Watching World War 2 Do entaries... question...

[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/do entaries 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 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? 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 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? 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 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 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 ed 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 ing General Patton instead of General Patch. Fitting.

Still, I'll never knock the guys that did that jump into Normandy. Holy - that is one nasty ing jump. I did a daytime parachute insertion into Normandy 4 years ago and it was dodgy as . 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 ing 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

[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

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 do entaries. 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 do entary 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