Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Poland 1939 Was Hitler Right

That's only if you think WWII started in 1939. There's others that consider it started with Manchuko. The fighting ended in 1945 it didn't actually end until 1990 when Germany formally accepted the Oder Neisse Line- so think of it that way and the cold war was part of World WAR 2 :cool:

Blimey so Bogsy is technically part of WWII, await a flurry of new stories to come
 
What I have never understood is why Hitler made Moscow the main objective in Operation Barborossa in 1941 and not go all out with the main objective being the capture of the oilfields in the Caucasus as they did in 1942.

If the Germans had captured Moscow, the Soviets would have just moved their Capital to a city further east. The Soviets had also moved most of their industry out of range of the Luftwaffe on the other side of the Urals. However if they had lost the oil fields the Soviet war machine would have ground to a halt. They would have had to rely on any oil that could somehow be transported overland from Iran or via Allied Arctic convoys.

The last German offensive of WW2 was to try to recapture the Southern Hungarian oilfields in March 1945 in Operation Spring Awakening by 6th SS Panzer Army as they had no other source of oil to continue the war.

Operation Spring Awakening.
As I understand it, the German military wanted to go for Moscow on the theory that if they captured the capital the Soviets would surrender. Hitler however wanted to go for the Caucasus in order to capture the oil, wheat ,coal, and iron there and in the intervening territory. The first could be called the military-political objective while the second could be called the strategic-economic objective.

Hitler followed the advice of his generals to go for the military-political objective at first, but when the Soviet's didn't collapse in the first year, he redirected efforts to the strategic-economic objective.

However, there are a few caveats to the above. One is that the Germans couldn't have focused solely on the Caucasus and ignore the central and northern fronts, or else they would be leaving a very long exposed flank the Soviets could cut through.

There were also logistical limitations. Everything had to go by rail, and the capacity of the railways limited how much could be pushed down along any one axis of advance before running out of supplies. The Germans hit their logistical limits and couldn't have put more into any particular axis anyway, at least not with a major improvement in their logistical support.
 
I propose to enumerate important statements in our discussion, not to repeat well-known facts, points where we agree or disagree.
F - means well known fact
A - an opinion that we agree with
D - an opinion where we disagree
U - unresolved point of view for further discussion.
----------
I'll leave the above in place as a reference.
F01 - Hitler unleashing WW2 had a huge, strategic level problem with oil.
Agreed.
(...)
F03 - In Mein Kampf Hitler outlined Russia as his main target of German expansion.
Agreed. You could say that the conquest of the Soviet Union and the replacement of its Slavic population with Germans was the central pillar of the Nazi plans for the future. It was the defining element of their philosophy.


(...)
A05 - Hitler sought peace deal with the UK.
Agreed.

(...)
U05.2 - Military pressure on the UK should be continued through U-boats based blockade, invasion to the ME and instigation of riots in India.
You have mixed three separate issues together in one sentence. I would suggest that you split them up so they can be each addressed properly.

As for the other items which you consider to be unresolved, I would suggest that you read over our previous discussions in this thread, as I believe we have already discussed many of them. If you wish to bring up the debate again then you would need to bring some new arguments into play on this items.
 
I'll leave the above in place as a reference.

Agreed.

Agreed. You could say that the conquest of the Soviet Union and the replacement of its Slavic population with Germans was the central pillar of the Nazi plans for the future. It was the defining element of their philosophy.



Agreed.


You have mixed three separate issues together in one sentence. I would suggest that you split them up so they can be each addressed properly.

As for the other items which you consider to be unresolved, I would suggest that you read over our previous discussions in this thread, as I believe we have already discussed many of them. If you wish to bring up the debate again then you would need to bring some new arguments into play on this items.

So, as I understand, you believe that
D06 Hitler in 1941 hadn't alternative but had to invade the Soviet union to resolve problems with oil and other resources and in line with his strategy explained in Mein Kampf.
You know my counter-points.
D06.1 - There are other possibilities to resolve the oil problem and problems with other resources.
D06.2 - Hitler had not to invade the Soviet union in 1941 but could do it later with better chances for victory.
In 1939 Hitler got an opportunity to attack the Soviet union (in line with Main Kamp strategy) but postponed this action as he was not prepared to it.
I believe that Hitler planned to Germanize a part of Russians and other Slaves in the Soviet union and exterminate or enslave others.
As for the UK then London did not agree for peace talks. So what Hitler had to do
From my point of view
U07.1 - Don't bomb Great Britain to have opportunity for honourable peace in the future
U07.2 - Continue and intensify the blockade using fleet of U-boats.
U07.3 - Undermine British interests in the colonies - invade and capture the ME, instigate riots in India.
 
D06 Hitler in 1941 hadn't alternative but had to invade the Soviet union to resolve problems with oil and other resources and in line with his strategy explained in Mein Kampf.
Wrong he had an alternative, but he took that measure by being politically bounced by Stalin. He could just have left the trade agreement stand and got his oil. The thorn in his side was us. He needed oil to fight us- u boats don't run themselves But lets not forget a critical thing about the trade deal was that Stalin wanted technology in return, engineered goods. It's long been forgotten that Russia, like France, had murdered it's way through it's intelligentsia during their revolution and they needed their goods made by someone else. Hence America got in at the ground level, and politically dealing with the west was not a good thing for the party line. Of course Hitler was never going to release the really high tech stuff that Stalin wanted. Just compare that to the technical advances made by Both the US and the USSR post 1945 that were initially German designs.
 
As I understand it, the German military wanted to go for Moscow on the theory that if they captured the capital the Soviets would surrender. Hitler however wanted to go for the Caucasus in order to capture the oil, wheat ,coal, and iron there and in the intervening territory. The first could be called the military-political objective while the second could be called the strategic-economic objective.
My understandings the opposite
Moscow was not a significant aim for Barbarossa - its Hitler who added it later .

Attributed to him wanting to do what Napoleon hadnt
 
D06.1 - There are other possibilities to resolve the oil problem and problems with other resources.
D06.2 - Hitler had not to invade the Soviet union in 1941 but could do it later with better chances for victory.
How? Synthetic oil was a limited resource. Proper oil had to be imported.
No he couldn’t have attacked the USSR later according to the concept of the time. Stalin had major weaknesses in his Command structure That were known about. They effectively revealed themselves early in the war
U07.1 - Don't bomb Great Britain to have opportunity for honourable peace in the future
er how does that work. According to some sources Hitler and Churchill tried for an accommodation after Dunkirk ;it failed. Churchill was actively seeking American help.
U07.3 - Undermine British interests in the colonies - invade and capture the ME, instigate riots in India.
it may have escaped your notice that was Japan’s job as part of their plans for the co prosperity sphere. Why waste resources when you’ve got other people who want do the job.

Then there’s the time line Barbarossa starts late May, Pearl harbour happens in December, barely six months later.
 
Wrong he had an alternative, but he took that measure by being politically bounced by Stalin. He could just have left the trade agreement stand and got his oil.
Agreed, in 1941 Hitler has alternative to invasion in the Soviet union. Hitler could postpone it to 1942, 43 or later and establishing (this or that way) control over Turkey capture the whole ME. In 1942 it was quite realistic task especially in comparison with Russian adventure.

The thorn in his side was us.
Apparently Hitler underestimated importance of the war with the UK.

He needed oil to fight us- u boats don't run themselves But lets not forget a critical thing about the trade deal was that Stalin wanted technology in return, engineered goods. It's long been forgotten that Russia, like France, had murdered it's way through it's intelligentsia during their revolution and they needed their goods made by someone else. Hence America got in at the ground level, and politically dealing with the west was not a good thing for the party line. Of course Hitler was never going to release the really high tech stuff that Stalin wanted. Just compare that to the technical advances made by Both the US and the USSR post 1945 that were initially German designs.
Germany had enough oil for military purposes at least in the war with the UK.
Of course the USA had much higher industrial, technological and scientific potential for many reasons.
Hitler was ready to use talented Russian engineers and scientists.
Karbyshev was born in Omsk to the well-known Siberian Cossack starshyna family of Kryashen origin and spoke both Russian and Kryashen dialect of Tatar.
Kryshen (literally Baptised) is the name of Tatars that were Baptised long ago. Still about 10% of Tatars in Russia are Orthodox Christians.
During the Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905), Karbyshev was responsible in building bridges, and conducting reconnaissance patrols, as well as telegraph operations. He was at the Battle of Mukden and was decorated for bravery.
At the start of World War I, Karbyshev was involved in combat operations in the Carpathians under General Aleksei Brusilov’s 8th Army on the Southwestern Front. At first he was the divisions' engineer for the 78th and the 69th Infantry Divisions, later chief of engineer service for the 22nd Finland Riflemen Corps.
In 1923-1926, Karbyshev was the Chairman of the Engineering Committee of the Main Military Engineering Administration of the Red Army.
He published over 100 research papers in military engineering and military history. He specialized in the construction and demolition of obstacles, and in the issues involved in crossing rivers and other water obstacles. His articles and manuals on the theory of engineering and battlefield operations and tactics were mandatory for reading by Red Army commanders in the pre-war years.
In 1941 general Karbyshev was captured as a POW.
Karbyshev was held at a succession of concentration camps, including Hammelburg, Flossenbürg, Majdanek, Auschwitz, Sachsenhausen and, in February 1945, Mauthausen. Refusing repeated offers from the Nazis to solicit his cooperation, and despite his advanced age, he was one of the most active leaders of the camp resistance movement.
On the night of 17 February 1945, he was one of 500 prisoners undressed, doused with cold water and left to expire in the frost. According to the literary testimony of a camp survivor, Karbyshev stayed upright facing his executioners and shouted encouragements to his fellow prisoners.
 
How? Synthetic oil was a limited resource. Proper oil had to be imported.
No he couldn’t have attacked the USSR later according to the concept of the time. Stalin had major weaknesses in his Command structure That were known about. They effectively revealed themselves early in the war

er how does that work. According to some sources Hitler and Churchill tried for an accommodation after Dunkirk ;it failed. Churchill was actively seeking American help.

it may have escaped your notice that was Japan’s job as part of their plans for the co prosperity sphere. Why waste resources when you’ve got other people who want do the job.

Then there’s the time line Barbarossa starts late May, Pearl harbour happens in December, barely six months later.
Crete was captured 1 June 1941 and Hitler was in an excellent position to invade Turkey instead of the Soviet union. After Turkey, the whole ME would be soon in hands of Hitler.
Pearl Harbour attack was apparent Japanese mistake. There was much more prospective objective - to capture all British colonies in Asia and to expel British forces from India.
 
Our Muscovite keeps rattling on about Turkey. Invading Turkey was a geopolitical dead end and not in any way a priority option.

Yugoslavia was hard enough for the Germans to keep a lid on, Crete was a near disaster. Turkey would have sapped the German war machine even more. The Turks were relatively well disposed towards Berlin and were expected to fall in line in due course as they did in WW1. Had they been invaded that would have been turned 180 degrees.

Turkey is a red herring to keep the spotlight away from Moscow's connivance with Berlin to start WW2.
 
Crete was captured 1 June 1941 and Hitler was in an excellent position to invade Turkey instead of the Soviet union. After Turkey, the whole ME would be soon in hands of Hitler.
Pearl Harbour attack was apparent Japanese mistake. There was much more prospective objective - to capture all British colonies in Asia and to expel British forces from India.
No no no. Crete was taking Mussolini’s baby. Now make your mind up, he either goes for Turkey or Russia, he can’t do both. He would have far better of using Yugoslavia As a jumping off point for the Crimea, but he’s not there yet. He’s just started the first advance into Russia. Besides he’s trying to come to an agreement with Turkey over the use ofPalestine for the Jewish question. Pearl Harbour was certainly a mistake and Yamamoto knew it. But yor key thinking has to turn on IF America comes into the war. If the Japs had concentrated on British/ Dutch and French holdings in the Far East and not involved the US it might have turned out different.
 
Lets humour KGB and consider Hitler Invades Turkey Iran India -

Going by Barbarrossa strengths

Thats 200 Divisions Committed to Turkey / NA / ME then into Iran and against the British India Army supported by UK and various others

25 Divisions covering Western Europe (+Italian units)

25 Divisions covering eastern europe, well I say covering in fact they are heading west because at this point knowing hes Hitlers main target Stalin regardless of the Red Armies failings in Finland knows this is the perfect moment to Liberate Paris. Since he has an advantage of around 15 to 1 in theatre without calling up reserves and mobilising.

So the only question remains can the Persian Front forces get back to Germany before Stalin holds a Victory Parade in Berlin.

His best hope is that the UK lets him go doesnt interdict shipping and doesnt pursue to closely - and thats only happenning if the UK sees this as the best way to Liberate France before Russia ie take advantage of the German forces rushing from Atlantic coast to the Rhine
 
Germany had enough oil for military purposes at least in the war with the UK.
Says who? At least in a limited war with the U.K.? I.e within the EUropean theatre assuming the bombing of Germany’s infrastructure as projected would not happen. Not fighting empire divisions in North Africa. Any fule know that the fuel has to be in the tanks, that vehicles, aircraft need their replenishment when they need it, not as and when they can get it. Afrika corps was always scraping for resources.
 
Our Muscovite keeps rattling on about Turkey. Invading Turkey was a geopolitical dead end and not in any way a priority option.
I disagree with you on this point. While Polish armed forces in 1939 were formidable - about 1 million of fighters, Hitler easily won the war. Within just 2 weeks German forces penetrated deep inside Poland. Brest was captured and Hitler's troops were near Lwow.
In comparison with Polish army Turkish one was much more weak.
In 1938, the Turkish Army at peacetime strength consisted of 174,000 soldiers and 20,000 officers forming 11 army corps, 23 divisions, one armoured brigade, 3 cavalry brigades and 7 frontier commands.[1][2] Like most nations at the time it was ill-equipped with primarily World War I era weapons.
In 1942, Ernest Phillips in his work Hitler's last Hope: A factual survey of the Middle East warzone and Turkey's vital strategic position admitted: "If the Germans were to stage an all out offensive in this area, they could bring more planes into the air than the Turks could even gather, and if we were to send too many from Libya to help Turkey, the weakness there would be such that we should be in difficulties on the other side of the Suez.
The Turkish Navy was the weakest of the services
Hitler could easily capture Stambul and big territories in Turkey being supported by Bulgary old Turkish enemy.

Crete was a near disaster.
For what side? British loses in Crete were much bigger than German ones
British casualties 23 thousands
German ones les than 6 thousands.

Turkey would have sapped the German war machine even more.

Turkey that time was unable to resist perfect German war machine.
 
I disagree with you on this point. While Polish armed forces in 1939 were formidable - about 1 million of fighters, Hitler easily won the war. Within just 2 weeks German forces penetrated deep inside Poland. Brest was captured and Hitler's troops were near Lwow.
In comparison with Polish army Turkish one was much more weak.



Hitler could easily capture Stambul and big territories in Turkey being supported by Bulgary old Turkish enemy.


For what side? British loses in Crete were much bigger than German ones
British casualties 23 thousands
German ones les than 6 thousands.



Turkey that time was unable to resist perfect German war machine.
Turkish irregular fighters on Turkish terrain would have made the country a mortuarial quagmire for any occupying force. And it was not on Berlin's "need to do list".
 
Turkish irregular fighters on Turkish terrain would have made the country a mortuarial quagmire for any occupying force. And it was not on Berlin's "need to do list".
Outside the Soviet union there was only one place during WW2 with really strong partisan movement - Yugoslavia.
The Bulgarians would be excellent occupying force in Turkey and mass oppressions including exterminations would be effective against Turkish partisans. Also Kurds could be used in this context. Stalin could be proposed to capture a big part of Turkey.
Or (as in many other countries) collaborators could be found and used.
So for Hitler occupation of Turkey would not be such a big problem as you suggest.
 

Latest Threads

Top