civilian infrastructure, while they were waiting for the basic equipment.
Vastly more comprehensive and cogent rejections of the thesis have been made by experienced military history and political history writers from both the West and from Russia.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... Citing Glantz in support of the article's main thrust is disingenuous in the extreme, as Glantz has activly argued against the thesis for more than a decade...."
Fair enough. No more Surovov ....
MM
Fair enough. No more Surovov ....
MM
My point: it's realistic that some country's interests can get higher on the priority list than international law, I'm okay with that.
What I'm not okay is that there is a need to explain the actions taken (needed to protect those very interests) as the ones that follow blindly both a word spirit of the international laws. Nor that one thing that plays in the hands of one belligerent should be stated as 'neutral'.
International law describes territorial waters as the area spanning 12nm from the coast, and within that area the 'owner' can exercise it's military might. When a country declares it will shoot at at a foreign military vessel in the area 300 (n?)m from it's coast, that's just because it can, not because the international laws give it a right to do so. So there is really no need to say that an orange is of blue color - we all know it's not.
As for Neutrality patrols, here is what is written by an American Navy Captain (retired) in 1990, in Naval Aviation News - should we guess who are the Allies of the USA in 1939?
Attachments
parsifal
Colonel
I am unsure what you are trying to say here TP, could you try to claidy please. I think you are trying to say international laws are not important. If so, that your opinion, its not how most nations view the issue. OInternational laws dont change the military balance, they dont force peace on people. But they are the measure as to whether a person or country are acting illegally. They are the means that are used to determine ilegal and reprehensible behaviour, without the need to apply personal moral judgements. perdsonal moral judgements from you, or me, or anybody else are irelevant. What matters is firstly whether a breach of the body of law has been breached, and if so, how badly.
Your confusing the notion of territorial waters and neutrality. "territorial waters" were at that time a 3 mile zone, from the coast, that foreign ships could not enter without a maritime clearance. that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. All nations, whether they are neutral or belligerent, have the right to protect their ships and sailors at sea. However they risk being sunk by belligernt ships if they enter a declared war zone. The British declared war zones during the war the Germans did not. The American states (not just the US) is nothing illegal with that. It has nothing to do with territorial waters. The Americans could have not made any declarations about the pan American Defence zone and escorted their ships whereever they liked, and offered protection to whatever degree of lethality they liked. It would have been very awkward for the Americans if the Germans had adopted the cruiser rules of engagement in their attacks, but they didnt. They instead chose to use unrestricted warfare in their attacks, which because of its illegality gave the Americans the ability to sink the the germans without reason.
With regard to the piece that you attached, you do relaize that what the good captain is saying is exactly the same as what im saying, and pretty much the opposite of what you are saying. You are saying that a neutrals ability to use its seapower legally is out to the 12 mile limit (which didnt exist in 1939). The good Captain is saying it was legitimate for the USN to take steps to protect shipping out as far as it wanted to do so.
Shortround6
Major General
May I suggest this article as a brief overview of what was going on just before WW II.
http://www.clashofarms.com/files/Naval_Aspects_Spanish_Civil_War.pdf
Perhaps someone can find what was being accepted as the distance from the coast that a "blockade" could extend or at what distance "neutral" ships were supposed to stay from the coast?
http://www.clashofarms.com/files/Naval_Aspects_Spanish_Civil_War.pdf
Perhaps someone can find what was being accepted as the distance from the coast that a "blockade" could extend or at what distance "neutral" ships were supposed to stay from the coast?
US involvement in World War II. It was decided well before by FDR, but Congress and people was unwilling to war, so president had to make an excuse for war.. a casus belly. It was decided in 1940 already US will go to war against Axis powers, primarly German, to protect interest of national importance, protect England from collapse (important market for US goods), and prevent Axis from gaining control of much of Europe, which could in long term threat US on American continent. American knew Britain could not win the fight, fight defense on British isles for some time yes, but long term could not win, even less go on offense. Simply no enough military power.
It was not consequence of Uboot operations for merchant ships. That was ex post facto excuse. There was nothing illegal or "pirate" in that, if someone says, simply does not understand what word pirate means... pirate is FDR made propaganda slogan. US and UK, Italian, even few Soviet subs operated exact same way anyway during war. Sea mine droped by all beligerents from air neither gave warning.. Prize rule did not apply anyway to armed merchant ships, such was practice on "innocent civillian" ship.
Suggest read US document from november 1940: Plan Dog, 26 pages
Its all about how to make war, not about how to avoid war. Causes, reason are also clear defined.
From September 1941, when FDR issue "shoot on sight" order US and Germany was in a shooting war any case.. on FDR initiative. Rainbow 5 plan was intentionally leaked a couple of month later to provoke the Axis into war, as FDR still coulnd't get Congress to declare war he was already waging on the Atlantic..
It was not consequence of Uboot operations for merchant ships. That was ex post facto excuse. There was nothing illegal or "pirate" in that, if someone says, simply does not understand what word pirate means... pirate is FDR made propaganda slogan. US and UK, Italian, even few Soviet subs operated exact same way anyway during war. Sea mine droped by all beligerents from air neither gave warning.. Prize rule did not apply anyway to armed merchant ships, such was practice on "innocent civillian" ship.
Suggest read US document from november 1940: Plan Dog, 26 pages
Its all about how to make war, not about how to avoid war. Causes, reason are also clear defined.
From September 1941, when FDR issue "shoot on sight" order US and Germany was in a shooting war any case.. on FDR initiative. Rainbow 5 plan was intentionally leaked a couple of month later to provoke the Axis into war, as FDR still coulnd't get Congress to declare war he was already waging on the Atlantic..
The good Captain is using term Allies to denote UK and France, as early as 1939, and that stands in contrast with a term 'neutrality'. That's why I've posted the part of the article.
FWIW, I'll describe 1st where I come from, and then will retreat from this very political debate.
Both of my grandparents were members of Tito's partisans, in what was Yugoslavia. I was very proud of that, and still I am. One died in 1981, the other is still alive kicking.
During the pre-1990's era, we were taught in school, through TV and radio, movies etc. that Partisans Communists are akin to angels that just miss the wings, or something like that. And I believed, I was 19 back in 1990.
Come 1991.
The newly elected Croatian government was speaking for a decade 'Croatia this, Croatia that', while loading the pockets of it's yes-men. Was I to believe them?
The atrocities of Partisans become publicly known; eg. in 2000 I've found out that my brother-in-law's grandfather was taken away from his house by Tito's police, in 1946, and later was never seen by his family. Should I still believe that Partisans Communists are akin to angels?
The former Croatian prime minister got to the place by throwing mud to the Leftist government of 2000 year, by promissing that no Croatian general will never see court in Hague, yet that was not so. The same man is in the jail now (with half of it's ministers), accused for major frauds.
Bottom line - when one listens for all the ferry tales told by people high up for decades, the skepticism is the order of the day.
So I'm not trying to question here why some operations were conducted, but the very describing of something being like a deed of angels, when it's not.
FWIW, I'll describe 1st where I come from, and then will retreat from this very political debate.
Both of my grandparents were members of Tito's partisans, in what was Yugoslavia. I was very proud of that, and still I am. One died in 1981, the other is still alive kicking.
During the pre-1990's era, we were taught in school, through TV and radio, movies etc. that Partisans Communists are akin to angels that just miss the wings, or something like that. And I believed, I was 19 back in 1990.
Come 1991.
The newly elected Croatian government was speaking for a decade 'Croatia this, Croatia that', while loading the pockets of it's yes-men. Was I to believe them?
The atrocities of Partisans become publicly known; eg. in 2000 I've found out that my brother-in-law's grandfather was taken away from his house by Tito's police, in 1946, and later was never seen by his family. Should I still believe that Partisans Communists are akin to angels?
The former Croatian prime minister got to the place by throwing mud to the Leftist government of 2000 year, by promissing that no Croatian general will never see court in Hague, yet that was not so. The same man is in the jail now (with half of it's ministers), accused for major frauds.
Bottom line - when one listens for all the ferry tales told by people high up for decades, the skepticism is the order of the day.
So I'm not trying to question here why some operations were conducted, but the very describing of something being like a deed of angels, when it's not.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
and with that lets end the politics and get somewhat back on topic.
parsifal
Colonel
A greatarticle, and a good question. unfortunately w have been asked to move back on topic
michaelmaltby
Colonel
".... back on topic". (assuming we are allowed bombs for our Allied airpower and are not just flying planes)
Yes.
A low yield nuclear device on the Feuherbunker in East Prussian during a staff meeting in 1944 (or after) would do the trick. And the forest would contain the radio active 'effects'. There would be no need for the Allies to even acknowledge they had used an atomic bomb - just that the leadership of Nazi Germany had beem 'erased'. Can you immagine the chaos that would ensue if the BBC wartime service started broadcasting that news ....
MM
Yes.
A low yield nuclear device on the Feuherbunker in East Prussian during a staff meeting in 1944 (or after) would do the trick. And the forest would contain the radio active 'effects'. There would be no need for the Allies to even acknowledge they had used an atomic bomb - just that the leadership of Nazi Germany had beem 'erased'. Can you immagine the chaos that would ensue if the BBC wartime service started broadcasting that news ....
MM
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
... and blow up the heavy water plant in the Berlin Zoo.
MM
MM
You all forgetting the main thing , witch the Germans did not. Hitler did not want a war against England, he wanted a war against Russia. He needed Oil rubber and aliminium. When England decleared war against Germany the import was reduced to only 10%. From 1939 the Germans fight the clock, well aware they did not have the resourses for a long war. You may ask what had happend if he did not waiste time to Battle of Britain and gone stright to Russia in Spring.
parsifal
Colonel
But the topic is, what would happen if Russia was not involved in the war. There have been various interpretations of that....does Russia continue to provide assistance to the Germans, dont they, do the russians eventually enter the war.......we have neot satisfactorily drawn any conclusions either way to be honest.
What you are suggesting IS very interesting, and more realistic, but its not consistent with the thread.
What you are suggesting IS very interesting, and more realistic, but its not consistent with the thread.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
I think that Germany only had the war machine for a short, overwhelming campaign (Blitzkrieg) against basically unprepared foes. This tactic of using the LW army together worked very well in the early part of WW2 as we all know.
However, Hitler the high command did not the have a game plan after the initial easy victories and the adulation had died down.
Britain could not be defeated so,attention is turned to Russia. An odd decision after a certain French Commanders experiences. Nevertheless, Hitler attacked Russia so what where they supposed to do? Neutrality was not an option. I can't see Stalin Hitler as allies for any meaningfull time. Even if they had had a truce or whatever the Russians would not have had the German jackboot on Mother Russia's earth. The counterattack was only a matter of time.
In this topic, Germany would have had to attack another country instead of Russia. Question is who?
Options
1) Invasion of Britain. That would have occupied them for a few years.
2) Invasion of all the Med area. Partly done, but the North Africa campaign would have to be won. ( maybe if (1) had happened this would have been achieved).
3) Consolidate all of France, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland Norway and then gather themselves for the next round with or without (1).
4) Look at South America for a springboard to threaten the Panama Canal and maybe the USA /Canada as well.
John
However, Hitler the high command did not the have a game plan after the initial easy victories and the adulation had died down.
Britain could not be defeated so,attention is turned to Russia. An odd decision after a certain French Commanders experiences. Nevertheless, Hitler attacked Russia so what where they supposed to do? Neutrality was not an option. I can't see Stalin Hitler as allies for any meaningfull time. Even if they had had a truce or whatever the Russians would not have had the German jackboot on Mother Russia's earth. The counterattack was only a matter of time.
In this topic, Germany would have had to attack another country instead of Russia. Question is who?
Options
1) Invasion of Britain. That would have occupied them for a few years.
2) Invasion of all the Med area. Partly done, but the North Africa campaign would have to be won. ( maybe if (1) had happened this would have been achieved).
3) Consolidate all of France, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland Norway and then gather themselves for the next round with or without (1).
4) Look at South America for a springboard to threaten the Panama Canal and maybe the USA /Canada as well.
John
Russia not Britain was always the main target, even before WW2 started. If Hitler could have some how avoided war with Britain, he would have.
parsifal
Colonel
But after Munich, Britiain was never going to allow the Germans carte blanche in Europe. Once Britain was in the war, it was an elephant in the room that the germans should not have ignored. In the beginning they gave Britain attention, alright, but when the first rush to shock and awe the brits didnt work, and Hitler reaslized he couldnt beat them easily, he turned to his ultimate goal, the Russians.
Russia was always his ideological goal, but there is a flip side. Hitler was an opportunist. even though he was philosophically wedded to an attack on the Russians, if he could somehow have been pursuaded that a further concentration on the british was worthwhile, he would have jumped at the opportunity. This is where the socalled "southern option" chimes in. If that option could have been shown as worthwhile, I have no hesitation in saying he would have gone for it. hitler was an intuitive leader.....he was not the dumbas* people often label him. He was an opportunitist that tended to follow gut instincts rather than carefully orhestrated strategy. to him, it was easier to tackle Russia (which he thought would eliminate british opposition anyway) than to return in 1941 for round 2 against the Brits
Russia was always his ideological goal, but there is a flip side. Hitler was an opportunist. even though he was philosophically wedded to an attack on the Russians, if he could somehow have been pursuaded that a further concentration on the british was worthwhile, he would have jumped at the opportunity. This is where the socalled "southern option" chimes in. If that option could have been shown as worthwhile, I have no hesitation in saying he would have gone for it. hitler was an intuitive leader.....he was not the dumbas* people often label him. He was an opportunitist that tended to follow gut instincts rather than carefully orhestrated strategy. to him, it was easier to tackle Russia (which he thought would eliminate british opposition anyway) than to return in 1941 for round 2 against the Brits
