surprisingly allied bombers had little effect on the german war industry production, military production increased every year except for 1945...the soviets didn't have the luxury of building bombers for long range targets in germany they were fighting for their lives on their own turf it wasn't long range bombers they required but fighters and ground attack planes...unlike the allies they didn't have a safe and secure refuge behind a channel of water... lots of patriotic hype, western aces trail soviet aces kill totals by a considerable margin...the far bigger air war was in the eastern front as well...
William Slim, the British commander in India, goes unsung in modern histories; he was probably the best general of the war, given his resources and responsibilities in taking the land war to the Japanese in Asia.
Germany had more than enough to take the Soviets out of the war; the mistake was in the late start caused by the Greek insurgents and Hitler being too cautious and not wanting to enter the war without his southern flank secure. If he had launched his offensives in early Spring both the northern and the southern offensives would have succeeded. Without the southern oil reserves the Soviets would have been forced to sue for peace by August. I don't have a lot of sympathy for Eastern Europeans and Russians in that era; they were just as nasty as the worst Nazis, and mostly indistinguishable from them, especially when it came to butchering Jews and other ethnic groups when the opportunity came along. Most of the guards in the Operation Reinhardt camps were Poles and Ukrainians, after all, as finding Germans willing to do such work was a serious problem for the Nazis. And then there were the Hungarians, Bulgarians, and all the rest and their atrocities. They aren't in any moral position to be wagging fingers at Nazis and the like.
Moi621 Not so. It would have taken the USSR longer to defeat Hitler but, yes they would have done it. That's why you don't get in a land war in Asia. Too big. Too many Asiatics. Moi Really? You go have a land war in Asia and let me know when you win. Moi
Your generic, over simplified anecdotes don't reflect reality. Soviet victory was never inevitable, the Germans came very close to completely defeating the Stalin's army in 1941.
There was plenty of man power and resources to the East. Hitler could have never held dominion over all that turf. Moi
Well, wyly, have it your way. I have no quarrel with you, or with honoring the brilliance of General Heinz Guderian. Again, the only reason I reacted at all was because you misspoke, saying that Guderian was the "Father of the Blitzkrieg", when in fact, it was, for the third time, Carl von Clausewitz. So, why don't I just acquiesce and acknowledge that there may have been multiple "fathers" of the Blitzkrieg concept, and let it go at that. Nevertheless, I do recommend that you peruse Clausewitz' revealing book, "Vom Kriege" ("On War") for clues about his conceptual thinking on the dynamics of warfighting in the Nineteenth Century. Cheers!
Fundamental concepts of mobile warfare hold true over time, but to say that Von Clausewitz was the father of Blitzkrieg is a bit of a stretch.
It was Gen. John Monash who developed the idea of a coordinated surprise attack as a response to the stagnant trench warfare during WWI If there's an interest in the topic, I suggest reading a little about the battle of Hamel. It was Guderian who experienced first hand what a coordinated attack can have. He in turned studied Monash's tactics and later utilized them. This man is the true "father" of the Lightning attack... An Australian General...Sir John Monash Ironically...a man of Jewish and German descent...Monash spoke, read, and wrote German fluently, and indirectly through Guderian who witnessed the lightning attack as implemented by Gen. Monash; inspired the Reich how to attack. Truth is stranger than fiction.
I have to dis-agree with this first part. German industry continued to expand as the war went on but only because of Albert Speer's reforms that increased German production capabilities. German production would have been a lot higher if it werent for the allied bombing campaigns. The allies wiped almost all of the Henschel plant floor out which halted German Heavy tank production for a month. It also wiped out parts of MAN distributors which caused quality problems for the Panther. It severed logistics and communication lines, which the Germans relied heavily on. etc.
The British were certainly in the forefront of developing modern mobile warfare, as Basil Liddell Hart has written much about.
German war production had actually increased to it's highest level in 1944 due largely to moving manufacturing underground. Though they never did solve their fuel production problem.
I think he's another Soviet "fan boy." yes, and it's the West who propagandize? Had the Western front not expanded, had the strategic bombing campaign implemented by the Briitsh and Americans not been implemented ...had Lend-Lease not been in place to aid the Soviets in their logistical efforts... There is no way, they would have marched to Berlin. It's quite possible they could have stopped the German invasion at Moscow. Germany would never take and hold Russia, with or without allied support to the Soviets. I'm not disputing that, but for the Soviets to march onward to the very gates of Berlin and defeat Germany with unconditional surrender? It would not have happened without support from other allies. Germany though smaller in size, were the superior war machine. Eventually even the Soviets would lose the battle of attrition...had no Western Front opened up. The net result would have been a stalemate with each retaining territory it had established prior to the conflict.
There's a difference between Best and Favorite, so I'll run with both. For Best, I'm torn between Eisenhower and Nimitz. For Favorite, I've got a tie between Matthew Ridgeway and Creighton Abrams.
I never misspoke, "blitzkrieg" was coined for WW2 german tactics centered on highly mobile armored panzer divisions not 18th century warfare...Clausewitz did not use his mobile troops (cavalry) in the manner that Guderian used his Panzer divisions... you've gone off on a tangent championing your favourite military leader which is irrelevant to the OP...Clausewitz himself cites Napoleon and Fredrick the Great as his inspiration and they in turn studied others before them none of this is new...
fanboy? if you're going to start with adhom attacks I'm more than willing to retaliate...the decision is yours... and ya the west propagandizes as much as the soviets...you're naive to believe otherwise... had the channel not been there, had the atlantic ocean not been there, a lot of would've and could've... . by June 6th '44 the soviets had been driving the germans back steadily for over a year having retaken nearly all lost soviet territory and entering axis Romania, Germany was no longer capable of mounting a serious offensive, total german defeat at the hands of the soviets was inevitable...
they didn't have sufficient oil resource to produce fuel from so producing it wasn't the initial problem...
I guess we're getting into subjective territory...how much did the bombing hinder german production?...bombing certainly did not prevent german industrial growth as it continued to expand throughout the war, at best bombing slowed that growth...
Where have I not given credit where credit is due? Without Soviet support who faced the brunt of the German war machine, the other Allies could not have defeated Germany, or minminally the war would have extended for several years and again some type of stalemate would occur. The A-Bomb may have changed that however...but take that off the playbook; the Allies absent of the Soviets could not defeat Germany unconditionally, certainly not in any reasonable timeframe... Neither could the Soviets defeat the Germans...I'm not talking about repel, I mean defeat, unconditionally. The fight would last for years resulting in another stalemate. What I take direct offense to is your dismissal of what our British, Polish, Czech and American aircrews did to harass the Germans from the air, including strategic bombing which forced the Germans to redirect part of their Luftwaffe to take on the bombers....even if the bombing was ineffective, there was a gradual attrition to the Luftwaffe, forcing them to use inexperienced pilots who in turn became fodder for more experienced Allied pilots. The reason the Soviets had fighter aces is that they literally fought until one of two things occurs....they get killed or they win the war. The British and Americans rotated their aircrews in and out of battle after a set period of time and/or combat missions. The Soviets simply threw warm bodies and materials at the Germans until they finally defeated them... The Soviets incurred 15 TIMES the casualties of other allies, yes because indeed they faced the brunt of the German war machine but also because there was no "tour of duty"...you fought until you died or won the war. 9 - 14 million Soviet military died. Roughly 300,000 Americans... 1/3rd of whom were aircrews. The Soviets fought valiantly if not brutishly in the initial phase of the war, but without massive numbers of men, women and machines, they were outclassed by the Germans. The stupidity of German leadership was self-defeating. By murdering Ukrainians, for example who hated the Bolsheviks, instead of developing Allies, they made enemies. It was regarding the Slavics as sub-human instead of potential allies against the Bolsheviks, the Soviets united as a common front to crush the fascist Reich. Initially, the Germans were often seen as liberators in outlying Soviet countries; yet in short order they proved to be equal in brutality if not more so than the Bolshevik Russians.
The Soviet fans need but to study the results of The Winter War against Finland. Nearly 400,000 Soviets could not defeat the out-numbered and far less equipped equipped Finns...what it does show is the life of every individual Soviet soldier truly was considered expendable: there were always more. White snow turned crimson red from the bloodshed, yet the Soviets would not relent.... The Finns were kicking the respective patoots of Stalin's finest. One Finish sniper alone, Simo Haya, had over 500 confirmed kills. Hans Rudel, German Stuka pilot...unrelated to the Winter War...500 confirmed kills of Soviet armor. They couldn't kill them or destroy them fast enough, the dead were pushed aside and another warm body took their place..that's what defeated the Germans. Do you honestly believe the Red Army could have defeated a highly trained, well equipped and experienced German war machine without Lend-Lease, without 100 octane AV gas....just as examples of Allied support prior to opening the Western front. The Red Army couldn't defeat the Finns armed with rifles, sub-machine guns and molotov cocktails...not much of an armor corps to speak of, not much of an air force to speak of. The only true battlefield advantage the Soviets maintained, without allied support, were warm bodies. Perhaps given this, they may have defeated the Germans, but instead of what did happen... 1 in 10 Russians getting killed by the end of WW2 It would have been 3 in 10 or 4 in 10 Russians by the end of WW2 had it been solely the Soviets vs. Germany. A total bloodbath to achieve, even then, an uncertain victory. 88mm anti-tank guns would have dealt with the T-34 tanks...and without a Western front, the full brunt of the 88s would have been felt by the Soviet tank corps.
My favorite among those listed at the beginning of this thread was a Soviet Marshal, Zhukov, but not because of distinguishing himself in any blitzkrieg methodologies, but rather, because with other talented Soviet General Staff, he successfully held Stalingrad, and then went on to defeat von Paulus, taking ~91,000 - 110,000 German soldiers prisoner. Stalingrad has been identified as the great, pivotal turning point of the European Theater in World War II, and the Soviets won it, but there were no "blitzkriegs" in Stalingrad; on the contrary, this monumental battle was characterized by almost endless close-quarters fighting, building by building, block by block, back and forth. Surely you don't wish to dispute that, too...?
Assuming that Hitler didnt screw it all up and stay on the offensive and not allowing any withdrawals.
