Watching World War 2 Documentaries... question...

[InRareForm]

What ways could of the joined Allies lost?

If I understand it, if Britain was taking over early (with u boats and such) it would have been a devastating blow.

Are there any good books/documentaries to read on this?

Please list other ways Allies could have faltered and lost. I am intrigued by the history on this.

[TDMVPDPOY]

didnt brits was on the defense if USA didnt join in to help?

[Leetonidas]

If Hitler hadn't tried to fight a war on two fronts and just took Moscow right away instead of attempting to fight through the brutal Russian winter

[Halberto]

If Hitler hadn't tried to fight a war on two fronts and just took Moscow right away instead of attempting to fight through the brutal Russian winter

This. He could have avoided Stalin the entire war, correct me if I'm wrong. Hitler and Stalin had a truce I believe and Hitler, being an avid historian, wanted to make history with this move. The US likes to believe we altered the momentum and changed everything in the war, but the Soviet Union had a equally large role in ending both the Pacific and European wars.

[Rogue]

The Fuhrer and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact way before the Blitz on Poland I think even though the war was basically inavoidable between Nazi and Bolshevik, the Germans could've delayed it until after the UK was down. Nazis had air superiority (or at least evenly matched with the Royal airforce) and I don't think the Dover channel was such an insurmountable barrier for Germans, it was just a ditch that could even be bridged with human bodies.

[Chief Brody]

If England would've succumbed after the London/Coventry blitzes then things would've gotten interesting. Up to that point in 1940 things were looking beautiful for the Axis powers, but Germany invading the Soviet Union a year later--coupled with the Nips bombing Pearl Harbor--pitted 2 industrial superpowers against them far too soon.

A good doc on the Coventry Blitz:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmIUc77q1yk

[CosmicCowboy]

Breaking the Japanese naval codes was the tipping point in the war in the Pacific. If they hadn't been able to do that they wouldn't have been able to ambush the Japanese navy at Midway. Losing 4 carriers was the beginning of the end for Japan and the turning point in the war.

[Cane]

Hitler moved some key armies away from the D-Day Normandy invasion. Tom Hanks would have blown up otherwise
Hitler attacking 2 fronts
If Hitler invested more resources in using advanced tech especially air/anti-air like jet bombers
If Germany was able to complete their atom bomb
Nazis invading or allying with South/Central America nations
Russia gives up
etc

The war would at least be prolonged

[ErnestLynch]

Several mistakes. One was invading Russia. Napolean was spinning in his grave. The other was declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor. The other was the mistake of not moving troops to Normandy which ultimately resulted in his executing Rommel, his finest General. Not putting the STG-44 into action. Using his resources to exterminate the Jews. Fire bombing London. Had in not done those things, just invaded France, southern Europe, northern Africa, he probably would have gotten away with that. Had Germany developed a long range bomber to deal with allied shipping rather than U-boats it probably would have worked better as well.

[CosmicCowboy]

The scheme by the Allies to get the Germans to split their forces was brilliant. They created a fake "First Army Group" to be led by Patton and convinced the Germans it existed...when Patton was still in England after the Normandy invasion the Germans thought that invasion was a diversion and the real invasion would be by Patton at Pas de Calais. The result was they trickle reinforced the Normandy invasion defense always thinking that there would be a second invasion.

[Agloco]

What ways could of the joined Allies lost?

If I understand it, if Britain was taking over early (with u boats and such) it would have been a devastating blow.

Are there any good books/documentaries to read on this?

Please list other ways Allies could have faltered and lost. I am intrigued by the history on this.

In a nutshell: If Hitler listens to his generals it's over, and fairly quickly (in the west at least).

Also, I once read a book about an alternate scenario in Normandy. In that book the Germans brought their tank reserves to bear in decisive fashion and destroyed the Omaha beach head. It forced the Allies to abandon follow up landings and allowed the Germans to use forces from the Western theatre to stabilize the Eastern Front and sue for a separate peace with the Russians.

All of that said, I forget the name of the book. :lol

It was a good one though.

Hitlers war with Russia was unavoidable. It was no secret that Stalin hated the Nazis, and vice versa. Stalin was in the process of having war plans drawn up as the Germans began Barbarossa. As it turns out, the Germans simply preempted the Russians.

[baseline bum]

The biggest mistake was going after France and England when they should have gone straight after Stalin. I mean no way anyone gives a shit about the Soviet Union considering we were in a shooting war with the Bolsheviks barely twenty years before. Giving Stalin two more years to prepare was monumentally stupid, but it was great for us since the Soviets were the ones who broke Nazi Germany after having those two extra years to prepare their army, artillery, armor, etc.

Could you guys imagine how fucked we'd be without the Soviet resistance to the Nazis? The Wehrmacht could have just sent troops and bombers into Mexico to bring the war to our turf. I don't think he beats us, but he would have probably slaughtered our people the same he did the Russians.

[baseline bum]

If you haven't seen the series World at War, check it out. This series is a bargain at $50; it is probably at least 30 hours counting all the DVD extras, and since it was done in the 70s it has lots of interviews with the people who conducted that horrible war, including Hitler's secretary who was in his bunker for the last days.

http://www.amazon.com/The-World-30th-Anniversary-Edition/dp/B0002F6AH0

The Iwo Jima episode is really amazing, and I also really liked the one about the Communist-Fascist civil war that was brewing in Weimar Germany right before Hitler came into power.

[InRareForm]

If Germany was able to complete their atom bomb.

The war would at least be prolonged

Saw a documentary saying that Nazi's probably would have won the race in getting the atom bomb...but chose to put attention to other war strategies as they felt it was years away and they would be winning the war at that point.

[ErnestLynch]

They would have gotten the bomb first but all of the jewish scientists left Germany and Europe. All of those people who developed the bomb for us were German Jews. If he'd have just left the Jews alone he'd have had the scientists to do the job. So anyway, lots of mistakes but that's how wars are won and lost. But man them Germans were and still are, something else. Greatest engineers on the plant. They have developed a new high capacity battery that charges quickly and holds a long charge. Along with this, they've put in enough solar to power the US. Once they get the battery technology in place, they're in business. Amazing people. Just drive a Mercedes or BMW if you don't think so. ( and no I'm not of German heritage so it's not just tooting my own genetic horn )

[InRareForm]

Cool thanks cosm

[TeyshaBlue]

The VWRC wouldn't allow any other outcome.

[Agloco]

The biggest mistake was going after France and England when they should have gone straight after Stalin. I mean no way anyone gives a shit about the Soviet Union considering we were in a shooting war with the Bolsheviks barely twenty years before. Giving Stalin two more years to prepare was monumentally stupid, but it was great for us since the Soviets were the ones who broke Nazi Germany after having those two extra years to prepare their army, artillery, armor, etc.

Could you guys imagine how fucked we'd be without the Soviet resistance to the Nazis? The Wehrmacht could have just sent troops and bombers into Mexico to bring the war to our turf. I don't think he beats us, but he would have probably slaughtered our people the same he did the Russians.

I don't see the logistics working there unforch. Barbarossa was a massive operation requiring unprecedented manpower and material. Any invasion of the US would have to had occurred on approximately the same scale. I think the US is in Hitlers grille long before he has the manpower to launch a substantive strike from Matamoros.

[ata]

This. He could have avoided Stalin the entire war, correct me if I'm wrong. Hitler and Stalin had a truce I believe and Hitler, being an avid historian, wanted to make history with this move. The US likes to believe we altered the momentum and changed everything in the war, but the Soviet Union had a equally large role in ending both the Pacific and European wars.

Hitler and Stalin didn't only have truce, they were actually allies.
They've attack and divided Poland according to Ribentropp-Molotov agreement. Germans attacted on Sep. 1st; Soviets attacted Poland on Sep. 15th. They,ve met in the middle and shaked hands (in a process Soviets mass murdored 20.000 Poland officers in Katyin forrest).
During 1940 Soviets supplied Germans with raw material and food. In this way they acctually logistically supported Hitlers invasion on West Europe. Kommunust cells in Europe got instruction to be frendly with Germans etc...

MUST SEE: The Soviet Story (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305871/?ref_=sr_1)

[ata]

This video is a must see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mA0kk29DBA
(YouTube "Hitler's War - What the Historians Neglect to Mention")

If what this video says is true, Hitler only invaded France because France was about to invade Germany with the help of England. It was a preemptive strike. It was the same with Russia. Russia had taken Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and was about to start a general invasion of Western Europe so Hitler had to invade Russia.
....
Sorry, but this is crap!
So why Hitler anected Austria and invaded Czech republick and Poland in 1st place?
True is, that Hitler and Stalin were acctually colleagues..

[ChumpDumper]

Is there any conspiracy theory you don't swallow whole?

[z0sa]

If Hitler hadn't tried to fight a war on two fronts and just took Moscow right away instead of attempting to fight through the brutal Russian winter

lol they never even made it to moscow because of the brutal Russian winter

[Leetonidas]

Those issues are addressed in the video. You obviously didn't watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mA0kk29DBA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mA0kk29DBA)

If the link doesn't work, do a YouTube search on this.
"Hitler's War - What the Historians Neglect to Mention"

Also, start watching the videos by Mark Weber that deal with WW2.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+weber
Nobody ever watches the stupid bullshit you're constantly spamming the forum with

[DMX7]

This. He could have avoided Stalin the entire war, correct me if I'm wrong. Hitler and Stalin had a truce I believe and Hitler, being an avid historian, wanted to make history with this move. The US likes to believe we altered the momentum and changed everything in the war, but the Soviet Union had a equally large role in ending both the Pacific and European wars.

There were multiple "pivotal" moments. I would not underestimate how big the U.S. entering the war was. But yes, Hitler really screwed the pooch by invading USSR. Battle of Stalingrad basically turned the war. U.S. entering officially sealed the deal.

[TeyshaBlue]

This is still my favorite WWII documentary.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/WW2MMORPG.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/WW2MMORPG.gif.html)

[SnakeBoy]

Please list other ways Allies could have faltered and lost. I am intrigued by the history on this.

Allied defeat on D Day may well have pulled the US out of the european war, FDR had already written his resignation speech in case of defeat. Nazi's could have easily smashed the invasion with panzer divisions that were in place. However Hitler distrusted his generals and the panzer divisions were under Hitler's direct command. On the day of the invasion Hitler was taking a nap with orders not to be disturbed. By the time he awoke that afternoon and gave the order to move the panzer divisions into action the cloudy skies had begun to clear allowing allied air power to hold the panzer divisions at bay.

[ChumpDumper]

I think Newt Gingrich co-wrote some alternate history books. I'm sure they are full of partisan hackery, but if you're into that sort of thing.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think Newt Gingrich co-wrote some alternate history books. I'm sure they are full of partisan hackery, but if you're into that sort of thing.

Probably along the lines of Orson Scott Card's neo-con ramblings although I think Newt's a little brighter than OSC.

[EVAY]

There are lots and lots of revisionist history theoreticians out there these days, but the notion that Germany attacked France and Great Britain because they were about to be attacked is nonsense. What happened is this:

1. Germany violated every provision of the Versailles Treaty (that ended WWI) possible after Hitler came to power in 1933. This included developing weaponry that had been forbidden, re-establising an Army, etc. etc., and then attacking their neighbors. Hitler always intended to attack Russia and said so forthrightly in Mein Kampf, written before he ever came to power.

2. England and France were treaty-bound to defend Poland if she was attacked, and Hitler knew it. He just didn't think they would do anything about it, since they had already allowed him to over-run three other countries without doing anything about it. So he attacked Poland, and England and France declared war on Germany.

3. France thought that the "Maginot Line" ( a series of fixed defenses along the border with Germany built after WWI) would hold them back.
Neither France nor England was well prepared for War, but Germany was, having fought alongside Franco's army in Spain while overturning Royalist forces there and making Spain fascist, just as Germany became under Hitler.

4. Germany used their military build-up under Hitler (again, in contravention of the Versailles Treaty), their participation in Spain's civil war, and their their over-running of Czechoslovakia, Austria and ultimately Poland, to become the foremost military power in Europe. They were happy enough to go to war with France, but actually didn't want to go to war with England, believing that the English people and the German people were similar to one another.

5. After France and England declared war (September of 1939), virtually nothing happened until the Spring of 1940. Both sides were preparing. So the notion that Germany attacked France and England because they were about to be attacked by them in only true inasmuch as England and France were at war with Germany after Germany refused to leave Poland after they attacked there in 1939.

6. France capitulated within 6 weeks of the German assault, leaving Britain alone to fight Germany. Germany planned an invasion of Britain, although the German generals and high command argued against it. Hitler decided that if he could obtain air superiority over England, the invasion would go forward. Britain's Royal Air Force fought Germany's Air Force to a standstill over the skies of southern England in the summer of 1940, forcing Hitler to conclude that he could not invade England successfully at that time. He had INTENDED to invade Russia in May of 1941, but he couldn't mount the invasion of England and he couldn't get England to surrender. So he figured he would just put off invading England until after he beat Russia (which he figured would take less than 6 months --after all-- nothing else stood for more than 6 months against his armies). So he attacked Russia, figuring that he could beat Russia while his submarines starved England into submission.

7. Hitler's delayed invasion of Russia meant they couldn't get to Moscow before the winter set in, and that delay (attributable to the Battle of Britain's success for England) meant that Russia had time to fall back, get supplies from the U.S. and Britain, and begin fighting back.

8. Had Britain not been able to stand alone from the fall of 1939 until the fall of 1941, when Russia finally was able to start fighting back, WWII would have been very different. Had the British Air Force not pulled off a "David vs. Goliath" move against Germany's numerically superior Air Force in August-September of 1940, and had the British people not been able to 'hold out' against the Blitz in the winter of 40-41, refusing to surrender to the bombing onslaught, Germany may well have been better prepared to attack Russia earlier in 1941 (in May rather than in June-July), and they might have gotten to Moscow before the Winter stopped them. And Germany might have won.

9. Germany declared war on the U.S. 8 days after Pearl Harbor. THAT is what finished Germany. The industrial might of the U.S. (which provided armaments to Russia, England and the U.S.) finished Germany. It took us a long time to get started, and the invasion of Europe across the English Channel was not possible before 1944 because even with our industrial might we didn't literally have the ships to get the guys across the Channel in sufficient force until that time, but it was the industrial strength of the U.S. to fight huge wars on two massive fronts that won the war for the Allies.

10. Russia did not face a two-front war. They did not declare war on Japan until after our bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russia last more men in WWII than any other combatant, but they didn't win the war. Our industrial strength won the war on both fronts. It was only a matter of time. Other events could have hastened the outcome or postponed the outcome, but once we were in it, the outcome was assured.

[Chief Brody]

I agree with most of your post (I had cited #8 earlier in the thread) except parts of #10. Russia and Japan never "officially" declared war on each other but there was bitter, gruesome border skirmishes in and around Mongolia in 1939. Georgy Zhukov--arguably Russia's most notable general of the war--cut his teeth fending off the Nips at Khalkin Gol and other battles. Needless to say, they weren't friendly throughout the war. Russia took one for the team, and for awhile were getting the full brunt of Germany's land-war aggression.

[ChumpDumper]

I heartily recommend these books I will never read.

[InRareForm]

:lol

[baseline bum]

The Krauts could have won the Battle of Brittain had they not decided to use the Luftwaffe to do daytime bombings of the cities instead of finishing off the RAF and all the radar sites on the channel. That mistake forced them into only being able to do unfocused night bombing of the cities.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Krauts could have won the Battle of Brittain had they not decided to use the Luftwaffe to do daytime bombings of the cities instead of finishing off the RAF and all the radar sites on the channel. That mistake forced them into only being able to do unfocused night bombing of the cities.

You really can't "win" a battle without ultimately putting boots on the ground.

[ChumpDumper]

You really can't "win" a battle without ultimately putting boots on the ground.Of course you can.

It's just a battle, not a campaign or a war.

[leemajors]

I think Newt Gingrich co-wrote some alternate history books. I'm sure they are full of partisan hackery, but if you're into that sort of thing.

Prob off topic, but Man in the High Castle by Dick and The Plot Against America by Roth are two excellent alt-histories dealing with WW2

[baseline bum]

You really can't "win" a battle without ultimately putting boots on the ground.

Which they were poised to do if they hadn't gone half ass in their battle for air superiority.

[Josepatches_]

If Hitler hadn't tried to fight a war on two fronts and just took Moscow right away instead of attempting to fight through the brutal Russian winter

True. Hitler lost the war in Russia.

[EVAY]

I'm a bit busy now and I don't have time to look for that in the book.
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/bigbaldbob88/MeinKampf.pdf

Since you've read the book, could you find that part for me?


There's also a theory that Mein Kampf was tampered with before it was made available to the public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwp7tVZuXKM
(56:00 time mark)

I'm not in a position to be able to verify anything but there's a theory that a lot of stuff has been tampered with or even outright faked in order to mislead the public into thinking the way they want them to think. Here's an example.
http://www.google.es/?gws_rd=cr#sclient=psy-ab&q=ann+frank+diary+faked&oq=ann+frank+diary+faked&gs_l=hp.3..0i13i10i30.734.4562.0.5547.21.14.0.0.0. 0.1281.6142.0j4j4j1j1j1j1j2.14.0....0...1c.1.22.ps y-ab..7.14.5283.wKc6RckV1yw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49641647,d.Yms&fp=71fa27a7c21f55f6&biw=1024&bih=572

Still waiting for you to tell us the source of your info.


I'm kinda swamped myself right now with visiting family through tomorrow. I have spent the last 16 years of my life studying the events and causes of WWII...admittedly geeky..just an interest of mine. This includes several trips to England and France (Imperial War Museum, etc. etc., and the Arromanches and Normandy beaches areas of France). Mostly it involves tons of reading. I promise that I will give you a bibliography within two days ( the grandchild leaves tomorrow), but in short, check out the WWII histories by Rick Atkinson (imminently readable and current). If you want to go further back, read the war diaries of Churchill himself ( unsurprisingly biased but beautifully written), and the guy who opened the WWII museum in New Orleans who escapes me right now but I will check it out shortly)...

Enjoy your journey. I think you will find it fascinating and worthwhile.

[EVAY]

You really can't "win" a battle without ultimately putting boots on the ground.

True, except that the 'Battle of Britain' generally means the air war between England and Germany fought in the skies over the South of England primarily between August-September time frame of 1940. Hitler had assumed (because Goering told him) that England's air defenses were so small as to be easily beaten. Air superiority was assumed to be critical to a successful landing of a German Army on the shores of England. But the RAF fought the Luftwaffe to a virtual tie. Problem for England was that if they lost no more planes than the Luftwaffe did, they (England) would still lose because they had so many fewer planes in reserve.

The Germans would have won the air battle had they not gotten distracted by RAF bombings of German cities, upon which Hitler ordered them to put their greatest effort into bombing English cities, hoping that the destruction of their cities would bring England to the Treaty table where they would ask for terms. The Germans had almost destroyed the RAF, but by allowing them to build up their fighter aircraft again when the Germans turned to the "Blitz", they just pissed off the British citizens and gave the RAF a new lease on life. Since there never was an invasion of Britain, and since the Blitz and the u-boat blockade of England during 1940-1941 failed to force England to ask for surrender terms before the invasion of Russia was scheduled to occur (it was scheduled for May - the delay until June was due to Hitler wanting one last chance to get England to cry 'uncle'), the invasion of Russia went ahead, but a full 6 weeks after it was originally planned to occur.

That's why the Air war is called the 'Battle of Britain'.

[InRareForm]

Linkcity

[TeyshaBlue]

Next: meme storm.

[TDMVPDPOY]

you guys do know every war since roman empire times, the germans has had a participation in them

[EVAY]

Hey Evay

You seem to have read a lot but are you aware that the official American version of why wars are fought is usually upside-down from reality? I posted this on page one.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145531

Do you believe that the US government defends freedom and democracy in the world as we are taught in school and read in the newspapers? A lot of people simply believe the official version and become very well-read in propaganda and misinformation. When they are shown the truth, they sometimes experience cognitive dissonance and go into denial.
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm


Do you believe the official version of why we were in Vietnam,...
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war

...or do you believe the anti-establishment version?
http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/chomskyin1282.html

(I don't know what's going on but it looks like you'll have to copy and paste three of those links. I don't know why they didn't appear as hot links.)

You previously asked me for some sources.

Re: Mein Kampf's description of Hitler's intent toward the USSR - check out chapters 7 (the Red Front) and 14 (Eastern Policy), wherein he describes the threat he perceives from Communists (and he attributes Communistic political ideology to Jews), the need to eradicate Jews and Communists, and the simultaneous need for "lebesraum' (living space) for the German people to expand, given their superiority over the Slavic races, etc. etc.

All of the following I have read and recommend to you. Some of the take what you would call the "official version". Most, especially, the most recent ones, don't. None of them, however, espouse the views published on-line by some modern-day hate mongers that the German people were really swell during the war and the War was really the fault of Churchill and Roosevelt and the Bolsheviks.

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer and Ron Rosenbaum. This is the oldest of the books, written only a few years after the war by a journalist who had lived in Germany during Hitler's rise, and thus relates his vision of what was happening and why. Certain things were not clear when it was first written that have come to light since then (how early the Brits had broken the German codes, e.g.), but it is exceptional in its 'first person singular' narrative of events.

(2)The World at War, 1939-1945, by Max Hastings. He also has another book about the very end of the war but it is out on loan and I can't remember its title. But he is very very tough on the allies and their execution of the war and their misunderstanding of the German People.

(3)Rick Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy, first - An Army at Dawn, second - The Day of Battle, and third - The Guns at Last Light.
Atkinson, like Hastings, is a modern historian who is vehemently critical of the Allied Leadership including Churchill and Eisenhower and Roosevelt and Omar Bradley, etc. etc.

(4)The last Lion series, written mostly by William Manchester, a very well respected historical biographer, and completed, after Manchester's death, by Manchester's selected successor, Reid (can't remember his first name). Reid just about hates Churchill's guts for being a narcissistic jerk who belittled everyone around him, but had the clearest vision of what the world would look like after the War than anyone except Stalin (because he recognized what Stalin was about to do but couldn't stop it without American help, which was not about to be forthcoming from Roosevelt, Eisenhower, or Truman.

(5) Churchill and Hitler in Victory and Defeat by John Strawson

(6) Franklin and Winston by Jon Meacham - borrrring.

(7) The Greatest Battle (Moscow) by Andrew Nagorski

(8) The Last Citadel (Kursk Battle) and The End of the War (Race for Berlin), both by David L. Robbins

(9) Stalingrad to the Fall of Berlin by Antony Beevor

I believe that every government acts in what it perceives to be its own self-interest. After the Communists took over all of China after WWII, the greatest fear among Western Democracies was that the 'Appeasement' of Hitler that allowed him to become so strong and thus so hard to beat in battle once they had decided that battle was necessary was being repeated in the face of growing Communist might, and so places like Vietnam, which was interested in throwing off French colonial rule should be 'kept free' from Communism. Not because we cared a whit about Vietnam, the French or the Chinese for that matter, but because no politician (including Eisenhower, Kennedy or Johnson) wanted to be the one who 'lost' another country to Communism.

There is of course lots of propaganda about WWII. But there was a lot of truth, also. If you read across a wide range of authors who are unbiased historians, I think you get a pretty clear picture that we won the War, but it was our industrial strength, not our moral rectitude,
that brought about the victory. Russia also won the War, with close to zero moral rectitude, but lots of self-interests satisfied. Britain arguable lost the war as did France, because both of their empires collapsed during or immediately following the war. The U.S. was happy as a lark to watch that happen.

If you really want to challenge a war that we fought in contradiction to the stated reasons, the Iraq War is the most obvious and the most recent.

[EVAY]

No, Cosmored. I have done more than enough work for you to bring you the sources and readings in detail that I have actually read and understood. It is up to you now to do some real research of your own, rather than continuing to say you still don't understand why I accept the historians I have read and understood. Unless you read the bibliography I gave you and find something in there that is inconsistent with my presentation, you have no more room to ask for more from someone else.

If you choose to believe the internet youtube postings rather than the academic research by actual historians, there is no way you are going to change by anything I say. And you don't need to change. Lots of folks prefer their versions of reality to those put forward by folks who have actually studied the issue. I'm done with this now.

And by the way... you are welcome for that full bibliography I gave you.

[baseline bum]

No, Cosmored. I have done more than enough work for you to bring you the sources and readings in detail that I have actually read and understood. It is up to you now to do some real research of your own, rather than continuing to say you still don't understand why I accept the historians I have read and understood. Unless you read the bibliography I gave you and find something in there that is inconsistent with my presentation, you have no more room to ask for more from someone else.

If you choose to believe the internet youtube postings rather than the academic research by actual historians, there is no way you are going to change by anything I say. And you don't need to change. Lots of folks prefer their versions of reality to those put forward by folks who have actually studied the issue. I'm done with this now.

And by the way... you are welcome for that full bibliography I gave you.

Evay, do you have any documentary recommendations for WWII?

[baseline bum]

This is still my favorite WWII documentary.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/WW2MMORPG.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/WW2MMORPG.gif.html)

That's good, but I personally loved this one too:

eAUxataLNew

[EVAY]

Evay, do you have any documentary recommendations for WWII?

Well, the ones I am most familiar with are the ones from the History Channel or PBS. Ken Burns had a couple of series, focusing on ordinary soldiers and the home front. I think one was in 2007 and one in 2010 (Europe and the Pacific, respectively). The World at War was originally made during the 70's, but was remastered and done in HD and Blu Ray in 2010. This one covers the buildup of Nazism in Germany prior to the War. And WWII in HD came out in 2011 and is quite comprehensive (probably the best of the three, imo), and uses colored film wherever possible, which is very unusual for most WWII documentaries. There was not a lot of color footage at that time, but they found all they could and is pretty well done.

All of the above are available on Amazon. I honestly did not like Ken Burns' piece, but maybe because I'm tired of his approach.

[baseline bum]

Well, the ones I am most familiar with are the ones from the History Channel or PBS. Ken Burns had a couple of series, focusing on ordinary soldiers and the home front. I think one was in 2007 and one in 2010 (Europe and the Pacific, respectively). The World at War was originally made during the 70's, but was remastered and done in HD and Blu Ray in 2010. This one covers the buildup of Nazism in Germany prior to the War. And WWII in HD came out in 2011 and is quite comprehensive (probably the best of the three, imo), and uses colored film wherever possible, which is very unusual for most WWII documentaries. There was not a lot of color footage at that time, but they found all they could and is pretty well done.

All of the above are available on Amazon. I honestly did not like Ken Burns' piece, but maybe because I'm tired of his approach.

Yeah, I have World at War and really enjoyed it. Especially all the color footage they had in the first episode on Hitler's Germany and all the color footage from Iwo Jima (wow that place looked like hell). I'll have to get WWII in HD on your recommendation too (DD was recommending it to me also). I hate every Ken Burns documentary I have ever seen (National Parks, Baseball, Prohibition), so I know to steer clear of his work. The National Parks one really disappointed me because I heard it had this huge budget so I was expecting Ansel Adams kind of backcountry shots. Instead every single shot from Yosemite, Grand Teton, Yellowstone, and Sequoia was something no more than 5 minutes walk from the road, and most of his shots were just park the car and shoot. He completely failed in showing how spectacular our parks are by just showing the views that everyone has already seen.

I have another series called The Unknown War that was aired in the Soviet Union and focused on their efforts and the carnage they faced at the hands of the Wehrmacht and SS, but it's not nearly as well done as World at War.

[EVAY]

Yeah, I have World at War and really enjoyed it. Especially all the color footage they had in the first episode on Hitler's Germany and all the color footage from Iwo Jima (wow that place looked like hell). I'll have to get WWII in HD on your recommendation too (DD was recommending it to me also). I hate every Ken Burns documentary I have ever seen (National Parks, Baseball, Prohibition), so I know to steer clear of his work. The National Parks one really disappointed me because I heard it had this huge budget so I was expecting Ansel Adams kind of backcountry shots. Instead every single shot from Yosemite, Grand Teton, Yellowstone, and Sequoia was something no more than 5 minutes walk from the road, and most of his shots were just park the car and shoot. He completely failed in showing how spectacular our parks are by just showing the views that everyone has already seen.

I have another series called The Unknown War that was aired in the Soviet Union and focused on their efforts and the carnage they faced at the hands of the Wehrmacht and SS, but it's not nearly as well done as World at War.

After his Civil War piece, Ken Burns had pretty much shot his wad. The one on the war in the Pacific just made me mad more than anything because it added nothing other than anecdotal musings from a bunch of folks who vision was as narrow as their noses. The Russian one you mention is one I am not familiar with but sounds interesting. And yeah, you can hardly blame the Russians for believing that their sacrifices were greater than anyone else's....mostly because they were. if you come across one of the documentaries on the Kursk Battle, get it. Man, that was truly amazing to watch unfold as they drew the Wermacht into that topographical trap and then snapped it.

The Rick Atkinson trilogy is genuinely worth reading, I promise.

oh, and p.s. the National Parks thing? I couldn't agree more. A total travesty. The very best thing in America and he blew it.

[PlayNando]

What ways could of the joined Allies lost?

If I understand it, if Britain was taking over early (with u boats and such) it would have been a devastating blow.

Are there any good books/documentaries to read on this?

Please list other ways Allies could have faltered and lost. I am intrigued by the history on this.
There was almost no way for the Allies to lose.

Even if the USA doesn't join the war as a result of Pearl Harbor, the Germans were not capable of invading the British Isles and the Soviets would have beaten the Germans eventually, IMO. We'd have a Red Europe, which could be considered a strategic "loss" for the Allies, I suppose.

[baseline bum]

oh, and p.s. the National Parks thing? I couldn't agree more. A total travesty. The very best thing in America and he blew it.

It genuinely made me mad watching it. This series was hailed as the thing that was going to show America how great the national parks are, and how important it is to protect them. It was sold as something that was going to inspire America to see what they're losing by slashing the funding to the NPS. And instead it was flat out boring, with so-so shots, and no one was going to get inspired to give a shit if they didn't already from those boring, droning, and horribly edited shows. I can just picture people watching that garbage and thinking "This is all the national parks have to offer? Hell with that, let's go to Disneyworld instead." The Yosemite scenes were really bad, because the park just has so much to offer for anyone willing to hike even a half-day off the road. You get up around Mount Conness and it looks like another planet, with bright blue lakes from glacial rock flour and rugged peaks. Or you go up around Mount Gibbs to see huge alpine meadows with animals like pikas that you can't see near any road. Or you go up Mount Dana to see tiny bright alpine flowers and a sweeping view of the huge Mono Lake 6500 feet below. Or go walk the summit ridge of the Clouds Rest arete with 4500 feet of open air to your right and 1500 feet of open air to your left. Or a huge head-on view of Half Dome from the summit of North Dome. Or a view into Tenaya Canyon from Mount Watkins. Every one of those places a fit hiker could dayhike (and some a not-so-fit dayhiker), so it was just lazy for Burns to have not gotten any of those kind of shots.

[EVAY]

It genuinely made me mad watching it. This series was hailed as the thing that was going to show America how great the national parks are, and how important it is to protect them. It was sold as something that was going to inspire America to see what they're losing by slashing the funding to the NPS. And instead it was flat out boring, with so-so shots, and no one was going to get inspired to give a shit if they didn't already from those boring, droning, and horribly edited shows. I can just picture people watching that garbage and thinking "This is all the national parks have to offer? Hell with that, let's go to Disneyworld instead." The Yosemite scenes were really bad, because the park just has so much to offer for anyone willing to hike even a half-day off the road. You get up around Mount Conness and it looks like another planet, with bright blue lakes from glacial rock flour and rugged peaks. Or you go up around Mount Gibbs to see huge alpine meadows with animals like pikas that you can't see near any road. Or you go up Mount Dana to see tiny bright alpine flowers and a sweeping view of the huge Mono Lake 6500 feet below. Or go walk the summit ridge of the Clouds Rest arete with 4500 feet of open air to your right and 1500 feet of open air to your left. Every one of those places a fit hiker could dayhike, so it was just lazy for Burns to have not gotten any of those kind of shots.

Totally. It is my very favorite National Park, and he just didn't seem to care.

[baseline bum]

Totally. It is my very favorite National Park, and he just didn't seem to care.

What's your favorite hike there? Or do you do backpacking trips?

[bluebellmaniac]

This. He could have avoided Stalin the entire war, correct me if I'm wrong. Hitler and Stalin had a truce I believe and Hitler, being an avid historian, wanted to make history with this move. The US likes to believe we altered the momentum and changed everything in the war, but the Soviet Union had a equally large role in ending both the Pacific and European wars.

Yes.

It is not taught in US schools, but the Russians faced 10X as many Germans on the Eastern front than what the US faced as they fought inland after D-Day. One can quickly see that if Hitler had not blundered in several ways in regards to going to war with Russia, that he would have won the war. Russia lost approximately 26M people in the war. Some of that from Stalin's purges, but still most were at the hands of the Germans.

Had the U-Boat campaign continued as it had and crippled the ability of the US to supply the UK, then the Germans could have won. If Hitler had taken Moscow and bypassed Stalingrad / Leningrad, he could have knocked out Russia and would have been unbeatable at that point. By splitting his forces between the oil rich Caucasus and pushing for Moscow, he drained his army's potency. Or if he had not invaded Russia, then he could have easily repulsed the D-Day invasion. In fact, it is doubtful that we invade with most of his forces available to push us back into the sea.

[EVAY]

What's your favorite hike there? Or do you do backpacking trips?

No, I never did backpacking trips, although one of my sons used to do them all the time. I've only done the regular day trips - you know - the ones that go BY Half Dome...lol!...not the ones ON or above Half-Dome.

[Rogue]

Have been playing Hearts of Iron alot and I think that even if the Nazis could dominate the entire Euro-Asia continent, and maybe even the entire Africa, there would still be no hell of way for them to threaten US. You need 10yrs to build an army, 50yrs for the airforce and 100 years for the navy. Germany were weak as shit militarily from land to sea before the Fuhrer took office, even though they managed to build a strong army, their navy would still be no match against the US or the Royal Navy despite that their U-submarines might have caused some troubles to the allies. Submarines are like the role players in a navy, they can be tactical weapons but you never expect them to win the war for you imho. Nazis wouldn't be able to even get close to the US shoreline, their ships would've been sunk before they could reach mexico.

[Darkwaters]

This. He could have avoided Stalin the entire war, correct me if I'm wrong. Hitler and Stalin had a truce I believe and Hitler, being an avid historian, wanted to make history with this move. The US likes to believe we altered the momentum and changed everything in the war, but the Soviet Union had a equally large role in ending both the Pacific and European wars.

Exactly. The Soviets were having a jolly old time fighting the Winter War and taking slices of Finland home. Obviously along the way they acquired nice property in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. They were planning an invasion into Sweden as well. Had Hitler left them alone, they likely would have been content to carve out a nice holding to the north of Germany (which could have made for an interesting Cold War if Germany's empire had survived).

The Soviets were also very important in ending the Pacific War. The mere threat of them coming into the fight on the other side of Japan allowed the surrender to happen more easily. The atom bomb was important, but the Soviets were equally important. Of course, the end result of that gov't sanctioned drug deal was the Korean War....which we're technically still fighting (cease fire only). So...maybe we should have just taken Japan by our lonesome.

Lastly, the Germans never threw more than 1/3 of their total strength at the allied invasion from the West. 33%. If they'd left the Soviet Union alone and focused on sacking England and crushing the landings in Italy and North Africa then things might be very different.

PS: As much as it pains me to say, D-Day wasn't nearly as successful as we like to say. The inability of the allies to secure the right flank of Antwerpen was pretty deadly (Bradley...really?). And Cherbourg and Le Havre were pretty fucked up from the invasion. Don't get me started on the allies inability to take Brest until mid-September in 1944. Overlord was a success...but it had a lot of problems after just a short time (Falaise Gap anyone?). Compare and contrast that with Operation Dragoon, the amphibious and airborne landings in southern France only a couple of months later. Toulons, Marseilles and Nice all taken intact. Minor loss of life (especially compared to Omaha, Utah, Sword, Gold, Juno) and then massive gains through France in record time. 7th Army kicked ass. But instead we remember fucking General Patton instead of General Patch. Fitting.

Still, I'll never knock the guys that did that jump into Normandy. Holy shit - that is one nasty fucking jump. I did a daytime parachute insertion into Normandy 4 years ago and it was dodgy as shit. I can't imagine doing it at night with Germans shooting at me. I'm insanely proud to be a paratrooper like those men that went before.

[symple19]

Compare and contrast that with Operation Dragoon, the amphibious and airborne landings in southern France only a couple of months later. Toulons, Marseilles and Nice all taken intact. Minor loss of life (especially compared to Omaha, Utah, Sword, Gold, Juno) and then massive gains through France in record time. 7th Army kicked ass. But instead we remember fucking General Patton instead of General Patch. Fitting.



Army Group G, which faced Patch's invasion force, was quite probably the worst outfit facing the Allies in the west at the time. It only had one Panzer division and was a dumping ground for old, poor, and wounded soldiers from other fronts. Add to that the poor state of their equipment and questionable command structure populated by sub-par commanders, it's no wonder why they were routed so easily. While 7th Army did indeed kick ass, the opposition it faced in France was laughable compared to what was being faced farther north.

Patton's accomplishments at Bastogne, repositioning 6 divisions and then attacking through to relieve the beleaguered defenders, remains one of the great military maneuvers of all time, especially in terms of logistics. While he may have become a rock star over the years since his death, and as a result slightly overrated as a tactician(Metz/Lorraine), there's no way Patch should even be mentioned in the same breath as Patton. Bottom line, the Third Army traveled further, caused more casualties, and fought against much more difficult opposition than did the 7th. I also think Patton suffered due to lack of fuel and a jealous/timid commander in Bradley, otherwise his gains would have been even more impressive.

The rest of your post :tu

[Darkwaters]

Army Group G, which faced Patch's invasion force, was quite probably the worst outfit facing the Allies in the west at the time. It only had one Panzer division and was a dumping ground for old, poor, and wounded soldiers from other fronts. Add to that the poor state of their equipment and questionable command structure populated by sub-par commanders, it's no wonder why they were routed so easily. While 7th Army did indeed kick ass, the opposition it faced in France was laughable compared to what was being faced farther north.

Patton's accomplishments at Bastogne, repositioning 6 divisions and then attacking through to relieve the beleaguered defenders, remains one of the great military maneuvers of all time, especially in terms of logistics. While he may have become a rock star over the years since his death, and as a result slightly overrated as a tactician(Metz/Lorraine), there's no way Patch should even be mentioned in the same breath as Patton. Bottom line, the Third Army traveled further, caused more casualties, and fought against much more difficult opposition than did the 7th. I also think Patton suffered due to lack of fuel and a jealous/timid commander in Bradley, otherwise his gains would have been even more impressive.

The rest of your post :tu

Theres a ton of truth in that. But southern France was open as wide as it was largely because the Germans were already dealing with too many fronts as it was (Russia, Italy and Normandy). But still, a lot of truth. I do get frustrated with Patton's rock star status...because I don't think it is totally deserved.

I'm curious what Operation Sledgehammer would have looked like if it had been done the way they originally wanted (ie, Hammer and Anvil - not Overlord and Dragoon).

[symple19]

Theres a ton of truth in that. But southern France was open as wide as it was largely because the Germans were already dealing with too many fronts as it was (Russia, Italy and Normandy). But still, a lot of truth. I do get frustrated with Patton's rock star status...because I don't think it is totally deserved.

I'm curious what Operation Sledgehammer would have looked like if it had been done the way they originally wanted (ie, Hammer and Anvil - not Overlord and Dragoon).

Hmm, are you talking about the 1942 version of Sledgehammer, or Anvil (eventually Dragoon) actually coinciding with Normandy? IIRC, Clark (and Churchill) actually argued that he should be reinforced instead of Dragoon, thus breaking through into Central Europe before Stalin got there. I believe that effort could have had a Balkan component that would have completely reshaped post-war Europe.The only thing that would be missed in southern France was a deep water port, and Army Group G was ineffective enough to be tied down by partisan elements and maybe a few demonstrations along the coast until the breakout occurred in the North. Pretty sure Anzio, as well as the excellent use of terrain by Kesselring in defense, killed any hope of that ever happening, though

Had the two landings coincided, it could well have ended things a month or so, sooner. And as we all know, as fast as Allied armies were moving, that could have spelled a very different second half of the Twentieth century for countries like Czechoslovakia and perhaps a few of the Balkan countries as well.

If you're talking the 42 edition, there just wasn't enough logistical support in place. U-boats, lack of complete air superiority, and the German ability to quickly move troops (this before transportation infrastructure had been ravaged by Allied bombing, as was the case in 44') would have led to something as bad or worse than Dunkirk, imo. The French resistance, which had a huge influence in the success of Dragoon and to a lesser extent, Overlord, also wasn't nearly as effective at that point

[EVAY]

Hmm, are you talking about the 1942 version of Sledgehammer, or Anvil (eventually Dragoon) actually coinciding with Normandy? IIRC, Clark (and Churchill) actually argued that he should be reinforced instead of Dragoon, thus breaking through into Central Europe before Stalin got there. I believe that effort could have had a Balkan component that would have completely reshaped post-war Europe.The only thing that would be missed in southern France was a deep water port,...

If you're talking the 42 edition, there just wasn't enough logistical support in place. U-boats, lack of complete air superiority, and the German ability to quickly move troops (this before transportation infrastructure had been ravaged by Allied bombing, as was the case in 44') would have led to something as bad or worse than Dunkirk, imo. The French resistance, which had a huge influence in the success of Dragoon and to a lesser extent, Overlord, also wasn't nearly as effective at that point

Great observations in this. The deep water port could have been Marseille. The U.S. Brass was totally deaf to Churchill's pleadings regarding the need for Clark to be reinforced and for the European war to be fought effectively from the south toward the southeastern European countries rather than the "We came in from the Atlantic and we are going to go forward that way until we get to Berlin". The U.S. was convinced that Churchill was only trying to have a 're-do' of the Balkan campaign of WWI, and so dismissed it. Clark didn't have the support of much of the U.S. high command other than Eisenhower, and Ike was still trying to make everybody stay on board. Plus, Monty wanting to take the military approach across the northern edge of Europe was a factor against the southern campaign as well.

Let's face it. Our (the U.S.) focus on having military men in the field make all the military strategic and tactical decisions had some bearing on the post-war outlook in Europe as well. Having been told that post-war Germany had already been carved up into occupation zones by the political leaders before and during the Yalta conference, Eisenhower (understandably) couldn't figure out why American lives should be placed at risk moving further into a territory that we were going to have to give back to Russia (or France or England) at the end of the hostilities. So he, like most Americans by that point, decided not to move further east than we were going to occupy. Churchill saw that we were going to end up at odds with Russia who was going to have all the East European countries in the post-war era and wanted to famously "shake hands with Russia as far east as possible". That was simply not in the cards for the American forces, most of whom (at that point) were being figured to have to go Japan for an invasion there within a a few months.

[leemajors]

Figured I would post this here as some of you may be WW1 buffs as well:


The following photos were taken from 1914-1918 by my great-grandfather Lt. Walter Koessler during his time as a German officer in the first World War. They're part of a collection of over a thousand photos, stereographs and their negatives that my family has been saving for a century. This is an unusually large and complete collection, and I've taken on the task of preserving it and sharing it with you as I believe it deserves.

These photos have never been published before.

http://wwiphotos.tumblr.com/

[baseline bum]

Well, the ones I am most familiar with are the ones from the History Channel or PBS. Ken Burns had a couple of series, focusing on ordinary soldiers and the home front. I think one was in 2007 and one in 2010 (Europe and the Pacific, respectively). The World at War was originally made during the 70's, but was remastered and done in HD and Blu Ray in 2010. This one covers the buildup of Nazism in Germany prior to the War. And WWII in HD came out in 2011 and is quite comprehensive (probably the best of the three, imo), and uses colored film wherever possible, which is very unusual for most WWII documentaries. There was not a lot of color footage at that time, but they found all they could and is pretty well done.

All of the above are available on Amazon. I honestly did not like Ken Burns' piece, but maybe because I'm tired of his approach.

I gotta say I think World at War was a much better series than WWII in HD (though I have only watched the first 8 episodes, with 9 ad 10 to go). I didn't like the way they kept flipping back and forth between the Europe and the Pacific every 5 minutes. Some of the interviews were really cool though, and the color footage in the European front was awesome. I think it's kind of ridiculous to call it WWII in HD and completely ignore the British and the Soviets and make it seem like the war was all America and began in 1941. Overall, my favorite part of World at War was the Iwo Jima episode, which was so much more detailed than the WWII in HD version and still had lots of color footage too. WWII in HD is pretty good, but World at War is just the most interesting documentary I have ever seen and nothing comes close.

[Chief Brody]

Figured I would post this here as some of you may be WW1 buffs as well:



http://wwiphotos.tumblr.com/
I'm one of those crazy WWI buffs. Thanks for this, awesome stuff, lee

[leemajors]

I'm one of those crazy WWI buffs. Thanks for this, awesome stuff, lee

np, some great pics in there