Why were the Nazis Not More Socialist? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14349462
layman wrote:The Spanish would have been even more useless than the Italians.
They didn't needed the Spanish armed forces. They just need military access to South Spain and Spanish Morocco in order to attack Gibraltar. The battle of Britain not only gave Britain a huge morale boost but it had a significant effect on the neutrals. At the beginning of July 1940 Hitler's bargaining position was a lot stronger than in October 1940. Even America thought it was a waste of time aiding Britain.

Logistics were limited in Eastern north Africa, however if the Africa Corps had started deploying in July 1940, they may well have been able to break through. Especially if he had deployed more German infantry rather than wasting precious logistical resources on 2nd rate Italian formations. The British ground forces were incredibly weak and overstretched after the fall of France. Hitler needed forceful diplomacy on Vichy and the European neutrals and aggressive use of his forces against Gibraltar, Malta and Egypt, while Britain was reeling from the fall of Norway, the lowlands and France. The fall of Norway and France was a shocking event not just for Britain, but for all the world's leaders. In its immediate aftermath few European leaders would want to gainsay Hitler.
#14349470
German army couldn't field same number of Infantry as Italians did or else they will become second rate as well. Italian army lacked heavy artillery and motorization compared to British or Germans.
#14349486
Taking Gibraltar, Malta and Egypt were all highly achievable in the summer of 1940. Its funny how people poo poo them as impossible dreams. I wonder what they would say to:

Grabbing Norway.
Defeating Holland, Belgium, France and the British expeditionary force in six weeks.
Overrunning Yugoslavia in twelve days.
Overrunning Greece in three weeks.
Seizing Crete with parachutists.
Getting from El Ageihla to the Egyptian border in thirteen days.
Capturing the whole of Malaysia and Singapore in just over two months.

Now those would be arm chair general fantasies not sealing off the Med in the Summer and autumn of 1940.
#14349507
The argument is weak these operations worked quickly with stunning success therefore stunning success is always possible and plausible?n iSnt that the exact sort of reckless attitude, inability to plan for things that might go wrong be the major flaw in Nazi thinking and the Reason they lost the war
?


Hitler tried to talk Franco round he failed. Franco had a long list of requirements, Franco wasn't going to stampeded in a hurry. He wanted the goods delivered in advance he wasnt going to be talked into crossing the Rubicon they be relying on German promises. He wanted the goods up front. It would take months to deliver. Convincing Franco to instantly jump over without the Goods is just pretty impossible. To intimidate and threaten Franco is unlikely to work. a Full scale invasion will work, it will just take a lot of time. Not summer 1940.

It's impossible for the Germans to deploy in North Africa before the Italians fail and fail badly. They simply do not think they needed or wanted German help. It's only after their defeat that they would accept help. Italian ports, Italian Ships, it's not something the Germans can force on anyone.It;s impossiuble to get German troops into North Africa in summer 1940, without massive defeat the Italains simply would not let them in,

Malta is a tough place to assault. It's very very small. Very rough. Paratroopers landing on rough ground even with light machines guns take massive losses. They not heavily defended it's defenders per square km is much higher than crete. Very few beaches , overlooked by cliffs, even lightly held would be very difficult The Axis had no landing craft, rowing ashore in wooden boats unde fire is hardly great use google maps look at those beaches. The Royal Navy was quiet aggressive and likely to engage, Possible but expensive and again only possible if the Italians agree, unlikely in summer 1940.
#14349945
fuser wrote:Mostly US shipping who were new to these kind of warfare and not experienced like British.


In fact the highest toll of the war, October/November '42, was in the vicinity of the Cape of Good hope--mainly British vessels, including some big ones.

That will result in more investment by British on their anti submarine arm and most of these uber uboats at the bottom of Atlantic before being available in massive numbers to be deployed at US coast.


Na, many wouldn't have been ready until late '41 and in any event, Type IXs often patrolled in distant waters where ASW assets were minimal, especially prior to '43. (Even the VII force grew til mid-'43 despite suffering the bulk of losses in the hard convoy battles.) Plenty of IXs would've been available for "drumbeat."

Nope.


You apparently misunderstood. I was talking about the Luftwaffe and its early (late 1940) experience in anti-shipping warfare. Despite few planes assigned to this task, their performance was "stunning." Again see Why Air Forces Fail.

The 700,000 ton target was achieved in only one month, November 1942


IIRC in October they bagged 696,000 tons. Imagine what they could've bagged with 2-3X the # of IXs.


"At no time did the German U-boat force ever come close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic or bringing on the collapse of Great Britain".[54]


I realize that.... But things may have been different had U-boat construction received more emphasis earlier.

Poorly equipped and non motorized.


It would've helped had more supplies gotten through.

Why? What makes you think that British Populace (unlike Germans) were against the war and would had pounced at one opportunity to force same on Churchill?


This was possible if privations from loss of shipping grew too great. Some of churchill's supporters would've been upset about the possible loss of the empire and pressed to end the war. Churchill himself told FDR that loss of the near east would make the war a "long, hard and bleak proposition," even if the US entered it.
#14349946
In fact the highest toll of the war, October/November '42, was in the vicinity of the Cape of Good hope--mainly British vessels, including some big ones.


Source? Also the period saw increase in success was de facto because of entry of US and availability of more targets but even that didn't lasted long.

Na, many wouldn't have been ready until late '41 and in any event, Type IXs often patrolled in distant waters where ASW assets were minimal, especially prior to '43. Plenty would've been available for "drumbeat."


Every action has reaction. UK resources were wasted on Hunting German capital ships too and if in this scenario Germany is building more u boats by sacrificing capital ships, then UK would do the same.

You apparently misunderstood. I was talking about the Luftwaffe and its early (late 1940) experience in anti-shipping warfare. Despite few planes assigned to this task, their performance was "stunning." Again see Why Air Forces Fail.


Where shall I see this? With allies going on offensive in air, Luftwaffe couldn't had concentrated her effort on anti shipping warfare anyway.

IIRC in October they bagged 696,000 tons.
Imagine what they could've bagged with 2-3X the # of IXs.


Source? And there are many months where uboats losses are horrendous too. Beside I can do such hypothetical too, imagine B42 liberators available to allies since early 1942 for anti uboat warfare? Everyone was catching up to technology, if Germany missed certain opportunities then allied did too.

I realize that....
But things may have been different had U-boat construction received more emphasis earlier.


No. See the entire debate.

It would've helped had more supplies gotten through.


And how? Specially considering that it was Italian merchant navy shipping supplies to Africa and now you have Barred Italy from stationing troops to Africa and yet expect them to to give 100% to the shipping effort.

This was possible if privations from loss of shipping grew too great. Some of churchill's supporters would've been upset about the possible loss of the empire and pressed to end the war. Churchill himself told FDR that loss of the near east would make the war a "long, hard and bleak proposition," even if the US entered it.


Don't take Politicians word at face value. That comment was specifically meant for American ears and not an objective analysis of war.
#14350302
fuser wrote:Source?


Same one I thought you had--Blair's Hitler's U-boat War. Operation Eisbar and similar forays to the southern oceans bagged a lot of shipping.


Every action has reaction. UK resources were wasted on Hunting German capital ships too and if in this scenario Germany is building more u boats by sacrificing capital ships, then UK would do the same.


That doesn't necessarily mean they'd have enough to guard peripheral areas where the IXs tended to patrol. Even after three years of war(i.e. three years to build ASW vessels), the Cape of Good Hope was a pretty easy and renumerative hunting ground, as was the Indian Ocean, the east coast of South America etc. Earlier in the year, US shipping lanes were easy meat.

With allies going on offensive in air, Luftwaffe couldn't had concentrated her effort on anti shipping warfare anyway.


They could've in 1940, when the effort, albeit small, began. (It could've been much larger had anti-shipping operations been emphasized over strategic bombing.) There were still effective strikes well in '43 btw.

And there are many months where uboats losses are horrendous too.


Not before '43.

Beside I can do such hypothetical too, imagine B42 liberators available to allies since early 1942 for anti uboat warfare?


By then it could've been too late.

And how? Specially considering that it was Italian merchant navy shipping supplies to Africa and now you have Barred Italy from stationing troops to Africa and yet expect them to to give 100% to the shipping effort.


I didn't say "bar" the Italians from Africa, just offer to do the fighting for them. Given their wild enthusiasm for combat they may not have objected.


Don't take Politicians word at face value. That comment was specifically meant for American ears and not an objective analysis of war.


I think concern over "the consequences of a Mid-east collapse" was genuine. If Egypt went, the empire could've begun to unravel. Iraqis rebelled even without such a development.
#14350308
fuser wrote:Yes, we should just take your word for it.

Oh, and so you know a list of German failures is also easy to assemble.
Oh and what were those failures prior to Germany taking on the gargantuan task of defeating the Soviet Union? The Soviet union owned over half the worlds battle tanks they also had the best quality tanks. just to give one aspect of the huge dimensions of that task.

The one notable failure was the Battle of Britain. This was a strategic error of the first order. It in no way undermined the repeated evidence of the remarkable capabilities of the the German army, German tactical air and even limited small scale amphibious assault. Hitler was a gambler. Although he could also be irresolute and procrastinate over urgent decisions. His operations before July 1940 were gambles and so were those after. In comparison closing the Med to Britain involved modest objectives. Lets remember the start line for the Axis in June 1940 in a drive to the Nile wasn't that far from the finish line in the German offensives of 1941 and 1942.

The Battle of Britain was hugely important in undermining the view that Germany was unstoppable. At the end of June just about everyone thought that Hitler was unstoppable in Europe and the defeat of Britain was inevitable. Backing the winning horse was prudent, siding with Britain seemed futile. Things looked very different after the battle of Britain. Italy's utterly incompetent attack on Greece and their similar defence against the British attack into Libya in December 1940 also undermined the Axis position. If Hitler had say asked for military access to Crete in July 1940, he might well have got it. Franco's price for cooperation would have been lower as well. but beside this Hitler should have paid Franco's price. With Franco on side, He could have pushed Portugal into line. Britain's maritime position was incredibly stretched. Hitler only had to stretch it that bit further. He got his priorities wrong.
#14350764
Rich wrote:Hitler should have paid Franco's price. With Franco on side, He could have pushed Portugal into line.


From what I've read, Franco wanted the French African empire. That wouldn't have pleased Vichy. I don't think Spain could've made a great contribution to the Axis..
#14350785
Starman wrote:That doesn't necessarily mean they'd have enough to guard peripheral areas where the IXs tended to patrol.


Why? Also, don't forget with coming of Max Horton and new tactics of "support groups" which completely crushed uboats in three months. It is frankly ridiculous to think Type IX as some sort of magic weapon with allies having no answer. If type IX had been more numerous, then allied strategy would had reflected that unlike irl.

They could've in 1940, when the effort, albeit small, began. (It could've been much larger had anti-shipping operations been emphasized over strategic bombing.) There were still effective strikes well in '43 btw.


And they were minor and hardly effective at strategic level. And once again, you are only focussing on German actions as if Germany can change her historical behaviours with impunity but other actors would still be behaving historically.
If Luftwaffe is concentrating on anti shipping operations, then RAF will also shift her focus from defending British Air Space to defending Shipping lanes.

Not before '43.


Yes, before 43. They are not comparable to 43 losses for two reasons. Uboat fleet was not that large before 43 and 43 effectively ended the Uboat menace. If she had suffered same losses earlier, that year would had been the end of Uboats as a threat but that doesn't mean Uboat didn't suffered horrendous causalities before 43.

By then it could've been too late.


So, these magical weapons have destroyed, entire allied merchant shipping in two years, now? You do realize less than 1% of merchant shipping of allies in voyage was destroyed by Uboats, historically, now to be effective they must kill at least around 1/4th of allied shipping and you are proposing, they would do this in two years now. So now just by using type IX, effectiveness of uboats will increase by over 50 times? Sorry, but one would remain sceptical to such ridiculous propositions.

I didn't say "bar" the Italians from Africa, just offer to do the fighting for them.
Given their wild enthusiasm for combat they may not have objected.


Yes and offering to fight for them is just that, barring them. Also, generalisations are generally wrong.

I think concern over "the consequences of a Mid-east collapse" was genuine. If Egypt went, the empire could've begun to unravel. Iraqis rebelled even without such a development.


Firstly, mid-east was not collapsing, secondly I doubt that Empire would had became to unravel with fall of Egypt.

Rich wrote:Oh and what were those failures prior to Germany taking on the gargantuan task of defeating the Soviet Union?


So, now you are barring 4 and a half year of war (full of German failures) out of six? But, still let me assemble such a list :

1. Battle of Britain
2. Dunkirk Evacuation
3. Losing half of the fleet while operating under air cover during Operation Weserübung
4. Bismark
5. Siege of Tobruk

and more

Seriously, an argument (yours) which just consist of 'X' can do anything just because they are 'X' is a very weak argument.
#14351148
fuser wrote:Why? Also, don't forget with coming of Max Horton and new tactics of "support groups" which completely crushed uboats in three months.


Those were American; had IXs been available in great numbers earlier, the British would've had to deal with them with mostly just their own resources.

It is frankly ridiculous to think Type IX as some sort of magic weapon with allies having no answer. If type IXs had been more numerous, then allied strategy would had reflected that unlike irl.


I didn't say it was a "magic weapon." The sea lanes were extremely long, extending down the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean etc. Even after three years of war, i.e. three years to build up ASW assets, the allies couldn't effectively guard all areas. There were massacres of shipping off the US east coast, in the Caribbean and off the cape of Good Hope. Had IXs as well as VIIs been numerous from the start, massacres on the scale of '42 would've begun at the start and the whole British war effort would've been seriously degraded.

If Luftwaffe is concentrating on anti shipping operations, then RAF will also shift her focus from defending British Air Space to defending Shipping lanes.


Easier said than done. A bomber can fly farther out to sea than a spitfire and the Germans had France.

that doesn't mean Uboat didn't suffered horrendous causalities before 43.


But not decisive. The u-boat fleet's best year was '42; "horrendous losses" didn't diminish its effectiveness.


You do realize less than 1% of merchant shipping of allies in voyage was destroyed by Uboats, historically,


That's because there weren't enough boats available in the early years.

now to be effective they must kill at least around 1/4th of allied shipping and you are proposing, they would do this in two years now. So now just by using type IX, effectiveness of uboats will increase by over 50 times?


It didn't have to be 50 times or even 5. In '42 Axis subs sank over 6 million tons of shipping. What if it had been 18-24 million...Or what if they had bagged 5-6 million tons of British shipping in '40 or '41, prior to the US shipbuilding effort.


Yes and offering to fight for them is just that, barring them.


I suppose they could've included ariete.

Firstly, mid-east was not collapsing,


Of course it wasn't, because it wasn't getting priority.....


secondly I doubt that Empire would had became to unravel with fall of Egypt.


A lot of people seeking independence may have started getting ideas...and the axis wouldn't have stopped at suez.
#14351169
Those were American; had IXs been available in great numbers earlier, the British would've had to deal with them with mostly just their own resources.


Horton was British, so was his idea of support groups.

I didn't say it was a "magic weapon."
The sea lanes were extremely long, extending down the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean etc. Even after three years of war, i.e. three years to build up ASW assets, the allies couldn't effectively guard all areas. There were massacres of shipping off the US east coast, in the Caribbean and off the cape of Good Hope. Had IXs as well as VIIs been numerous from the start, massacres on the scale of '42 would've begun at the start and the whole British war effort would've been seriously degraded.


But you have implying only that as I already showed to be effective an increase of 50 times that is 5000% in efficiency was required, to claim that just another weapon system can achieve that whose only major advantage was long range is ridiculous. If UK had three years to build up ASW assets (which she did successfully), Germany also had that much time to build up her Submarine warfare capability.

Easier said than done. A bomber can fly farther out to sea than a spitfire and the Germans had France.


UK and USA also had aircraft carriers. Bombers flying without air cover are also more easier targets. And frankly this "easier said than done" applies to all your scenarios.

But not decisive. The u-boat fleet's best year was '42; "horrendous losses" didn't diminish its effectiveness.



Of course it was not decisive. But seeing how you are labelling Uboat success as massacres and horrendous losses for allied shipping which wasn't even putting a dent to allied merchant shipping capabilities, I think its pretty safe to label those Uboats losses as horrendous but not decisive.

That's because there weren't enough boats available in the early years.


It has already been covered. More Uboats only means more ASW capability for UK (action reaction), UK won't be wasting her resources on German capital ships this time. Any ways how many more Uboats you are making this time, considering it was sinking less than 1% irl, that number must be pretty damn huge.

It didn't have to be 50 times or even 5. In '42 Axis subs sank over 6 million tons of shipping. What if it had been 18-24 million...Or what if they had bagged 5-6 million tons of British shipping in '40 or '41, prior to the US shipbuilding effort.



Nothing. Even if this magic happens. That still means over 90% of shipping is sailing safely.

Of course it wasn't, because it wasn't getting priority.....


It wasn't going to collapse even after getting priority. And this have been done to death. See Pugsville's post in this thread only.

A lot of people seeking independence may have started getting ideas...and the axis wouldn't have stopped at suez.


See above.
Last edited by fuser on 10 Jan 2014 14:20, edited 1 time in total.
#14351170
fuser wrote:So, now you are barring 4 and a half year of war (full of German failures) out of six? But, still let me assemble such a list :

1. Battle of Britain
2. Dunkirk Evacuation
3. Losing half of the fleet while operating under air cover during Operation Weserübung
4. Bismark
5. Siege of Tobruk

and more

Seriously, an argument (yours) which just consist of 'X' can do anything just because they are 'X' is a very weak argument.
Its not a weak argument at all. The United States was capable of pulling off the 2003 invasion / occupation of Iraq, Britain, France, Germany etc were not. Now I'm not saying that Germany was ahead on every thing. Britain's air defence in 1940 was outstanding and led the world. Germany didn't have a proper strategic bomber force. Britain's Navy was far bigger than Germany's. Germany's surface fleet was so small its difficult to compare with Britain's.

My argument is that German's land and air-land forces were suburb and totally out classed, Britain, France, America, Russia and the rest. People seem to have been indoctrinated by Hollywood and the British film industry in to believing the complete opposite of the truth that some how it was the British and Americans who had daring elan and high competence. British elite formations: the Paras and commandos were among the best but generally the British army performed poorly through out the war and the American's was not anything to write home about.

The Battle of Britain doesn't in any way reflect badly on the German army as it wasn't fighting, neither does the sinking of the Bismark of naval losses in the invasion of Norway. Given the difficulty of Sea-land operations Norway was not a particularly bad result for the German Navy. Its pathetic the way people try and turn Dunkirk into some sort of great German defeat. The German army in 1940 had less tanks, lighter tanks, less aircraft, less guns, less ammunition stocks and less trucks. May June 1940 was a staggering success consisting of numerous subsidiary operations and battles. The siege of Tobruk is just one sector in one minor theatre. Talk of clutching at straws. However it should be noted that Australian and Canadian troops performance was much better than most of the British..
#14351179
My argument is that German's land and air-land forces were suburb and totally out classed, Britain, France, America, Russia and the rest. People seem to have been indoctrinated by Hollywood and the British film industry in to believing the complete opposite of the truth


You are wrong on both account. German army was not made up of supermen and if anything hollywood has always presented Nazis as masters of great super weapon. Have you forgotten the massacare done by one lone Tiger tank in the movie "Battle of Bulge" . That fucking ridiculous movie scene still makes fanboys claim that one tiger was equal to 50 or so sherman.

The Battle of Britain doesn't in any way reflect badly on the German army as it wasn't fighting, neither does the sinking of the Bismark of naval losses in the invasion of Norway. Given the difficulty of Sea-land operations Norway was not a particularly bad result for the German Navy.


So, now suddenly German airforce is not outclassing anyone.

Its pathetic the way people try and turn Dunkirk into some sort of great German defeat. The German army in 1940 had less tanks, lighter tanks, less aircraft, less guns, less ammunition stocks and less trucks. May June 1940 was a staggering success consisting of numerous subsidiary operations and battles.


Of course it was, btw German had more planes (almost double, a huge fucking advatage)before Battle of France and more in everything during Dunkirk.

The siege of Tobruk is just one sector in one minor theatre. Talk of clutching at straws.


Yes, talking of clutching at straw I remember someone who just only want to talk about like 10-15% of war to prove a point.

However it should be noted that Australian and Canadian troops performance was much better than most of the British..


So?

Finally, yes the argument which just consist of "X" can do anything because they are "X" is ridiculous.
#14351591
fuser wrote:Horton was British, so was his idea of support groups.


Actual units with CVEs were American.

UK and USA also had aircraft carriers.


I don't think Britain ever used fleet carriers for convoy escort, or tried and lost in December '41 (and I'm talking about the war prior to US entry). Britain had planes to counter the Luftwaffe in 1940 but this didn't prevent a lot of damage. The difference, in this case, would've been more decisive damage, to shipping, instead of civilian homes.


Nothing. Even if this magic happens. That still means over 90% of shipping is sailing safely.


But a loss of 10% a month would add up. Britain calculated that a monthly shipping loss of 600, 000 tons a month would do her in. Due to initial neglect, it took Germany three years to build a u-boat fleet, with many IXs, capable of sinking that much. I don't think the U-boats would ever have been beaten decisively without substantial US input (US belligerency) so if such a force had been available from the start...


See above.


He mentioned logistical problems but I noted very limited British forces available to hold the near east.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls Why do you think that? If you were[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]