Why Hitler Declared War On The United States

Tolls said:
Funny thing, though, the Soviets occupied the land...the people pretty much all upped stumps and left. Nearly half a million of them.

Including one side of my family...:)
Click to expand...

Interesting, I never knew that. Finland did some remarkable things in the wars with the USSR, of which remaining independent was possibly the most remarkable of all.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Oh, good grief. That part of the post, as written, didn't make any actual errors of fact. The USSR invaded Finland, among other countries, and it placed tens of millions of people under Stalinist occupation. These two statements are literally true, even though the two sets (countries invaded by the USSR, people under Stalinist occupation) are not identical.

One might ask what regime the people living in the Karelian Isthmus were under between the Winter War and the Continuation War, but that's probably just nitpicking for those of us who weren't one of them.

Dave
Click to expand...

It was not an 'invasion'. A few of their tanks tried to cross the border and they fired a few missiles. They made no real inroads in the true sense, as with, say, Czechoslovakia.

It is not 'literally true', as Finland was NEVER. 'under the rule of Stalin', not even for a few days. Stop talking nonsense.

The people living in Karelia were Finnish-speaking and regard themselves as Finns.
 
smartcooky said:
Hitler regarded himself to be a master tactician and military strategist... he was nothing of the sort. Militarily speaking, he was a mere dilettante. He continually made novice mistakes (Operation Barbarossa was probably one of the biggest) and he consistently ignored the advice of his far more experienced Generals and Field Marshalls, many of whom were actually excellent military strategists; Rommel, von Manstein, von Rundstedt, Kesselring, von Kleist and even Keitel.

Side note: I have a lot of time for von Kleist. He despised the Nazi regime. The Soviet war crimes trial against hms was a sham... but that is a story for another thread.
Click to expand...

His generals were pretty sharp. The advance on the north, mid and south was super-swift and took the sleeping Russians by surprise.

The only reason Operation Barbarossa in the north was an eventual disaster for the Germans, was because of the shock sensational defeat at Stalingrad in the south.
 
Tolls said:
Funny thing, though, the Soviets occupied the land...the people pretty much all upped stumps and left. Nearly half a million of them.

Including one side of my family...:)
Click to expand...

The Russians occupied Karelia, not Finland proper.

At the time Karelia was a part of Finland, some of which had been annexed and it was the annexed part which the Finns wanted back.

For a time this was successful.

After the Continuation War, you are correct, some 400K Karelians were displaced, I know several of them, and they are bitter to this day that they lost their dear homeland.
 
Vixen said:
It is not 'literally true', as Finland was NEVER. 'under the rule of Stalin', not even for a few days.
Click to expand...

Show me where the post you replied to actually claims that Finland, specifically, was under the rule of Stalin.

Look, you're absolutely correct that Finland resisted the Soviet invasion and was ultimately successful in doing so, and at worst very few Finns were ever under Soviet rule and only for a very short time. Nevertheless, it's not worth giving Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis even the smallest bone to gnaw on, because you know they'll go back to their friends and say, "You know, those pseudo-skeptics wouldn't even admit that Stalin invaded Finland." The USSR invaded, among other countries, Finland; the USSR placed millions of people from other countries, albeit not the Finns, under Stalinist rule. Both of those statements are true; it seems the only thing you're objecting to is them being put next to each other.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Interesting, I never knew that. Finland did some remarkable things in the wars with the USSR, of which remaining independent was possibly the most remarkable of all.

Dave
Click to expand...

It achieved independence thanks to the secret Jaeger (Jaakari) recruitment to challenge the uprising in Russia.

At the time it was an autonomous duchy of imperial Russia, under Czar Nicholas. It had its own government etc, and had been handed over from Swedish dominion in 1810, after the Russians successfully defeated Sweden in the Napoleonic Wars. Before then, Finland was known as 'Ostland' (Eastland) and was a part of Sweden for over 700 years (but only the south and western part)

In the 1890's Nicholas decided to 'russify' Finland and this was met with great resentment, with Russians being sent to occupy government and official positions.

The conservative and liberal coalition government of the time were afraid of Russia and wanted to appease them.

A secret campaign came into operation with young Finns going to Prussia to learn officer training (the famous Jagers, which had been free to form its own formidable armies as remaining outside the Holy Roman Empire). They became extremely skilled at warfare, and thus when Stalin, Trotsky and Lenin expected the Bolshviks to take over Finland - there were still Russian soldiers in Finland who encourgaed this - however their soldiers were asked to leave.

Enter Mannerheim's secret Jager army (Mannerheim had served the Russian Imperialist Army for Czar) and because of their military skill, managed to crush the red rising and seized independence, which Lenin had already granted. Thus it established itself as a democratic western country, thanks to the SISU of its patriotic youth who resisted the communist hegemony.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Show me where the post you replied to actually claims that Finland, specifically, was under the rule of Stalin.

Look, you're absolutely correct that Finland resisted the Soviet invasion and was ultimately successful in doing so, and at worst very few Finns were ever under Soviet rule and only for a very short time. Nevertheless, it's not worth giving Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis even the smallest bone to gnaw on, because you know they'll go back to their friends and say, "You know, those pseudo-skeptics wouldn't even admit that Stalin invaded Finland." The USSR invaded, among other countries, Finland; the USSR placed millions of people from other countries, albeit not the Finns, under Stalinist rule. Both of those statements are true; it seems the only thing you're objecting to is them being put next to each other.

Dave
Click to expand...

You are factually incorrect. Finland had taken back Karelia and the Russians decided they wanted it back. Whilst Karelia on the far eastern corner was always a type of no-man's-land with a tug-of-war going on between the two countries, the Russians did not make any inroads into the country proper.

An 'invasion' implies taking over the whole country with troops and tanks and they never did that, not even for a minute. It was confined to a scuffle at the border.

It is an annoying and common misconception that Finland was (a) part of the East European bloc (it never has been) and (b) part of the Baltic States - also false.

So do not lump Finland in with the list of countries spouted off by the OP.

The OP listed: "USSR had invaded Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania".

Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania were/are part of the Eastern bloc/ Baltic states.

Finland was not, and never has been.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The Russians occupied Karelia, not Finland proper.
Click to expand...

I think you are having problems understanding what people have written.
I never said they occupied Finland...

Vixen said:
At the time Karelia was a part of Finland, some of which had been annexed and it was the annexed part which the Finns wanted back.

For a time this was successful.
Click to expand...

Who are you trying to educate here?

Vixen said:
After the Continuation War, you are correct, some 400K Karelians were displaced, I know several of them, and they are bitter to this day that they lost their dear homeland.
Click to expand...

After the Winter War some 400,000 were displaced.
After the Continuation War the half or so of those that went back were re-displaced.
 
Tolls said:
I think you are having problems understanding what people have written.
I never said they occupied Finland...



Who are you trying to educate here?



After the Winter War some 400,000 were displaced.
After the Continuation War the half or so of those that went back were re-displaced.
Click to expand...

As long as everybody is clear that Finland was never part of the Eastern bloc under Stalinist rule.

:thumbsup::)
 
Vixen said:
An 'invasion' implies taking over the whole country with troops and tanks and they never did that, not even for a minute. It was confined to a scuffle at the border.
Click to expand...

No it does not.
cf the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

Vixen said:
It is an annoying and common misconception that Finland was (a) part of the East European bloc (it never has been) and (b) part of the Baltic States - also false.
Click to expand...
No one here is confused by this.

Vixen said:
So do not lump Finland in with the list of countries spouted off by the OP.

The OP listed: "USSR had invaded Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania".

Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania were/are part of the Eastern bloc/ Baltic states.

Finland was not, and never has been.
Click to expand...

Finland was invaded.
The invasion may have failed to conquer the country, but it was an invasion, and rather more than a "scuffle at the border".
 
Vixen said:
As long as everybody is clear that Finland was never part of the Eastern bloc under Stalinist rule.

:thumbsup::)
Click to expand...

I think we're all agreed on that. It may be important to point out that it was also never part of the Third Reich under Nazi rule. It's interesting, though, how, in the Continuation War, Finland found itself effectively allied to Nazi Germany, in a very similar "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation to the British/US alliance with the Soviet Union, that was prompted by simple geography rather than ideology.

Just for clarity, I am not saying that the Finns supported Nazism, OK?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Oh, good grief. That part of the post, as written, didn't make any actual errors of fact. The USSR invaded Finland, among other countries, and it placed tens of millions of people under Stalinist occupation. These two statements are literally true, even though the two sets (countries invaded by the USSR, people under Stalinist occupation) are not identical.

One might ask what regime the people living in the Karelian Isthmus were under between the Winter War and the Continuation War, but that's probably just nitpicking for those of us who weren't one of them.

Dave
Click to expand...
What nonsense. The list of places occupied by the USSR contained one that was not occupied. It was therefore inaccurate, as far as the impression left on the reader is concerned, though the statement as a whole may be formally true.

Following the 1940 Soviet annexation, Karelians were offered the option of leaving their homes and going to the rest of Finland; or of remaining in KareliaWP as Soviet citizens. All of them chose the first option.
From the areas ceded to the Soviet Union, the whole population was evacuated and resettled in other parts of Finland. The present inhabitants of the former Finnish Karelian parts of Russia, such as the city of Vyborg/Viipuri and the Karelian Isthmus, are post-war immigrants and their descendants.)​
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is an annoying and common misconception that Finland was (a) part of the East European bloc (it never has been) and (b) part of the Baltic States - also false.
Click to expand...
Seeing that nobody has used the word "Baltic states" before in this thread, no-one has made claim (b). But your claim, in fact, is wrong:
After the First World War the term "Baltic States" was used to refer to countries by the Baltic sea that had gained independence from Russia in its aftermath. As such it included not only former Baltic governorates, but also Latgale, Lithuania and Finland.
Click to expand...
So yes, in the time period discussed, Finland was in fact called a "Baltic state".
 
Dave Rogers said:
Just for clarity, I am not saying that the Finns supported Nazism, OK?
Click to expand...
Here is one way in which the Finns differed from their German allies during the Continuation War.
Approximately 300 Finnish Jews fought in the Continuation War, and eight were killed in action ... the Finnish front had a field synagogue operating in the presence of Nazi troops. Jewish soldiers were granted leave on Saturdays and Jewish holidays. In addition, the most popular Finnish singer of the time, Sissy Wein, was Jewish. She entertained Finnish troops during the war, and became known as the "soldier's sweetheart" or the Finnish Vera Lynn. She refused to sing for German soldiers.

Three Finnish Jews were offered the Iron Cross [by the Germans. Whether the Nazis knew that these Finnish personnel - two army officers, and a woman member of the nursing service - were Jews when they were recommended for the award is not stated in wiki; but presumably they didn't.] for their wartime service: All three refused the award.​
See Jews in FinlandWP.
 
Vixen said:
The Finns wanted Karelia back so went as far as the Mannerheim line, but no further.
Click to expand...
That's a lie. First of all, the Mannerheim line was a defensive line put up during the Winter War inside Finland. Second, your try to paint that Finland just wanted the territories lost in the Winter War back; but the Finnish troops did have the intent to go beyond that and actually did go beyond that in Karelia between Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega as I showed you in the other thread.
Vixen said:
There was a Finnish-German battalion,Division 6, but apart from that, the Finnish Army(= called 'the Karelian Army') was completely separate from the Nazis.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Finnish 6h Division was integrated into a German army corps:
The 6th Division was attached to the German XXXVI Corps in Northern Finland in 1941. As part of Operation Arctic Fox the division attacked with the SS Division Nord and German 169th Infantry Division against Salla with the goal of reaching Kandalaksha on the White Sea coast.
Click to expand...
Now, on which side of the "Mannerheim line" does Kandalaksha lie? :rolleyes:

Dave Rogers said:
I think we're all agreed on that. It may be important to point out that it was also never part of the Third Reich under Nazi rule. It's interesting, though, how, in the Continuation War, Finland found itself effectively allied to Nazi Germany, in a very similar "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation to the British/US alliance with the Soviet Union, that was prompted by simple geography rather than ideology.

Just for clarity, I am not saying that the Finns supported Nazism, OK?

Dave
Click to expand...
But let's not get too carried away. The Finns did coordinate with the Germans, they pushed beyond former Finnish Karelia to tighten the noose around Leningrad, and they jointly launched Arctic Fox with the goal to cut off Murmansk.
 
Craig B said:
Here is one way in which the Finns differed from their German allies during the Continuation War.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's always been clear, to me at least, that Finland was never sympathetic to Nazi ideology. As a nation, the Finns simply found themselves faced with an appalling choice of options, of which they opted for the least bad for as long as they had to put up with it and no longer. And, most remarkably, then paid off war reparations in full and within the agreed deadline. Very few nations could have extricated themselves from such a bad situation with such grace.

Dave
 
Vixen said:
His generals were pretty sharp. The advance on the north, mid and south was super-swift and took the sleeping Russians by surprise.

The only reason Operation Barbarossa in the north was an eventual disaster for the Germans, was because of the shock sensational defeat at Stalingrad in the south.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. Barbarossa came to a halt before the gates of Leningrad in the winter of 1941, and after that, Hitler deliberately decided not to try to take the city but to besiege and starve it.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And, most remarkably, then paid off war reparations in full and within the agreed deadline. Very few nations could have extricated themselves from such a bad situation with such grace.
Click to expand...
In 1871, France, paid off the war indemnity within two years instead of the agreed four years.
 
ddt said:
No it wasn't. Barbarossa came to a halt before the gates of Leningrad in the winter of 1941, and after that, Hitler deliberately decided not to try to take the city but to besiege and starve it.
Click to expand...
And the Finns on occasion cooperated with the Germans to prevent relief from reaching the besieged city, by attacking Soviet supply convoys on Lake Ladoga for example.
Lieutenant General Paavo Talvela and Colonel Järvinen, the commander of the Finnish Coastal Brigade responsible for Ladoga, proposed to the German headquarters the blocking of Soviet convoys on Lake Ladoga. The German command formed the 'international' naval detachment (which also included the Italian XII Squadriglia MAS) under Finnish command and the Einsatzstab Fähre Ost under German command. These naval units operated against the supply route in the summer and autumn of 1942, the only period the units were able to operate as freezing waters then forced the lightly equipped units to be moved away​
 
ddt said:
No it wasn't. Barbarossa came to a halt before the gates of Leningrad in the winter of 1941, and after that, Hitler deliberately decided not to try to take the city but to besiege and starve it.
Click to expand...

Actually it was around Moscow where Barbarossa fell apart, thanks to a combination of overextended supply lines, horrific winter conditions, and a massive Soviet counter offensive on Dec. 5, 1941.:thumbsup:

Stalingrad was actually a part of the 1942 operations, which was code-named Case Blue (or Fall Blau in German). And I think we all know how that ended...:D
 
carlvs said:
Actually it was around Moscow where Barbarossa fell apart, thanks to a combination of overextended supply lines, horrific winter conditions, and a massive Soviet counter offensive on Dec. 5, 1941.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
And lack of winter clothes. You're absolutely right.

carlvs said:
Stalingrad was actually a part of the 1942 operations, which was code-named Case Blue (or Fall Blau in German). And I think we all know how that ended...:D
Click to expand...
Yep.

It wasn't my intention to say that Barbarossa fell apart at the gates of Leningrad. But in 1941, the Nazis did advance on Leningrad - and came even closer to it than to Moscow - with the intention to capture the city. After the Soviet winter offensive of 1941/42, Hitler decided to not even try to capture Leningrad, but just to keep besieging it and starve it. That decision was taken a half to a whole year before the Battle of Stalingrad. That was in response to this post:
Vixen said:
The only reason Operation Barbarossa in the north was an eventual disaster for the Germans, was because of the shock sensational defeat at Stalingrad in the south.
Click to expand...
which is patently false.
 
carlvs said:
Actually it was around Moscow where Barbarossa fell apart, thanks to a combination of overextended supply lines, horrific winter conditions, and a massive Soviet counter offensive on Dec. 5, 1941.:thumbsup:

Stalingrad was actually a part of the 1942 operations, which was code-named Case Blue (or Fall Blau in German). And I think we all know how that ended...:D
Click to expand...

Here is a very interesting article written back in 2010 that examines many different historians' view of the turning point of WW2. It is three pages long (TL;DR for some), but for anyone who is at all interested in WW2 history, it is well worth the time taken to read it.

http://www.historynet.com/what-was-the-turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm

The author pins his conclusions down to a specific date... October 16, 1941 and something that was all set to happen, but didn't. Its an interesting idea.
 
The effect of the winter on Bararossa was vastly overstated after the fact. The simple fact is that the German generals grossly underestimated the Russian people's will to fight and the administrative capabilities of the USSR's leadership. They were absolutely shocked when reinforcements of over a million men appeared as if from nowhere at the siege of Moscow. They thought they had practically annihilated the entire Russian army. That's when it all started to fall apart.
 
Last edited:
TubbaBlubba said:
The effect of the winter on Bararossa was vastly overstated after the fact. The simple fact is that the German generals grossly underestimated the Russian people's will to fight and the administrative capabilities of the USSR's leadership. They were absolutely shocked when reinforcements of over a million men appeared as if from nowhere at the siege of Moscow. They thought they had practically annihilated the entire Russian army. That's when it all started to fall apart.
Click to expand...


And they were not the only ones who underestimated the Russians...(from the link I referenced earlier)

It’s only with hindsight that we see the decision to invade the Soviet Union as the act of a madman. In fact, “smart” opinion at the time was exactly the opposite.

“The best opinion I can get,” wrote William F. Knox, secretary of the navy, to President Roosevelt on June 23, 1941, “is that it will take anywhere from six weeks to two months for Hitler to clean up on Russia.” While in Britain the War Office told the BBC that they should not give the impression that the Soviets could hold out for longer than six weeks. The prevailing informed wisdom was summed up by Hugh Dalton, a member of the British cabinet, who wrote in his diary on June 22, 1941, “I am mentally preparing myself for the headlong collapse of the Red Army and Air Force.”
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
And they were not the only ones who underestimated the Russians...(from the link I referenced earlier)

It’s only with hindsight that we see the decision to invade the Soviet Union as the act of a madman. In fact, “smart” opinion at the time was exactly the opposite.

“The best opinion I can get,” wrote William F. Knox, secretary of the navy, to President Roosevelt on June 23, 1941, “is that it will take anywhere from six weeks to two months for Hitler to clean up on Russia.” While in Britain the War Office told the BBC that they should not give the impression that the Soviets could hold out for longer than six weeks. The prevailing informed wisdom was summed up by Hugh Dalton, a member of the British cabinet, who wrote in his diary on June 22, 1941, “I am mentally preparing myself for the headlong collapse of the Red Army and Air Force.”
Click to expand...

It was WW1 doctrine. Take the enemy's capital, make them sign a treaty, you've won! But the problem with starting a war of annihilation is that people just won't stop fighting you.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
Certainly the turning point of the Pacific war, but not of the war in general. Japan was screwed from the moment the first bomb fell. Germany, not so much.
Click to expand...


I disagree. America is, basically, an island. We boarder two countries, both of whom are both friendly and very large. We had the ability to project power all the way into Germany. They had no such ability. The Germans did control the Atlantic. However once America woke up, they were doomed.

Had Hitler cared about the German people - had he attempted to alleviate starvation, or had he not thrown young boys and old men into the bulge - the war would have been even shorter.
 
Germany was always fighting an ultimately unwinnable wars. There were simply put no well defined objectives. Even without as extensive support as the lend-lease, the USSR would likely have been able to push Germany back outside its borders. Yes, the Lend-lease was massive and some parts, like grain and trucks, were vital. But the Soviet union could have survived with far fewer tanks had they needed to build more trucks. Grain was harder since Germany occupied so much arable land, though. But what people tend to forget is that while U.S. industry was in a class of its own, Soviet industrial capacity still dwarfed that of Germany.

Above the division level, Soviet combat doctrine was also lightyears ahead of German. The Germans were frequently shocked by the speed with which Soviet batallions could move and conduct carefully coordinated operations.
 
Last edited:
TubbaBlubba said:
Germany was always fighting an ultimately unwinnable wars. There were simply put no well defined objectives. Even without as extensive support as the lend-lease, the USSR would likely have been able to push Germany back outside its borders. Yes, the Lend-lease was massive and some parts, like grain and trucks, were vital. But the Soviet union could have survived with far fewer tanks had they needed to build more trucks. Grain was harder since Germany occupied so much arable land, though. But what people tend to forget is that while U.S. industry was in a class of its own, Soviet industrial capacity still dwarfed that of Germany.

Above the division level, Soviet combat doctrine was also lightyears ahead of German. The Germans were frequently shocked by the speed with which Soviet batallions could move and conduct carefully coordinated operations.
Click to expand...


Much of that was down to the Soviet's T-34 tank. IMO, it was superior and far more versatile than any of the German tanks of the time.
 
smartcooky said:
And they were not the only ones who underestimated the Russians...(from the link I referenced earlier)

It’s only with hindsight that we see the decision to invade the Soviet Union as the act of a madman. In fact, “smart” opinion at the time was exactly the opposite.

“The best opinion I can get,” wrote William F. Knox, secretary of the navy, to President Roosevelt on June 23, 1941, “is that it will take anywhere from six weeks to two months for Hitler to clean up on Russia.” While in Britain the War Office told the BBC that they should not give the impression that the Soviets could hold out for longer than six weeks. The prevailing informed wisdom was summed up by Hugh Dalton, a member of the British cabinet, who wrote in his diary on June 22, 1941, “I am mentally preparing myself for the headlong collapse of the Red Army and Air Force.”
Click to expand...
I have the impression that these estimates have also been influenced by the impression that the fast collapse of France left behind.

The author in that piece makes an interesting case for 16 October 1941. Personally, I stick with December 1941: primarily the start of the Soviet counteroffensive before Moscow, secondarily Pearl Harbor.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
It was WW1 doctrine. Take the enemy's capital, make them sign a treaty, you've won! But the problem with starting a war of annihilation is that people just won't stop fighting you.
Click to expand...

Except it didn't work in WW1 either.
The Belgians never surrendered, and neither did the Serbs.
And of those that did, I don't think any of them actually had their capitals occupied.

I'm not sure it was actually "doctrine" since Napoleon, and it never worked for him either.

TubbaBlubba said:
The effect of the winter on Bararossa was vastly overstated after the fact. The simple fact is that the German generals grossly underestimated the Russian people's will to fight and the administrative capabilities of the USSR's leadership. They were absolutely shocked when reinforcements of over a million men appeared as if from nowhere at the siege of Moscow. They thought they had practically annihilated the entire Russian army. That's when it all started to fall apart.
Click to expand...

German intelligence throughout the war was woeful.
In 1941 they wiped out the Soviet army 2 or 3 times over, from what they had expected to encounter. As they were to do with the US, they drastically underestimated the Soviet ability to produce stuff, and in the Soviet case to replace whole armies.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
The effect of the winter on Bararossa was vastly overstated after the fact. The simple fact is that the German generals grossly underestimated the Russian people's will to fight and the administrative capabilities of the USSR's leadership. They were absolutely shocked when reinforcements of over a million men appeared as if from nowhere at the siege of Moscow. They thought they had practically annihilated the entire Russian army. That's when it all started to fall apart.
Click to expand...

In addition to grossly overestimating their own capabilities.

It is classic way to fail.
 
Tolls said:
I'm not sure it was actually "doctrine" since Napoleon, and it never worked for him either.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. I suppose it might be an unholy marriage of Nazi superiority complex and Prussian military chauvinism - at some point the enemy will surely recognize how superior the Germans are, and like Napoleon III mopingly sign a humiliating treaty.
 
The Wehrmacht suffers from a kind of Spartan mirage - they were exceptionally good at one very important thing (unit- and soldier-level infantry doctrine for the Wehrmach, formation drills för the Spartans) and military supremacy was a huge part of their image, leading to gross overestimations of them. Furthermore, Germany had a short-term advantage in that their nihilistic worldview and goals allowed them to fight with aggression, brutality and disregard for civilians and ethos that had never been seen before. With no concern for anything but raw power, the German advance had a massive shock value.

It was an insane way of waging war - pointless aggression and murder for the sake of aggression and murder with no remotely rational justification. In such a situation, the defender has a MASSIVE initial disadvantage.

IMO military historians and amateur enthusiasts often fail to contextualize warfare properly. No matter how effectively you butcher people, if the war you are waging is pointless in terms of gain. a diplomatic cataclysm, and has ill-defined objectives, then the way you are fighting is moronic. War is the continuation of policy by other means, only someone with the cartoonishly manichean nihilism of Hitler could see it as an end in itself.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
That's a very good point. I suppose it might be an unholy marriage of Nazi superiority complex and Prussian military chauvinism - at some point the enemy will surely recognize how superior the Germans are, and like Napoleon III mopingly sign a humiliating treaty.
Click to expand...
I recently browsed the archives of some local, pre-WW1 paper in the far west of Germany, which was a Zentrum party outlet and much a fan of the Kaiser. One article stated, matter of fact, that no one at all today doubts that the German army is by far the best in the world - except some dirty foreigners :D

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
 
smartcooky said:
Much of that was down to the Soviet's T-34 tank. IMO, it was superior and far more versatile than any of the German tanks of the time.
Click to expand...

And of course, Germany's answer to the T-34 was a self-immolating, overtaxed & overrated pig of a tank that ended up being a waste or resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom