Defeat of the Luftwaffe

[Jenisch]

The only thing that prevented the UK from being overrun was the English Channel not the RAF.

And the only thing that prevented the Soviets from defeat in 1941 was their vast territory.

 

[Elmas]

And the only thing that prevented the Soviets from defeat in 1941 was their vast territory.

Not far from the Channel there were some pieces of rusty scrap iron that the Britons insisted to call the Home Fleet.....

IMHO there were many other.

A) The delay with wich the Campaign started,

B) that instead of giving a punch with all the possible strenght, like in the battle of France, the Wehrmacht split his forces

C) and last but not least,

mode O.T. on

I was a close friend of the Author of this book, as we went sailing hundreds of times together in the sea surrounding Sardinia

but hardly I knew that He had been in the Russian Campaign and that He was awarded with the Italian Silver Medal.
Being, like me, a Structural Engineer and an excellent Pianist, He was a very modest person indeed.
After his passing, some years ago, the Heirs did find his War diary, a tiny booklet that his now in print.
Several times Paolo (the Author, on the cover preceding the Flag) speaks in this book about the very good relationships between the Italians and the local Ukrainian population, wich were of course not those between the Germans and the local population.......
And not only him: read what Vasilji Grossman says on the matter, in Life and Fate......
mode O.T. off

the politically silly and suicide attitude of the Germans to shoot at the population of Russia and Ucraine that was welcoming them with flowers for they were getting rid them off the Communism......

 

[Elmas]

double message, deleted.

 

[tomo pauk]

And the only thing that prevented the Soviets from defeat in 1941 was their vast territory.

Wasn't there something about soviet soldiers dying in thousands for every square km Germans occupied?

 

[Elmas]

Wasn't there something about soviet soldiers dying in thousands for every square km Germans occupied?

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
George S. Patton

 

[pbfoot]

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
George S. Patton

IMHO the man Patton was a blowhard

 

[Gixxerman]

Wasn't there something about soviet soldiers dying in thousands for every square km Germans occupied?

Indeed and not just that, despite all the enthusiastic tales of the successful vast encirclements and huge numbers of planes etc etc destroyed on the ground it is also true that right from the start the Russians were making Germany bleed.
It was cumulative effect, nothing to too disastrous to begin with but in the coming months the steady losses in men and material would become losses Germany simply could not afford.

Some of the material losses were as a direct result of the vast distances involved - for instance tanks obviously have a fixed 'life' being driven around before the engines, brakes suspension are worn out beyond repair, less than 1000mls quoted for the absolute service life of a Panther engine.
But these as direct consequences of the German decision to go to war and so are entirely their responsibility for being so foolish.

I must admit it always surprises me that the central fact here so often goes unremarked amongst all the glowing appreciation(?) of German arms and all the talk about what they did and what they did not do.
The German leadership of the day back then were not only responsible for setting death, injury, brutaity and misery on a until then unseen scale on the Russian people (and all the others they turned on) but they also brought about a blood-letting upon the German people on an enormous and similarly unseen scale.

The nazi crimes aren't just what they visited upon others but also the crime against the German nation.
The multi-millions of German deaths and injury they directly created caused.

I think it's worth just reflecting remembering that once in a while.

 

[Jenisch]

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
George S. Patton

Stalin was aware that Germany would not only not last long, but also have impossibility of conduct his campaign in the West without his supplies? If yes, it's very clear that Stalin wanted to assume a paper less important than the Western Allies, just letting the Germans and Allies worn out each other to come with the Red Army in the "interests of peace" and occupy Europe. Patton is damn right, and the apologists from the Soviet Union love to say how their sacrificies were tremendous. Certainly the people in the Kremlin didn't thought the same with a significat part of the population killed and most of European Russia destroyed. Not something to be much proud of...

 

[Elmas]

Stalin was aware that Germany would not only not last long, but also have impossibility of conduct his campaign in the West without his supplies? If yes, it's very clear that Stalin wanted to assume a paper less important than the Western Allies, just letting the Germans and Allies worn out each other to come with the Red Army in the "interests of peace" and occupy Europe. Patton is damn right, and the apologists from the Soviet Union love to say how their sacrificies were tremendous. Certainly the people in the Kremlin didn't thought the same with a significat part of the population killed and most of European Russia destroyed. Not something to be much proud of...

Hitler has been the worst criminal that the mankind has seen (not that Stalin was so much inferior, if any, of course.....) and, fortunately for the mankind also, sometimes, extremely stupid: probably, if in the Third Reich the Theory of Relativity would not have banned as the result of a degenerated Jewish mind, the history of the atomic bomb would have been different.....

But he was not so stupid: he knew perfectly ( the defeat of Wilhemine Germany in Ist WW, that was for Hitler's mind an obsession, docet) that you can't win a war with an empty belly.

So, as soon he did realize that Britain could not be invaded much less defeated with the forces he had at hand, the only remaining thing for him was to acquire a territory were the resources in terms of possibility to grow food, extract oil, build factories at a safe distance from British bombers in wich to grow a much more powerful Army was the consequent and only decision to take.

Hitler did not want supplies from Stalin: Hitler did want the Stalin's supplies, that's different....

 

[Gixxerman]

Stalin was aware that Germany would not only not last long, but also have impossibility of conduct his campaign in the West without his supplies? If yes, it's very clear that Stalin wanted to assume a paper less important than the Western Allies, just letting the Germans and Allies worn out each other to come with the Red Army in the "interests of peace" and occupy Europe.

I don't think it has ever been anything much beyond speculation that Russia ever planned to occupy Europe as such.
It is quite plain that Russia in common with several European countries had disputes over various territories (some pre-dating Stalin the USSR).
It is also clear Stalin thought in terms of 'spheres of influence' - as did everyone.
Given what Russia suffered during after WW2 (in terms of the enormous costs of rebuilding etc) it is not much of a surprise that the well being of the states which had been allies to Hitler's gang was low on the Russian priority list.
The fact that Russia thought in terms of a buffer zone between east west is hardly unusual in the circumstances.

.....none of which mitigates or denies Stalin his gang were also criminal monsters.

.......the apologists from the Soviet Union love to say how their sacrificies were tremendous.

You know you really don't have to be an 'apologist' for anything or anybody to see the truth is that the Russia people did suffer losses, sacrifices and ruin on a truly staggering scale.

I do wonder why you continually try to link this as something particularly 'communist' and therefore to be minimised and denied.

Certainly the people in the Kremlin didn't thought the same with a significat part of the population killed and most of European Russia destroyed. Not something to be much proud of...

......are you saying that the German attack on European Russia was the Russian Gov's fault?

I can agree that they were very incredibly deluded to imagine that all the info telling them an attack was imminent was just the western allies trying to stir trouble between Germany Russia (but one can hardly say they had no reason to distrust the western allies......it being less than 20yrs since some of them sent arms to Russia to try to defeat the Soviet revolution).
But nevertheless Germany attacked Russia without provocation in breach of the very agreement the Germans had only recently made with the Soviets.

 

[Jenisch]

Hitler did not want supplies from Stalin: Hitler did want the Stalin's supplies, that's different....

This was perhaps Hitler's ever present objective. However I understand this perfectly. My point is that Stalin was aware that Germany was in war with Britain and France, and with a naval blockade. Stalin was also aware that consequentely Germany would not last long, since it didn't have near the resources, credit and even the navy the Kaiser had. Germany was unable to fight Britain, France and the Soviet Union at the same time. And while Hitler that started the war, Stalin and his interests were key factor behind it's expansion to a global scale.

 

[Jenisch]

It is also clear Stalin thought in terms of 'spheres of influence' - as did everyone.

Stalin was aware of the economic situation of Germany when he signed the trade agreement. He financed Hitler's conquests in '39-40. And don't tell me there was no serious considerations for a Nazi agression in the USSR, Stalin was interested in Anti-Hitler pacts with the West years before the war, which first the West and later he himself rejected.

Conclusion: both the Communists and Democracies wanted to trow Hitler against each other. And both, specially the Soviets paid a high price for this.

 

[parsifal]

Let's see: Germany found itself in war with two great powers (UK and France), that everyone knew would be eventually supported by the US, her only Ally choose to not get involved (Italy), and her economy was totally dependant on the good will of the Soviets, that, they were only waiting their chance to stab Germany in the back. That's not holding most advantages, that was an almost hopeless situation.

In 1939 the germans had access to the second most powerdul econoimy in the world. They had a modern war winning doctrine the most powerful airforce. They had conquered a significant enemy and could have exploited its economic resources to a much better effect.
The alies were weak and disorganzed. France was a nation with the veneer of strength, but in reality her "pillars of marble and stone" were made of paper mache. Her army followed a massively floored doctrine, she was racked by pacifism and antiwar sentiment. The allies as a whole had weak air forces. Only at sea did they enjoy a decisive advantage.

The US involvement in 1939 was not inevitable. They madfe it clear they were neutral. and intended to remain that way. The italians remained neutral as well, but unlike the US they DID make it clear they intended to enter the war at some stage soon. This necessitated a watching garrison to be placed in the territories that surrounded or bordered Italian possessions....for example, for the french in North Africa and in the Alps, over 20 divisions of their 90 division army were not facing the germans at all, they were facing the italians. For the brits, eventually (not in 1939, but by the latt4er part of 1940) they had 8 divisions of their available 32 in the middle east facing the italians, where not a single german was yet deployed

I would like to see some evidence on this. About the part of "eventually bested", when did that happen?? Not in 1939, not in 1940, not in 41-42...and the VVS and USAAF did more than the RAF to accomplish the defeat of the LW.

The RAF prevented a LW victory over England in 1940, which by the nature of the battle and the objectives of each protagonist counts very clearly as an allied victory. In 1941, despite taking significant losses, the British defeated the German continued blitz and extended their air superiority to most parts of the channel and most of the coastline of North West Europe. I am not sying they inflicted mo9re losses. I am saying they were achieving the objectives they set out to. British strategy from June 1941 was altered to trying to retain as much of the LW in west4ern Europe and the med, out of position as could be achieved. They did that by continuous harrassment and unceasing attacks on German controlled territory. They were succesful in the prosecution of that strategy. In 1941, more than 1000 a/c of the LW were retainedf in the west after Barbarossa, and over 500 deployed to the med. That left just over 2000 to be deployed to the East, where their lack of numbers prevented the germans from achieving decisive victory over the rusians. The Russians did not surrender, despite horendo9us losses, and eventually came back to defeat the LW

Absurd. And the USSR (never mind Russia) did not outproduce Germany during the war

.

Ah yes they did. In tanks, aircraft, guns, small arms they outproduced the Germans by a considerable margin. They produced more submarines up to 1943, more vehicles. I would say it absurd to claim the germans outproduced the Russians. Why dod you think it absurd to say German equipment was bulky unrelianble (somewhat) and impractical. Many commentators say that

 

[Gixxerman]

Stalin was aware of the economic situation of Germany when he signed the trade agreement. He financed Hitler's conquests in '39-40. And don't tell me there was no serious considerations for a Nazi agression in the USSR, Stalin was interested in Anti-Hitler pacts with the West years before the war, which first the West and later he himself rejected.

Conclusion: both the Communists and Democracies wanted to trow Hitler against each other. And both, specially the Soviets paid a high price for this.

.....and every little plan whether it was the west hoping Hitler's Germany would diminish if not absolutely defeat Russia or Russia hoping for Hitler's Germany to diminish if not actually defeat the western powers all hinged upon the central issue which remains that Hitler's gang were going to be the ones to make war on whichever opponent.

.....and nobody can say that Russia was that cynical about the 'cost' or price of the war as the type of war Hitler would choose to fight (a war of extermination no less) was outside anyone's living experience or expectation.

Any serious reading of anything Hitler had to say on the subject shows again and again that the paranoid mentality underlying it all was bent on war - and in fact on occasion exxpressed disappointment at not getting war.
It is a sad truth that the paranoid nutters on each side feed off of each other but it is simply undeniable that nazism Hitler was all about wars of aggression.
Those who kid themselves that Hitler was interested in an agreed peace based on compromise accomodation simpy ignore the fact that many of the so-called peace offers were a fraud.
There could be no negotiated settlements because when it came down to it the demands made were often framed in the certain knowledge that they would be completely unacceptable or in fact impossible.
Cynical to the extreme, in other words.

Besides, there is another proof of what it was all about.
Hitler's Germany needed war in 1939 because the jig was up, nazi Germany had painted itself into a corner was broke.

 

[pbfoot]

The RAF prevented a LW victory over England in 1940, which by the nature of the battle and the objectives of each protagonist counts very clearly as an allied victory. In 1941, despite taking significant losses, the British defeated the German continued blitz and extended their air superiority to most parts of the channel and most of the coastline of North West Europe. I am not sying they inflicted mo9re losses. I am saying they were achieving the objectives they set out to. British strategy from June 1941 was altered to trying to retain as much of the LW in west4ern Europe and the med, out of position as could be achieved. They did that by continuous harrassment and unceasing attacks on German controlled territory.

if loosing more aircraft and men is winning I'm at a loss of words,the Battle of Britain was lost as soon as the Germans hit the Channel they just did not have the tools nor the proper equipment or skill set to perform the task

 

[Siegfried]

Hitler has been the worst criminal that the mankind has seen (not that Stalin was so much inferior, if any, of course.....) and, fortunately for the mankind also, sometimes, extremely stupid: probably, if in the Third Reich the Theory of Relativity would not have banned as the result of a degenerated Jewish mind, the history of the atomic bomb would have been different.....

But he was not so stupid: he knew perfectly ( the defeat of Wilhemine Germany in Ist WW, that was for Hitler's mind an obsession, docet) that you can't win a war with an empty belly.

So, as soon he did realize that Britain could not be invaded much less defeated with the forces he had at hand, the only remaining thing for him was to acquire a territory were the resources in terms of possibility to grow food, extract oil, build factories at a safe distance from British bombers in wich to grow a much more powerful Army was the consequent and only decision to take.

Hitler did not want supplies from Stalin: Hitler did want the Stalin's supplies, that's different....

Hitler was mild by historical standards and far from the maddest of people. Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin were far worse and certainly far worse. If you kept your head down in WW2 Germany or Reich territory you got to stay alive unless you were jewish. Hitler might get angry, might rant, but he didn't kill anyone unless he had a good reason. Within that I include laying waste to a village and its inhabitants for being used by or by supporting insurgent/partisan activities (which often involved deliberately provocative atrocities against German soliers)

I think this also falls into "Hitler bad" therefore "Stalin the good anti-hero". Stalin killed millions probably more than Hitler who gets to carry the can, he sometimes killed them randomely to show his power and broaden fear (somethingn Hitler never did) , so did Lenin, Beria, Trotsky. Incidently all of these people were 'ethnic' of a sort and carried hatreds against other cultures and races they subsumed into Communist ideology. Once he decided that Jews were too much of a power body he started to turn his purges on them. His purging of the Soviet Army is in some quarters motivated by this as well.


There are plenty of ethnic Russian Historians who believe Stalin was preparing an invasion of Western Europe, if not in 1941 when Suvorov suggests (the buildup failed totally) then 1942. Many high ranking Nazis pleaded that the war was a preventative war. The suggestion is virulently only opposed in certain quarters of the UK and USa by those one would expect because of their political or ethnic leanings. IE it is a case of being closed to an idea because it rationalises and credits some of Hitlers decisions, it would make his fanatic actions somehow rational. This would turn the world upside down for many. Yes, they'll cling to the work of David Glantz who will show that the 25,000 tanks the Soviets had were mostly in disrepair and that the hundreds of T-34 and KV-1 didn't mean anyting, nor did the thousands of T-34s about to come of massive well planed production lines also didn't mean anything.

Hitler certainly had affinity to the idea of Lebensraum having seen the defeate of Germany in WW2 as a result of food and resource blockade and deeply resentfull of the enlargement of slavic territory at the expense of ethynic Germans due to the French desire to cut up Germany (implemented via the treaty of Versailes). Hitler may just have accomodated with Poland and allied with them against the Soviet Union had they baragined on access to Danzig by land and rail. Reading Hitlers table talk on the German colonisation of the Ukrain is interesting. Its clear he wasn't interested in 'ethnic cleansing'. He was interested in seperating Germans from Russians etc as he felt Germans would be too inclined to organise and fix the problems of the locals and then become of them. He seemed to have an impression the territory was so vast its resouces were unlimmited.

 

[Siegfried]

Stalin was aware of the economic situation of Germany when he signed the trade agreement. He financed Hitler's conquests in '39-40. And don't tell me there was no serious considerations for a Nazi agression in the USSR, Stalin was interested in Anti-Hitler pacts with the West years before the war, which first the West and later he himself rejected.

Conclusion: both the Communists and Democracies wanted to trow Hitler against each other. And both, specially the Soviets paid a high price for this.

Stalin had a Polish problem, the alleigence with nazi Germany solved that. It also solved Germany's problem. Polands diplomacy must have been mad, all they had to do was throw some minor peace offerings and they would have brought enough time to become too costly to attack. For Hitler it was access to Danzig and secure rights for Germans that had become part of Poland which was not a homogenous nation but a successor to the Polish Lithiuanian commonwealth. "Poland" (a multi-enthnic nation made up of Germans, Old Prussians, Ukranians, Silensians, Hungarians, Wends, Lithuanians and a heapm of Russians, all of whom had been there for a thousand years or more.

 

[stona]

I do believe so

The internal politics of the British government would have made this impossible. There was never going to be an invasion but with at least local air superiority over South Eastern England and the inevitable consequences for the capitol an ignominious settlement with Germany would have been inevitable. Britain out of the war in 1940 is a great 'what if' already amply represented in fiction.
Are you suggesting that we might have well not have bothered fighting the BoB. Permit the RAF to withdraw to the North of England and allow the Luftwaffe a free hand across the channel? Allow unmolested daytime bombing of London in the same way as say Rotterdam was attacked. Do you believe this would have made no difference to Britain's ability to carry on fighting through 1940/41 when she could be saved by the USA's 'official' entry into the conflict?
You can't be serious. Ask a German.
Cheers
Steve

 

[pbfoot]

The internal politics of the British government would have made this impossible. There was never going to be an invasion but with at least local air superiority over South Eastern England and the inevitable consequences for the capitol an ignominious settlement with Germany would have been inevitable. Britain out of the war in 1940 is a great 'what if' already amply represented in fiction.
Are you suggesting that we might have well not have bothered fighting the BoB. Permit the RAF to withdraw to the North of England and allow the Luftwaffe a free hand across the channel? Allow unmolested daytime bombing of London in the same way as say Rotterdam was attacked. Do you believe this would have made no difference to Britain's ability to carry on fighting through 1940/41 when she could be saved by the USA's 'official' entry into the conflict?
You can't be serious. Ask a German.
Cheers
Steve

no I'm not saying that but I am saying the actual aerial Battle of Britain did not play the part of saving the UK its purported to have done , it was a very much needed propoganda victory of which there had been very few . The Germans could not have crossed the channel , with or without the intervention of RN

 

[marshall]

"Poland" (a multi-enthnic nation made up of Germans, Old Prussians, Ukranians, Silensians, Hungarians, Wends, Lithuanians and a heapm of Russians, all of whom had been there for a thousand years or more.

You forget about Jews and the biggest group Poles...