World War 2 General Discussion Thread

[Goram]

That relies on a h- of a lot of luck. Who knows how long the Germans could have sustained such a campaign. Plus, at the time, it seemed that Rommel was on his way to Cairo.

Agreed. The only other way I can think of right now is if Hitler waited for his scientists to build 'Wonder Weapons' before starting the war.

You know, with the resources they didn't have.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Why didn't Hitler wait until Western Europe, including Britain, was under his control so that he could invade Russia?

He was an idiot.

And because invading Britain was never a possibility, and was never something he was really interested in committing to anyways.

Do you all know that after the Second World War, some remaining Nazis escape to Argentina? A trivia for today/tonight.

Thats like one of the most well-known factoids of postwar history.

What may be slightly less well-known is that way more fugitives escaped to the Middle East than to South America - by a factor of about 3 to 1 - after the War, yet somehow Argentina gets all the rep.

[The Two Jerseys]

I'd like to add The Great Escape. The Great Escape as its name implies, is about a plan to escape the internment camp, filled with pilots, and/with soldiers as well. It is based on a real-life event as well, I think. And it is set in WW2, so there are Scottish, English, one American I think (Steve McQueen), and couple of other men from other nationalities.

Two Americans, you forgot James Garner. James Coburn played an Australian, and Charles Bronson a Pole.

[Baltenstein]

That relies on a h- of a lot of luck. Who knows how long the Germans could have sustained such a campaign. Plus, at the time, it seemed that Rommel was on his way to Cairo.

Agreed. The only other way I can think of right now is if Hitler waited for his scientists to build 'Wonder Weapons' before starting the war.

While some of the Wunderwaffen designs were considerably ahead of their time technologically, most of them were pretty craptastic in terms of actual combat effectiveness and resource consumption ratio. The V rockets managed to get more people killed during their development phase than during their actual deployment against Allied targets.
All in all, the Allied approach - sticking to a few reliable designs and mass producing them - proved to be far superior to Nazi Germany's habit of pumping out one prototype after another.

Of course, the Germans had little choice on that matter - after the US and the Soviet Union went into full-time war economies, the Axis countries were so hopelessly industrially outproduced that Germany kinda had to desperately research more and more special projects in hopes of stumbling upon a "game changer" trump card that could have won them the war somehow.
The big irony of course is, that the one and only true game changer weapon during WW2 was developed by the US, even though they were already winning the war conventionally.

[Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic]

The Germans would have lost their entire invasion fleet and the troops aboard it in the channel between England and France.

The German High Command had some minimum conditions that they had to have met before they would have been willing to launch an invasion of England. The most important was that they have complete air control over the sea lanes between their invasion ports in France and the landing zones in England.

The Battle of Britain was Germany's attempt and failure to secure that air control. Without air control, the Royal Air Force and Navy would be free to destroy the German invasion fleet.

One of the other conditions set by the German High command was that the German Navy be able to transport German tanks safely across the channel in rough sea conditions. The German Navy attempted many types of tank landing craft by converting French barges, fishing trawlers, and other small commercial vessels. They never settled on a single design to mass produce and none of the conversions met the seaworthiness conditions.

The last condition was that with air support the German Navy would be able to protect the Invasion Fleet from the British Navy. The destruction of the German Navy's most powerful ship, the battleship Bismark, by the British Fleet off the coast of France showed this to be impossible.

So in conclusion, had Germany attempted to invade Britain, its invasion forces would have suffered total defeat. That is why Germany did not attempt to invade Britain.

[Seraven]

I'd like to add The Great Escape. The Great Escape as its name implies, is about a plan to escape the internment camp, filled with pilots, and/with soldiers as well. It is based on a real-life event as well, I think. And it is set in WW2, so there are Scottish, English, one American I think (Steve McQueen), and couple of other men from other nationalities.

Two Americans, you forgot James Garner. James Coburn played an Australian, and Charles Bronson a Pole.

Oh, there were Bronson and Coburn? I missed them, then. I remember Bronson from Death Wish series.

And I though there was only one American who got captured in the camp.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Two Americans, you forgot James Garner. James Coburn played an Australian, and Charles Bronson a Pole.

Oh, there were Bronson and Coburn? I missed them, then. I remember Bronson from Death Wish series.

And I though there was only one American who got captured in the camp.

Bronson was the claustrophobic mole.

[The Two Jerseys]

Two Americans, you forgot James Garner. James Coburn played an Australian, and Charles Bronson a Pole.

Oh, there were Bronson and Coburn? I missed them, then. I remember Bronson from Death Wish series.

And I though there was only one American who got captured in the camp.

There were three Americans: Hilts (Steve McQueen) was a USAAF pilot, Henley (James Garner) was an Eagle Squadron pilot, and Goff, who only appeared when they arrived at the camp and at the end when he throws Hilts his baseball and glove before they throw him in the cooler.

Oh, there were Bronson and Coburn? I missed them, then. I remember Bronson from Death Wish series.

And I though there was only one American who got captured in the camp.

Bronson was the claustrophobic mole.

And Coburn was the one who stole the bicycle/hopped the freight train and managed to reach Spain.

[Grenartia]

So what are some good WW2 movies out there? I'm hoping to watch Downfall soon if I can find a good English sub.

The Dambusters and 633 Squadron.

Old but gold.

EDIT: Also, someone was talking about the most important battle of WWII. I'll see your Stalinngrad and raise you one Battle of the Atlantic/Artic naval operations.

At the risk of sounding very Amerocentric, I'd say Pearl Harbor. If for no other reason than had PH not been attacked, we'd have stayed neutral. Which would've severely negatively impacted the war efforts of every Allied nation. Good luck churning out all those T-34s without American supply trucks rolling behind them to give them fuel. Good luck carpet bombing Germany round-the clock without even higher aerial casualties. Good luck taking back China without America breathing down Japan's neck. Good luck opening a second front to divert resources away from the Eastern Front so Uncle Stalin could steamroll his way to Berlin. Good luck even getting supplies through CBI. One could go on. This isn't at all to say that America singlehandedly won the war (and I know from previous experience making this argument that there will be people strawmanning me by saying that's what I'm claiming), however, without those contributions, the Allies would've had a much harder time defeating the Axis.

[The Conez Imperium]

The Dambusters and 633 Squadron.

Old but gold.

EDIT: Also, someone was talking about the most important battle of WWII. I'll see your Stalinngrad and raise you one Battle of the Atlantic/Artic naval operations.

At the risk of sounding very Amerocentric, I'd say Pearl Harbor. If for no other reason than had PH not been attacked, we'd have stayed neutral. Which would've severely negatively impacted the war efforts of every Allied nation. Good luck churning out all those T-34s without American supply trucks rolling behind them to give them fuel. Good luck carpet bombing Germany round-the clock without even higher aerial casualties. Good luck taking back China without America breathing down Japan's neck. Good luck opening a second front to divert resources away from the Eastern Front so Uncle Stalin could steamroll his way to Berlin. Good luck even getting supplies through CBI. One could go on. This isn't at all to say that America singlehandedly won the war (and I know from previous experience making this argument that there will be people strawmanning me by saying that's what I'm claiming), however, without those contributions, the Allies would've had a much harder time defeating the Axis.

Weren't the Americans already supplying the British/Russians even before Pearl Harbor?

[Hansberg]

WW2 is interesting to study. If I were in my native Switzerland during the war, I'd be content. I may be a Pan Germanist and Nationalist, but I'd never fight for a treasonous and genocidal motherfucker.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

At the risk of sounding very Amerocentric, I'd say Pearl Harbor. If for no other reason than had PH not been attacked, we'd have stayed neutral. Which would've severely negatively impacted the war efforts of every Allied nation. Good luck churning out all those T-34s without American supply trucks rolling behind them to give them fuel. Good luck carpet bombing Germany round-the clock without even higher aerial casualties. Good luck taking back China without America breathing down Japan's neck. Good luck opening a second front to divert resources away from the Eastern Front so Uncle Stalin could steamroll his way to Berlin. Good luck even getting supplies through CBI. One could go on. This isn't at all to say that America singlehandedly won the war (and I know from previous experience making this argument that there will be people strawmanning me by saying that's what I'm claiming), however, without those contributions, the Allies would've had a much harder time defeating the Axis.

Weren't the Americans already supplying the British/Russians even before Pearl Harbor?

They were, but Roosevelt had to go to pretty great lengths to keep it low-key - especially in regard to the USSR - in order to not be seen as usurping the legislative branch's prerogatives regarding diplomatic/military dealings with other countries. After Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt had a blank check to crank everything up to 11.

[The Conez Imperium]

Weren't the Americans already supplying the British/Russians even before Pearl Harbor?

They were, but Roosevelt had to go to pretty great lengths to keep it low-key - especially in regard to the USSR - in order to not be seen as usurping the legislative branch's prerogatives regarding diplomatic/military dealings with other countries. After Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt had a blank check to crank everything up to 11.

Sounds fair enough.

[Costa Fierro]

WW2 is interesting to study. If I were in my native Switzerland during the war, I'd be content. I may be a Pan Germanist and Nationalist, but I'd never fight for a treasonous and genocidal motherfucker.

You probably would have been content helping them hoard their gold and transferring Jews from Italy and the Balkans to the death camps. Which is what Switzerland did.

[Finland SSR]

EDIT: Also, someone was talking about the most important battle of WWII. I'll see your Stalinngrad and raise you one Battle of the Atlantic/Artic naval operations.

I'm going to have to say Battle of Moscow.

It was the first German defeat of this large scale, and forced them to change from an offensive to a stationary positional front, which ended up being their downfall. Majin Germany did not have the resource or logistical capabilities to fight a war longer than a single summer season, which Moscow provided.

[L Ron Cupboard]

I am always surprised that Joseph Kennedy doesn't get more criticism. He was a Nazi appeaser on a par with Neville Chamberlain.

[The Conez Imperium]

I am always surprised that Joseph Kennedy doesn't get more criticism. He was a Nazi appeaser on a par with Neville Chamberlain.

Wasn't Henry Ford another sympathiser? Ah well I associate Kennedy with the Cold War and his assassination.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

I am always surprised that Joseph Kennedy doesn't get more criticism. He was a Nazi appeaser on a par with Neville Chamberlain.

Kennedy and Chamberlain aren't in the same league. Chamberlain was fundamentally the Wrong Guy For The Job and made all kinds of wrong decisions, but I don't think that was due to any flaws in his character per se. He just wanted peace a whole bunch and wanted to believe that Hitler's regime would collapse on its own.
Kennedy was practically a fifth columnist. He may have been the single worst ambassador the US has ever had in any capacity. His sole goal was to grandstand and position himself to run for President by trying to nakedly appeal to isolationists and screaming his head off about how Churchill was a dictator, Britain was fucked, and America had better cut that Lend-Lease shit out and hoard all that stuff for itself to take on the Japanese.

I am always surprised that Joseph Kennedy doesn't get more criticism. He was a Nazi appeaser on a par with Neville Chamberlain.

Wasn't Henry Ford another sympathiser? Ah well I associate Kennedy with the Cold War and his assassination.

Ford was basically of a different generation - he was retired, senile, and in extremely poor health by the time the War started, so he wasn't exactly involved in that specific political arena.
But yes - in his early life he had been wildly anti-Semitic and had published a great volume of literature on the subject (he'd also been decorated by the Nazi regime pre-war). He retracted those views (publicly) in 1942, although most accounts say he never really stopped believing what he had said. It was also reported (according to the Wiki) that viewing the concentration camp footage that had been taken at the end of the war triggered a colossal stroke that put him on his deathbed.

[Goram]

I am always surprised that Joseph Kennedy doesn't get more criticism. He was a Nazi appeaser on a par with Neville Chamberlain.

Nazi appeaser. Sure he was, and so would you have been. Everyone has this idea that the British and French governments were stocked up with cowards who were unwilling to do anything about that nasty little Hitler roaming around Czechoslovakia. And at face value I can see why people think that, it's just a shame no one looks deeper than face value. You've got to remember that the politician of the day was alive during the Great War. The French had seen a million dead and a third of their country subjugated by the Germans for the second time in fifty odd years. Why would they ever want to go to war on that scale again? Why risk it for a country on the other side of Europe to fight a country that really hasn't done that much wrong yet? The simple answer is this; you wouldn't. You don't go charging off into another continental war, especially when you're Britain, 20 years after the worst war of all time, if you can possibly avoid it. Unless your Churchill, of course.

Perhaps appeasement was the wrong course to prevent war. Perhaps deterrence might have been a better option - but someone, I think AJP Taylor, notes that Chamberlain did a pretty good job of rearming Britain for self defence. Rearming for a continental war would, however, have been impossible. The 20's and 30's were plagued in cut backs in military spending, particularly on the Royal Navy. To rearm to challenge the Germans on the continent would have cost Britain more in resources and cash than she was willing or able to pay. Deterrence, I think, was a pretty infeasible option in 1938.

The fact of the matter is this. The idea that Chamberlain was a Nazi appeaser who ought to have gone to war in 1938 stems from a number of books written during the war or just after by Liberal/Labour MPs who wanted to bash Chamberlain's Conversative Party. Political point scoring, it seems to me. He was also attacked by Churchill post war. Mind you that's hardly surprising. Churchill succeeded Chamberlain, and more likely than not, wanted to paint himself as the all conquering saviour of Britain - delivering the country from the clutches of weak willed men like Chamberlain who'd have served us up to Hitler on a plate, no doubt.

Since the end of the war, a number of works have been released on the subject of Chamberlain and appeasement. With the benefit of documents made available by the British government and by taking a slightly more objective (mostly) view, a bit of a revisionist school has cropped up. And I'm inclined to believe it. Maybe he should have gone to war in 1938, but you and I can come to those decisions because we know what happens after Munich. We know Hitler didn't keep his word and we know what he was going to do. Chamberlain did not.

In short, Chamberlain was not the coward people make him out to be. Perhaps he got things wrong, but he does not deserve the criticism he got post war nor the criticism that popular history/the History Channel levels at him today.

[Grenartia]

At the risk of sounding very Amerocentric, I'd say Pearl Harbor. If for no other reason than had PH not been attacked, we'd have stayed neutral. Which would've severely negatively impacted the war efforts of every Allied nation. Good luck churning out all those T-34s without American supply trucks rolling behind them to give them fuel. Good luck carpet bombing Germany round-the clock without even higher aerial casualties. Good luck taking back China without America breathing down Japan's neck. Good luck opening a second front to divert resources away from the Eastern Front so Uncle Stalin could steamroll his way to Berlin. Good luck even getting supplies through CBI. One could go on. This isn't at all to say that America singlehandedly won the war (and I know from previous experience making this argument that there will be people strawmanning me by saying that's what I'm claiming), however, without those contributions, the Allies would've had a much harder time defeating the Axis.

Weren't the Americans already supplying the British/Russians even before Pearl Harbor?

Yes, but that aid was very limited because the US was nominally neutral. PH resulted in the US joining the war, and thus, being able to step up the amount of aid given out.

[Grenartia]

I am always surprised that Joseph Kennedy doesn't get more criticism. He was a Nazi appeaser on a par with Neville Chamberlain.

Kennedy and Chamberlain aren't in the same league. Chamberlain was fundamentally the Wrong Guy For The Job and made all kinds of wrong decisions, but I don't think that was due to any flaws in his character per se. He just wanted peace a whole bunch and wanted to believe that Hitler's regime would collapse on its own.
Kennedy was practically a fifth columnist. He may have been the single worst ambassador the US has ever had in any capacity. His sole goal was to grandstand and position himself to run for President by trying to nakedly appeal to isolationists and screaming his head off about how Churchill was a dictator, Britain was fucked, and America had better cut that Lend-Lease shit out and hoard all that stuff for itself to take on the Japanese.

Wasn't Henry Ford another sympathiser? Ah well I associate Kennedy with the Cold War and his assassination.

Ford was basically of a different generation - he was retired, senile, and in extremely poor health by the time the War started, so he wasn't exactly involved in that specific political arena.
But yes - in his early life he had been wildly anti-Semitic and had published a great volume of literature on the subject (he'd also been decorated by the Nazi regime pre-war). He retracted those views (publicly) in 1942, although most accounts say he never really stopped believing what he had said. It was also reported (according to the Wiki) that viewing the concentration camp footage that had been taken at the end of the war triggered a colossal stroke that put him on his deathbed.

I can't imagine he was the only one.

[Grenartia]

I am always surprised that Joseph Kennedy doesn't get more criticism. He was a Nazi appeaser on a par with Neville Chamberlain.

Nazi appeaser. Sure he was, and so would you have been. Everyone has this idea that the British and French governments were stocked up with cowards who were unwilling to do anything about that nasty little Hitler roaming around Czechoslovakia. And at face value I can see why people think that, it's just a shame no one looks deeper than face value. You've got to remember that the politician of the day was alive during the Great War. The French had seen a million dead and a third of their country subjugated by the Germans for the second time in fifty odd years. Why would they ever want to go to war on that scale again? Why risk it for a country on the other side of Europe to fight a country that really hasn't done that much wrong yet? The simple answer is this; you wouldn't. You don't go charging off into another continental war, especially when you're Britain, 20 years after the worst war of all time, if you can possibly avoid it. Unless your Churchill, of course.

Perhaps appeasement was the wrong course to prevent war. Perhaps deterrence might have been a better option - but someone, I think AJP Taylor, notes that Chamberlain did a pretty good job of rearming Britain for self defence. Rearming for a continental war would, however, have been impossible. The 20's and 30's were plagued in cut backs in military spending, particularly on the Royal Navy. To rearm to challenge the Germans on the continent would have cost Britain more in resources and cash than she was willing or able to pay. Deterrence, I think, was a pretty infeasible option in 1938.

The fact of the matter is this. The idea that Chamberlain was a Nazi appeaser who ought to have gone to war in 1938 stems from a number of books written during the war or just after by Liberal/Labour MPs who wanted to bash Chamberlain's Conversative Party. Political point scoring, it seems to me. He was also attacked by Churchill post war. Mind you that's hardly surprising. Churchill succeeded Chamberlain, and more likely than not, wanted to paint himself as the all conquering saviour of Britain - delivering the country from the clutches of weak willed men like Chamberlain who'd have served us up to Hitler on a plate, no doubt.

Since the end of the war, a number of works have been released on the subject of Chamberlain and appeasement. With the benefit of documents made available by the British government and by taking a slightly more objective (mostly) view, a bit of a revisionist school has cropped up. And I'm inclined to believe it. Maybe he should have gone to war in 1938, but you and I can come to those decisions because we know what happens after Munich. We know Hitler didn't keep his word and we know what he was going to do. Chamberlain did not.

In short, Chamberlain was not the coward people make him out to be. Perhaps he got things wrong, but he does not deserve the criticism he got post war nor the criticism that popular history/the History Channel levels at him today.

When comparing to today's events, it seems like history is repeating itself.

[Seraven]

What about Duke of Windsor, formerly King Edward VIII? Can we actually counted him as a Nazi sympathizer? Or it was just an act?

[The Krogan]

How do people feel about padre's and war chaplains?

As I've heard that some people find them quite controversial.

[The balkens]

Nazi appeaser. Sure he was, and so would you have been. Everyone has this idea that the British and French governments were stocked up with cowards who were unwilling to do anything about that nasty little Hitler roaming around Czechoslovakia. And at face value I can see why people think that, it's just a shame no one looks deeper than face value. You've got to remember that the politician of the day was alive during the Great War. The French had seen a million dead and a third of their country subjugated by the Germans for the second time in fifty odd years. Why would they ever want to go to war on that scale again? Why risk it for a country on the other side of Europe to fight a country that really hasn't done that much wrong yet? The simple answer is this; you wouldn't. You don't go charging off into another continental war, especially when you're Britain, 20 years after the worst war of all time, if you can possibly avoid it. Unless your Churchill, of course.

Perhaps appeasement was the wrong course to prevent war. Perhaps deterrence might have been a better option - but someone, I think AJP Taylor, notes that Chamberlain did a pretty good job of rearming Britain for self defence. Rearming for a continental war would, however, have been impossible. The 20's and 30's were plagued in cut backs in military spending, particularly on the Royal Navy. To rearm to challenge the Germans on the continent would have cost Britain more in resources and cash than she was willing or able to pay. Deterrence, I think, was a pretty infeasible option in 1938.

The fact of the matter is this. The idea that Chamberlain was a Nazi appeaser who ought to have gone to war in 1938 stems from a number of books written during the war or just after by Liberal/Labour MPs who wanted to bash Chamberlain's Conversative Party. Political point scoring, it seems to me. He was also attacked by Churchill post war. Mind you that's hardly surprising. Churchill succeeded Chamberlain, and more likely than not, wanted to paint himself as the all conquering saviour of Britain - delivering the country from the clutches of weak willed men like Chamberlain who'd have served us up to Hitler on a plate, no doubt.

Since the end of the war, a number of works have been released on the subject of Chamberlain and appeasement. With the benefit of documents made available by the British government and by taking a slightly more objective (mostly) view, a bit of a revisionist school has cropped up. And I'm inclined to believe it. Maybe he should have gone to war in 1938, but you and I can come to those decisions because we know what happens after Munich. We know Hitler didn't keep his word and we know what he was going to do. Chamberlain did not.

In short, Chamberlain was not the coward people make him out to be. Perhaps he got things wrong, but he does not deserve the criticism he got post war nor the criticism that popular history/the History Channel levels at him today.

When comparing to today's events, it seems like history is repeating itself.

Thank God, im not the only one that thinks this.