Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

History Discussion of History up to Circa 1990

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-03-2017, 05:47 AM   #51
Husker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Husker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Holsten's Diner
Posts: 9,830
Re: Losing WW II

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgrooms View Post
Maybe, maybe not. With a disaster in the Med, he thought he was done.

MP Wardlaw-Milne's motion: "That this house...has no confidence in the central direction of the war."

He won the vote, overwhelming so. However, Churchill knew it was "more a warning than a victory."

Churchill understood there could be no more defeats: "one more success, & Mussolini and Rommel would enter Cairo...together. All hung in the balance, and...who would predict how the scales would turn?"

Pg 542 on from The Last Lion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Weird coincidence but Santa brought me that book and I'm reading it right now.
Husker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2017, 05:01 AM   #52
fakekidpoker
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 324
Re: Losing WW II

What are we counting as an Axis victory?

Germany invades both Britain and Russia conquering both and Europe being proclaimed "Germania" and later an invasion of the USA? No.

Germany conquering more land and ending the war on negotiated peace? Yes, very possible.

Had the BEF been captured GB simply has to leave the war no matter what any Churchill fanboy thinks they simply cannot stay in.

Without the bombing campaign against Germany and USA/GB aid to Russia I just do not see Russian victory, Stalin was an idiot he would probably send more troops to the front before the initial invasion and millions more would be captured.
fakekidpoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2017, 06:14 AM   #53
DoTheMath
Pooh-Bah
 
DoTheMath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: At my computer
Posts: 4,576
Re: Losing WW II

Quote:
Originally Posted by fakekidpoker View Post
What are we counting as an Axis victory?

Germany invades both Britain and Russia conquering both and Europe being proclaimed "Germania" and later an invasion of the USA? No.

Germany conquering more land and ending the war on negotiated peace? Yes, very possible.
OK, that seems like a reasonable place to start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fakekidpoker View Post
Had the BEF been captured GB simply has to leave the war no matter what any Churchill fanboy thinks they simply cannot stay in.
Why would you say that?

The loss of the whole BEF would not have been as decisive a loss as you seem to imagine. The BEF at the time of Dunkirk comprised 9 front line divisions and 3 training and labour divisions. These forces lost the equivalent of 3 divisions in casualties in the fighting during the withdrawal, and all their equipment in the evacuation. There was only enough spare equipment left in Britain to quickly re-equip about 2 divisions. Meanwhile the British Empire had another 37 divisions, of which 26 were already in Great Britain. Of the 12 nominal (net 9 in terms of manpower) divisions evacuated without equipment from France, 2 were disbanded, 1 was reorganized for a different role, and only two were considered operational by mid-July. The rest had to be brought back up to strength over time with untrained conscripts. So the immediate net loss to the forces available to defend the British Isles, should the BEF have been captured as a whole, was two divisions from a potential force of 28. That's not decisive enough to force Britain from the war, even though these would have been their best two infantry divisions.

The British Empire went on to raise another 66 divisions, net of reassignments and disbandments. So the loss of 9 divisions worth of men, though not insignificant, was again not sufficiently large to decisively affect the war's outcome. Keep in mind also that the British Empire began disbanding divisions (mostly in Australia and New Zealand) as surplus to requirements years before the war concluded. If they had lost more at Dunkirk, the result would have been fewer disbandments a bit later. The major strategic impact of the capture of the whole BEF would have been to delay the recapture of North Africa, since more troops would have been redeployed from that theatre to Great Britain during late 1940 and early 1941.

And then there is the matter of the myth of the stop order. Germany didn't stop attacking the British at Dunkirk and let them get away scot free. What they actually did was change the force composition of the attacking forces as the operation moved into new terrain. The so-called stop order came from professional army officers concerned about the marshy coastal terrain being less suitable for armour, about the wear and tear on their overextended mechanized forces, and about the need to consolidate their lines. The actual operation order issued by the German high command on the day of the supposed stop order called for the elimination of the British and French forces in the Dunkirk pocket. British forces were under constant attack by German land and air forces. While greater continued pressure from the German armour would certainly have reduced the number of British forces that could have escaped, it is far from certain that none would have been evacuated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fakekidpoker View Post
Without the bombing campaign against Germany and USA/GB aid to Russia I just do not see Russian victory, Stalin was an idiot he would probably send more troops to the front before the initial invasion and millions more would be captured.
Germany had lost the war with Russia by November 1941, if not earlier. This was before the western aid to Russia or the bombing campaign had become significant. All the highly unlikely elimination of Britain from the war would do would be to delay an ultimate Soviet conquest of all of Europe by 1946 or 1947.
DoTheMath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 04:59 AM   #54
Kevin Stark
stranger
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 3
Re: Losing WW II

The German Reich really could defeat the Allies in World War II.

During the campaign in France in 1940 the German tanks stopped near Dunkirk. If they would continue the offensive, it would be a catastrophe for the Allies.

During the company in Africa, it was necessary to neutralize allied forces in Malta. They disrupted the supply of everything needed by German and And the Italian troops. This played a role in the battle of El Alamein.

A great role was played by the seizure of a machine by the Germans for decoding messages called Enigma. Without the interception of messages, many plans for German offensives would be a secret for the Allies.

As for the company in Russia, I can say that the approach of the Army Group Centre after the capture of Smolensk, it was necessary to go on the offensive on Moscow. Instead, the army split to help other armies complete the encirclement of the Red Army in Kiev and the attack on Leningrad. However, the Red Army troops were already demoralized and could not withstand the offensive of the Army Group Center. The Germans would have managed to capture almost unprotected Moscow before the cold.

In the summer offensive on the Caucasus in 1942, it was necessary not to concentrate mechanized divisions in Stalingrad, but to attack the North Caucasus. Stalingrad could simply be blocked and bombed by aviation.
Kevin Stark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 05:42 AM   #55
DoTheMath
Pooh-Bah
 
DoTheMath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: At my computer
Posts: 4,576
Re: Losing WW II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Stark View Post
The German Reich really could defeat the Allies in World War II.
I suggest you read this thread and a few others in this History Forum to see that most of what you have brought up has already been disposed of. Try keyword searches in History for Dunkirk, Malta, Moscow and Stalingrad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Stark View Post
During the campaign in France in 1940 the German tanks stopped near Dunkirk. If they would continue the offensive, it would be a catastrophe for the Allies.
Did you read any of this thread other than the first post? Look at the post immediately preceding yours to see why a different German treatment of Dunkirk would not have knocked Britain out of the war. Do you know why the tanks stopped? Do you mistakenly believe that since the tanks stopped the entire German Army stopped? Why do you think that if the tanks hadn't stopped the results would have been materially different? What do you think the net results would have been on the number of equipped troops available to defend Britain one month later, or on German tank strength available for an invasion one month later? Do you know that the order of the day that the tanks were stopped called for continued attacks leading to the destruction of the British and French troops caught in the Dunkirk pocket?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Stark View Post
During the company in Africa, it was necessary to neutralize allied forces in Malta. They disrupted the supply of everything needed by German and And the Italian troops. This played a role in the battle of El Alamein.
While capture of Malta was probably a necessary condition for an Axis victory in North Africa, it certainly wasn't a sufficient one. Even had Malta been taken, the logistic situation in Egypt was such that the Germans could not supply a large enough force to capture the Canal, and even if they did get to the Canal, they couldn't get across. This topic has been thoroughly treated in this forum

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Stark View Post
A great role was played by the seizure of a machine by the Germans for decoding messages called Enigma. Without the interception of messages, many plans for German offensives would be a secret for the Allies.
Yeah, if it hadn't been for Ultra, the Allies might have been surprised by the Battle of the Bulge. Oh, wait!

There's no doubt that decoding Enigma was of great value to the Western Allies, but what effect did it have on the eastern front, where the war was won? We can get a sense of the impact of lack of Enigma intercepts by studying what happened when the U-boats switched to a four-rotor machine. No decrypts would have made things harder for the western Allies, but it's quite doubtful that the Germans would have been able to win the Battle of the Atlantic. Can you point to a single major land battle on the Western Front that was won only because of Ultra?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Stark View Post
As for the company in Russia, I can say that the approach of the Army Group Centre after the capture of Smolensk, it was necessary to go on the offensive on Moscow.
Yes you can say that. Many would even agree with you. What you cannot say is that doing so would have resulted in the capture of Moscow or a Soviet capitulation. I do think it would have been the German's best chance. I see no reason to conclude it was bound to succeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Stark View Post
Instead, the army split to help other armies complete the encirclement of the Red Army in Kiev and the attack on Leningrad.
And what do you think would have happened if the Germans had concentrated on a single central thrust? Do you know the story of Operation Market-Garden? What do you think the Soviet armies not being encircled by the not-diverted panzers would have done?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Stark View Post
However, the Red Army troops were already demoralized
Really? All of them? The ones that were being deployed in front of Moscow - the ones that were totally separate from the ones being overrun by the German armoured thrusts? What evidence do you have that supports your claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Stark View Post
and could not withstand the offensive of the Army Group Center. The Germans would have managed to capture almost unprotected Moscow before the cold.
Moscow wasn't almost unprotected. The troops which protected Moscow were nor the ones defeated around Smolensk and Vyazma. Please explain how the Germans could have got supplied troops to Moscow faster then the Russians did?

Below, you mention the mistake of directing armoured forces against a city (Stalingrad) in 1942, yet you suggest that's what the Geman should have done in September/October 1941 against Moscow? Because that's all the Germans could have sent, The infantry were not close enough. The Germans used the Panzers for what they was designed to do.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the location of formations of both side to see why you are going wrong here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Stark View Post
In the summer offensive on the Caucasus in 1942, it was necessary not to concentrate mechanized divisions in Stalingrad, but to attack the North Caucasus. Stalingrad could simply be blocked and bombed by aviation.
Isn't that exactly what the German plan called for? I think we have a treatment of the Stalingrad campaign somewhere in this forum too. It might do you some good to understand what actually happened once the plan met the enemy.

In all, you are repeating commonplace misconceptions and oversimplifications.
DoTheMath is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ę 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online