The most important battle of WW2

Lightning Guy · 01-06-2005, 12:08 AM

One of the reasons that German production continued to grow was that the American forces switched much of their attention to the oil industry. I am not saying Speer didn't do an incredible job but the respite the German industries received played its part. But all of that was for naught since the Germans didn't have the oil to run anything. By the end of the war Germain oil production was down to 25%. That was a huge difference to the German war effort.

plan_D · 01-06-2005, 02:50 AM

It was Speer that got the German economy on to war effort, possibly the only man who realised. So, he was a smart man. Would you take your opponents seriously if you'd crushed all of Europe and swept Russia's 'mighty' tank arm of 28,000 down to 1506?

01-06-2005, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

It was Speer that got the German economy on to war effort, possibly the only man who realised. So, he was a smart man. Would you take your opponents seriously if you'd crushed all of Europe and swept Russia's 'mighty' tank arm of 28,000 down to 1506?

Any time you are at war with half the known world, yes you have to take it seriously until its actually finished. Hitler was not willing to do so because his support was based upon the improving living standard of the German people, so he had to leave about a minimum of 1/3rd of the German economy to produce domestic goods.

=S=

Lunatic

plan_D · 01-06-2005, 06:46 AM

The reason that happened was because Hitler was drunk on victory after the crushing defeats he inflicted on his enemies in 1940-'41. I think a lot of people would be same, a lot of people are fools and don't realise it's over until it's over.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-06-2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I dont think you can say they did not take the war seriously. Maybe they did not expect the war to be as difficult as it was. But to not take a war seriously?

No, they didn't take the war seriously. By that, I mean they didn't take their opponents seriously, and underestimated all beyond those which immeadiately bordered Germany.

Okay now that you put it that way I will agree with you. Hitler did not take his enemies seriously. Wheather it was he believed that the so called "Arian Race" was so much better and could defeat anyone or it was because of the way he crushed the first countries he overan is no excuse. You can never underestimate your enemies. Right now we are a shining example of that here in Iraq still fighting and dieing every day against an enemy that we can not seem to figure out, because we underestimated the Iraqi's. This has been shown over and over through out history, even in the Revolutionary War. The British underestimated the Colonists. So yes I will agree with you and this was a major mistake by Hitler.

Whether this be true or not I am not sure but one reason about the economy and the standard of living rising among Germans could be the reason that is how Hitler came to power. He promised the Germans many things which won there hearts and minds. Now that still is not excuse for not bringing up the economy for the war effort he could have just taken it all away from them and used everything for the war effort but well he did not. I dont know if this a reason why but it could be an answer to it.

Udet · 01-06-2005, 03:09 PM

DerAdler:

You just made very strong points there.

Lightning Guy · 01-06-2005, 03:28 PM

Add the Japanese to your list of "victory-drunk" people.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-06-2005, 04:09 PM

That is true too. The Japanese literally spread themselves way to thin by taking over small islands and countries that really had no way to defend themselves. They had an extremely powerful navy and after Pearl Harbor was probably the strongest and if not only second to the British Royal Navy. (atleast until the US Navy got up and running again) They thought they could stop anyone.

evangilder · 01-06-2005, 04:13 PM

At least Yamamoto understood that they didn't get the carriers. Down, but not out.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-06-2005, 04:26 PM

Yeap, Yamamoto was in my opinion a great Naval officer and you are correct atleast he knew that they would not be out for long because they did not get the carriers.

lesofprimus · 01-06-2005, 04:36 PM

What would have happened if they DID get the Carriers at Pearl????

Reprecussions?????

evangilder · 01-06-2005, 04:42 PM

It definitely would have delayed an American response. Hard to say how we would have recovered from it. The other important target missed at Pearl was all the fuel tanks. They were not bombed either. If they had hit those, we would have been in serious trouble. That was a bulk of the fuel for the Pacific fleet!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-06-2005, 04:44 PM

I dont think it would have changed the overall outcome but it would have made the war more difficult at first for the US. Hell without the carriers they would not have even been able to do the Doolittle raid. I think that it would have just been a slow start for the US in the pacific but in time they would have built the carriers again and the outcome would not have changed.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-06-2005, 04:47 PM

Good point to evenglider, but at the same time there were plenty of oil reserves on the Mainland and you cant forget about Alaska, though I dont know if they were drilling for oil in Alaska yet.

evangilder · 01-06-2005, 05:01 PM

I agree, but they would have had to get it to Pearl Harbor while conserving what was left on the ships that were already in the Pacific. There was alot of oil stockpiled there and it would have taken quite an effort to build up that much under wartime conditions.