WW2 German Technology- God, we Just dodged the bullet!

jonk

If reading so much WW2 history has taught me one thing, it has taught me that the US really just dodged the bullet. Consider this:In 1945, Germany was putting new U-boat designs to sea. Initial designs used three times the battery capacity of earlier boats to run faster submerged than US destroyers could on the surface. They used indirect drive systems that were very quiet, and a few prototype coastal defense subs of this type were able to penetrate US convoys undetected. The seagoing subs of the same type were already launched, a few even sortied, but were recalled by the end of the war before doing any damage. Also, a new type of sub using a Hydrogen Peroxide Turbine for power was under development which not only powered the boat, but produced Oxygen, making surfacing unnecessary. This would have presented a whole new line of difficulties in the U-boat war. For these new subs, Germany was developing sonar homing torpedoes, already developed and used, but finally perfected. These required virtually no aiming and could be fired from 100 feet down, so long as a ship was in range. Some historians estimate that if given another six months, the Battle of the Atlantic would have been reopened with bloodier results than ever before.Regarding aircraft, Germany had fighters and bombers in both prototype and production stages that were ahead of anything the US flew until the F-86 for fighters, or B-52 for bombers. The Stealth Bomber is merely an updated Horton flying wing design from 1944. German aircraft production peaked in 1944, with 35,000 planes made in that year, mostly piston engined types like the Bf-109. Imagine if Hitler had made the Me262 a priority as a fighter when he first heard of it, instead of squandering it as a Schnellbomber. Those 35,000 1944 planes might have been 35,000 262s, capable of stopping the bombing offensive. Without air superiority, the Allied invasion would never had been possible, and the Germans may have been able to inflict enough losses on the Russians that they could have at least gotten an Armistice on the original German eastern border. And the 262's would have only needed to tow the line into late 1945, when the Ta-183 jet would have come into play, very similar (perhaps influincing) to the Mig15. Even if Germany had managed to hold off the invasion a few months, such planes would have been ready.A combination of utter German air superiority and subs capable of completely reversing the battle in the ocean? God, we just dodged the bullet! Another 6 months or a year and we may have found ourselves in a very difficult position!What do you all think?

---

"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.

competentone

Yes, and you don't know the half of it.They were closer to developing nuclear weapons than the historians have told us.Since they weren't working on the "heavy element" fission approach, their lack of interest in uranium and plutonium has lead to the popular (wrong) conclusions on the subject.

v35

You can visit a late Unterseeboot in Bremen and a Me262 in the Deutsches Museum in Karlesruhe. Germany gave us a hell of a time with the bolt action Mauser against the semi auto M-1 rifles and carbine.Despite advanced technological advances, Germany's economy was too small to keep upand of course they didnt have petroleum.They were helped along nicely with Oerlikon and Bofors cannons and steel, ball bearings and instrumentation from the two lovely "neutral" countries Switzerland and Sweden who played both ends against the middle and profited from the war at no risk to themselves. For this they have my undying contempt.

offeror

If you saw the documentary on the History Channel this week you might have heard that at the time, Nazi small arms were considered beautiful and futuristic marvels of engineering. German machine guns scared the pants off our guys so bad the U.S. made propaganda films for the troops saying their bark was worse than their bite. It wasn't. If anything, their biggest problem was they had produced so many different kinds of advanced weapons they had trouble keeping all the ammo straight. Yes, if they hadn't screwed themselves by spreading so thin on the Russian front, we'd have had a lot more trouble. All that bombing we did? It was to knock out the plants that were producing all those "beautiful and futuristic" weapons. Without that, D-Day could have been a real bust for the Allies.

---

"The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."

Gordian Blade

I don't agree that they would have been able to field thermonuclear weapons in 1945 or 1946 even if they could have dragged out the war.

offeror

Oh yes, and they also designed and produced the first real assault rifle, which was in use before the end of the war, but thankfully not in large numbers.

Gordian Blade

Legend has it that Hitler himself named it "assault rifle" (in German, of course).

madminute

Ah yes...the stg.44 rifle (sometimes called mp-44, quite incorrectly)....lay it down beside any HK of the G-3 family, or any Kalashnikov, and behold the mother of all assault rifles....as usual, the US was independant and bull-headed on this concept, and did not field a true assault rifle until the M-16....

Shootist3006

Mad, did U know that the U.S. fielded a true "assault rifle" in WWI?

---

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis

gruntled

Much more dangerous senario: If Italy had not attacked Greece, Germany would not have had to invade Yugoslavia, Greece & Crete.Germany would have invaded Russia several weeks earlier & with several more divisions.With a longer campaign season before the rains & winter weather there is a very good likelyhood that Russia would have been defeated before we even entered the war.Everything I have read indicates that the Germans were very far from an Atomic bomb & probably because of sabotage from the people heading the project. There was a mathematical"error" made that proved that graphite would not work as a moderator & that is why they depended on heavy water. The much greater likelyhood is that Japan would have developed the bomb. They started even before the Germans & had all the technical details worked out. Their major problem was the enormous amount of electrical energy they needed to produce weapons grade uranium.There is some spectulation that they tested a crude nucular device on the southernmostmain island between the two bombs we dropped.

Iconoclast

As a young person, almost all my free reading was devoted to the Second World War and even more has come to light in the intervening decades. I would agree with the points made here about the delayed introduction of the Me262 (in 1943, the Allied bombers had little fighter protection compared to later when the Mustangs & Thunderbolts had extended ranges). The Germans had developed the He 162 - a single engine jet with a plastic fuselage - as well. I would especially agree with the impact of the failures of German strategy in the early stages of the war. If the Nazi leadership had left the military alone, England would have fallen. No doubt after a long and courageous defense, but still fallen. Then they would have turned to the Soviet Union with their rear unthreatened. W/o England, the U-boats would have drawn an 'iron curtain' squarely across any possible supply routes to Murmansk and the Mediterranean. Then on to Moscow in the summer of 1942. Remove Mussolini's delusions of grandeur from the equation, and the Italian Army ineptitude doesn't siphon off key German formations into the Balkans and North Africa. The strategic premise Hitler gave the military in the 30s that the target date for hostilities was 1943 . . . the resources put into the "Final Solution" . . . the fact that the German economy was not switched over to full war production until long after it was too late . . . .Even later, the destruction of 6th Army Group in the Stalingrad pocket. Or the refusal to release the armored reserves on June 6th.Yes, WW2 was a frighteningly near thing. If the Axis had worked together as well as the Allies - to say nothing of the coordination seen in NATO, the Gulf War and the current action - it is quite possible we would have seen a world wide Reich. JMNSHO, but the arguement can be made with some authority that Hitler and Mussolini were major factors in the ultimate Allied victory.But more than anything, we owe a debt to that generation which can never be repaid. In their courage and sacrifice they did indeed save the world.

competentone

Excellent points Iconoclast.I know one can play "what ifs" forever; but what if the Japanese had NOT attacked Pearl Harbor?A lot of people do not understand the popularity of the isolationist position early in the conflict--or I should say, MY understanding is that the isolationist position was powerful, as it is not a subject I've researched to any significant degree.

edharold

What if the Germans had adopted the FN49 instead of the Mauser? They had it but didn't know it when the took the FN plants.

---

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"Benj. Franklin, 1759

royc38

If you would have seen the last nights episode on the history channel about German aircraft that would give you the shakes. I watch the history channel often and that in its context is probably the scariest episode I have ever seen on the subject. I tell you what guys I strongly, STRONGLY, believe if Patton, Ike and the boys hadn't got there when they did we would ALL be speaking german. The first time I saw that episode the hair just stood on the back of my neck.

RUGERNUT3

Hey Shootist...have not checked yet...what was the WWI US assault rifle? Was the BAR around that early? Just wondering...I know the BAR was a great if not heavy weapon....

---

"ANY" EXCUSE IS A GOOD REASON TO BUY "JUST 1 MORE".& VICIE-VERSIE!

Iconoclast

We did have the .30 Pederson device which could be put into the action of a M1903 & transform it into a semi-auto (maybe full auto) firing that cartridge, which was essentially the .32 ACP. Ammo is not too scarce, the magazines are damned rare & I've never heard of an example of the device outside of a museum.

Shootist3006

Ruger, it was the Springfield with a Pedersen device attached. Made it into a selecive fire, moderate powered assault weapon - meeting all the characteristics (excepr it wasnt painted black).

---

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast

Roy, I could not agree more. If the Germans had controlled the sky over Europe, the Allies would not have been able to demolish their industrial capacity, much less to invade the Continent. The delay of the Me262, to say nothing of the later models, was a key strategic blunder. If Speer or another cold analytical mind had been at the helm . . . .

ED P

I've been an Me-262 fan for a while, but I've read the alloy technologies of the time were not sufficient to make engine components that would've had a decent service life.I've read more importantly, that some key German scientests actually delayed the bomb making program deliberately due to their oppposition to the war. If this is true, they are true unsung heroes of the war.In regards to the Mauser being a competitor to the Garand- I don't think so. Though alot of people build up a mystique around the German military in WW2, and they did have an technological advantage in armor and aviation, we had superiority in other technologies such as precision bombing technology. The key thing to remember is we ultimately kicked there a##es, so screw anyone that tries to put them on a pedestal, we won and we won because WE were better, period. Had another 6 months "happened", we would've made some glass craters. I am very interested in the Nazi's, and WW2 history, but I do not agree with the "we were lucky" philosophy. We had their industrial resources choked off due to good military strategy and equipment, and would have ground them down into the mud one way or another. Looks like I've done some ranting here... [This message has been edited by ED P (edited 02-15-2002).]

madminute

Guys...Guys...What on earth do you guys consider an assault rifle? Not those Rube Goldberg gizmos in an '03...please...Arguement stands more in favor of the WW2 "paratrooper" M-2 carbine as fitting the requirements, as it fired an intermediate cartridge (.30 carbine), had a folding wire stock and pistol grip, a detachable high capacity magazine, and select fire...THIS would be the candidate for the first US "assault rifle" in my book IF it were not a modification of an existing short autorifle...we did not field a purpose-designed and built AR until the M-16...we were 20 years behind the wave. But across the board, national stubborness, industrial favoritism, and arrogance caused us to stay behind in a lot of areas...our first jets had straight wings, in spite of dozens of Me262's brought back and researched....US armored vehicle design stayed stuck on the M-4 Sherman tank platform well into the Korean war, in spite of our knowledge of German Pzkw V Panthers and Soviet T-34s, both of which grossly outclassed our machines...had the japanese NOT taken out the battleships at Pearl, the Pacific war would have started behind a traditional fleet of US battlewagons, which would have taken an *-whippin from the Japanese carrier fleet. We were not visionaries, we were forced to adopt the carrier as the capital ship of the fleet..WW2 was more incredible good fortune and bad decision making on the part of the enemies than brilliance on our part. If Hitler had NOT attacked Russia..If the Japanese had KNOWN how bad our pants were around our ankles...If Hitler had LISTENED to Rommel....the grave tactical and strategic erors of the enemies won the war for us, not our own brilliance as we are taught...Exactly the right things at the right times happened in the Allies' favor, over and over again, almost to the level of comedy.....were it not such a horrific and bloody subject...

Iconoclast

Mad, I think you over-exaggerate our own blunders. Unquestionably the Allied victory owes much to our enemies' mistakes, but we made many of our own breaks.

Shootist3006

Mad, you said "...we did not field a purpose-designed and built AR until the M-16...we were 20 years behind the wave. But across the board, national stubborness, industrial favoritism, and arrogance caused us to stay behind..."Does this mean that you think the AR craze is a good thing? Do you actually like this spray and pray marksmanship technique caused by the AR's?

---

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis

gunluv280

Screw the Wermacht.......there was no way they were ever going to win WWII. Their fate was sealed the day the US entered the war. The Brits, the Russkies, US Army, the US Army Air Force, and the US Navy kicked their *, and that's the end of the story. All this * about what they were working on or had in development is meaningless. On Dec 7, 1941, Germany lost any hope they had of winning the war.

gunluv280

Some people would do good to READ credible history books and not put so much stock in the The History Channel (though it is a great channel). Yes, the Germans had a lot of exotic aircraft and weapons in development, but many of them were little more than pipe dreams. It takes a hell of a lot to go from an idea (even with prototypes) to a working, effective, fielded weapon system. The ME-262 was a great advance, but not so great as some seem to think; our own jet aircaft were flying by the end of the war. The ME-262 was fast, but in fighter planes, speed is not the end-all; many ME-262s were shot down by prop-driven American fighter planes. Maneuverablitity, range, fire control systems etc are all important as well. Tactics and training are also critical. Why did our airpower decimate the Iraqis so quickly? They had some great hardware, but they didn't know how to use it. They had no idea what they were in for. The German submarine developments are interesting, but how much could they do when they had no ports to refuel or rearm, not to mention that they had no surface navy to support them. Even if the Germans had put their new subs into the war, they probably would have had little impact. Same goes for the V-1 and V-2. They were good as terror weapons and killed a lot of civilians, but they were useless as military weapons because the Germans hadn't perfected a targeting system that could allow them to hit anything smaller than a city-sized target with any accuracy. Thanks to some statistical braniacs, we knew that and knew the V-1s and V-2s represented no real threat to the outcome of the war. Germany had NO possible hope of winning the war once the US entered it. The eventual outcome was assured as long as we persevered. Thanks for letting me rant.

gunluv280

One more thing...Yes, the Germans were working on a flying wing bomber design near the end of the war, but was it ever successful? We built a flying wing just after the war ended, but found it was unstable as a weapons platform. We couldn't get it to bomb accurately because it wasn't stable enough to hit a target consistently. The B-2 IS NOT MERELY AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE GERMAN DESIGN. IT ISN'T EVEN CLOSE!! An aircraft like the B-2 couldn't even fly without computers.....advancements in computerized flight control technology (hardware and software) made it possible to fly an aircraft like the B-2. The Germans had nothing even remotely close to it.The German design was interesting, but I doubt it would ever have been even moderately successful even if they'd had more time to develop it...but it would have made a great target for all the P-47s and P-51s that flew unopposed over Germany by the end of the war.

jonk

The german flying wing flew in prototype form (the fighter anyhow) and was stable and controllable without computers. Presumably, the bomber also would have been. For some reason the Germans had a knack for tailless aircraft which we lacked. Test pilots who flew the Me-163 rocket after it was captured said it was remarkably pleasant to fly. Of course that plane DID have a vertical tail but still no horizontal tail, just the wing. Presumably, vertical stabilizers could have been added to any flying wing for stability. As for the danger of late model U-boats, with a range of 15-20,000 miles, the ability to move faster than any destroyer while submerged, and the ability to fire from submerged positions with homing torpedoes, I personally think they would have been a huge menace if they had arrived a little earlier or the war had lasted a little longer. Lack of fuel and torpedoes would have been a bigger constraint than operation from just a few bases, lack of surface support, etc.Only feelings of US nationalism would permit one to say, "We couldn't lose. We cleaned their clocks goddamit!" Could the Germans have invaded the US? Very doubtful. Could they have finished off the USSR and invaded Britain before meaningful US reinforcements made that impossible? Possibly. Could they have done as Hitler always promise (just fight a few more weeks and out wonderweapons will win the war!) and won by some tech marvel? Yes. IMagine if Germany had gone on a full war footing in 1940. Imagine if production Tiger and Panther tanks had been two or three times what it had been. Despite overwhelming numerical superiority, the excellant T-34 would have found itself outmatched and it is my opinion that the Germans could have withdrawn to a defensive line... if only Hitler would have permitted it. As Marshall noted after the war, Europe is shaped like a funnel. He felt that somewhere around 100 divisions could hold the narrow end of the funnel, even against 300 Soviet divisions, in any conventional conflict. Marshall knew his job and if it would have worked for the US, it would have worked for Germany. At very least, Germany could have, with proper leadership and war production, snatched a favorable peace from the jaws of potential disaster.Just my rantings. I still say their best choice was to put a full support behind the A-bomb. A few strategic ones dumped on Moscow in 1941 would certainly have brought Germany victory. Their biggest mistake was not lighting a fire under the project, for they surely had the brains to do it.

---

"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.

Rembrandt

Don't forget....we broke the codes of both the German's and Japanese....wouldn't have made much difference what they had in hardware, if you know what their intent and plans were....

Iconoclast

gunlov, you have several excellent points, but I can assure you very little of my knowledge / opinion is derived from the History Channel. The subject was an intense hobby for several years of my life, including research in such original sources as I could obtain at the time. I believe the salient point of the original post was simply that the Axis powers (really, Germany) had military technological advances which could have reversed the eventual outcome *if* those had come into widespread use earlier or *if* the war had been prolonged. But once the Allies clearly secured material and air superiority - circa 1/1/44 - the Germans did not have the industrial capacity remaining to produce the wonder weapons in quantity, nor the defensive means to protect the industrial capactity they did have. The victors write the history. And ours have rarely addressed how finely balanced and desperate the war in Europe truly was until the very end. Our strategy of 'Europe First' sprang from our leaders' recognition that the Japanese were, in fact, little more than a distraction from the main event. *There* the question was never in doubt, war time hysteria / propaganda notwithstanding.

Patrick Odle

The panzer tank used to make egg crates out of our shermans and pattonswith their 88s.The only way we could engage the panzer was to immoblize him by blowing a track off. thebrilliant normandy invasion would have resulted as a military blunder if it hadn't been for the mulitude of men sent ashore.7 out of 10 tanks went to the bottom with their crew. If it Hadn't been for some renegade generals such as patton, eisenhowerspolitical A%^$#& kissing would have lost the war. If Bush Would leave the pitty pat war in the capable hands of the military an just say I want this accomplished within a certain time frame this whole terroist movement could have been over in less than three weeks, and instead of seeking world wide approval for our retalitation the world in its entirety would have took notice and respected us for it. As the situation stands there are severalarabic countrys hoping they will be next and will gladly accept the bombs by night in order to get the goodies dropped on them by day.

usmc2498215

Iconoclast is correct! The only thing Germany could not compete with was our industrial strength, and sources of raw materials to build a war machine. Over the years I have had the opportunity to sit and talk with German soldiers of WW2. One was an infantryman, another a tank commander, and another was a Stuka pilot. In each case when I would ask them what it was like to go up against the Americans, thay said, "one on one" they had no fear of the Americans, however there was very few times that happened in their experiences. The overall concensus between the three were that we overwhelmed them with troops, armor, and aircraft, seriously out numbering them. The infantryman even chuckled and said, one time his unit was overrun by an American unit, and it seemed like everyone of the American troops either had a machinegun or bazooka.

jonk

I also heard a veteran interviewed say that they viewed our infantry and tanks as mere amateurs, though they were scared shi$less of our artillery, as it was high quality and we had a ton of it. Maybe not quite as good as the all purpose 88 AA/Anti Tank/artillery piece, but easier to make and operate.

---

"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.

jonk

I also heard a veteran interviewed say that they viewed our infantry and tanks as mere amateurs, though they were scared shi$less of our artillery, as it was high quality and we had a ton of it. Maybe not quite as good as the all purpose 88 AA/Anti Tank/artillery piece, but easier to make and operate.

---

"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.

whiteclouder

Give me a budget, some writers and a year and I will produce a historical documentary that proves Rossevelt was a Communist and Patton was a cross-dresser.The History Channel is a liberal propaganda platform. I am very careful to compare what they way to what I can verify in the history books (also liberal but there are lots of them and they didn't compare notes).We defeated the Nazi/Facist regimes because they were passionless. It was just a matter of time before they killed thmeselves.Clouder..

halfcelt

Hello all, Following the discussion on the , "might have beens". Seems to me all the talk of technology vis a'vis numerical strength is somewhat missing the point. Simply expressed, there was no strategic foresight in planning the war; the Nazi's in charge couldn't find their collective *'s with both hands. Consider three points. 1. The vaunted German High Command sent their finest into battle, each general expressing the war in Russia would be won by winter. Question: where was the logistical survey of the task at hand? I'm not talking about bullets, armor, speed.... etc. I ask, " Where was the grease that would stand up to the sub-zero temperatures? Warm winter clothing? Food? Gasoline?Field hospitals? Were the troops supposed to pack up and go home in October and come back in March? Obviously they had to stay their, victorious or otherwise.......history records that piss poor planning says otherwise actually occurred. Halder wrote early on , "...in the beginning we reckoned some 200 enemy divisions...we have already identified more than 350" !! OOPS # 1 2. Who was directing the fighting? In truth, the Fuhrer Bunker and their ilk were largly responsible for the death of more German Wermacht troops than any Russian counter-offensives. Manstein, among many others, displayed great tactical skills of leadership in the face of overwhelming odds on numerous occaisons, when it was the Wermacht who was outgunned and under seige, yet maniacle orders to commit to impossible tasks virtually setup the Russian victories to a mathamatical certainty. I'm not taking anything away from the Russians; simply explore the odd behavior of the "cover-your-* " politicians in the leadership positions within the German Army and you can come to no other conclusion! OOPS #2 !! 3. Strategic Plan....or lack there of ! Imagine yourself in the shoes of Rommel, fighting the British...heart stopping thought, considering the inequity of supply. Now imagine Rommel with an army the size of the von Paulus' 6th, with several tank divisions of the best that the Fatherland had to offer, and intact supply lines covered by the Luftwaffe. The only thing between Rommel and the Suez Canal would have been burned out British tanks and camel poop. ALL OF THE OIL would have been theirs, with a flanking position on the underbelly of Southern Russia, their erstwhile WWI ally at their side {Turkey} and Britain confined to her island with little chance of supply to her empire in the east. OOPS # 3 I book I cannot commend too highly is "Hitlers Field Marshalls and their Battles", by Samual Mitcham Jr. In Omnibus Veritas et Caritus Christi, Jeff (halfcelt)

halfcelt

Hello all, Following the discussion on the , "might have beens". Seems to me all the talk of technology vis a'vis numerical strength is somewhat missing the point. Simply expressed, there was no strategic foresight in planning the war; the Nazi's in charge couldn't find their collective *'s with both hands. Consider three points. 1. The vaunted German High Command sent their finest into battle, each general expressing the war in Russia would be won by winter. Question: where was the logistical survey of the task at hand? I'm not talking about bullets, armor, speed.... etc. I ask, " Where was the grease that would stand up to the sub-zero temperatures? Warm winter clothing? Food? Gasoline?Field hospitals? Were the troops supposed to pack up and go home in October and come back in March? Obviously they had to stay their, victorious or otherwise.......history records that piss poor planning says otherwise actually occurred. Halder wrote early on , "...in the beginning we reckoned some 200 enemy divisions...we have already identified more than 350" !! OOPS # 1 2. Who was directing the fighting? In truth, the Fuhrer Bunker and their ilk were largly responsible for the death of more German Wermacht troops than any Russian counter-offensives. Manstein, among many others, displayed great tactical skills of leadership in the face of overwhelming odds on numerous occaisons, when it was the Wermacht who was outgunned and under seige, yet maniacle orders to commit to impossible tasks virtually setup the Russian victories to a mathamatical certainty. I'm not taking anything away from the Russians; simply explore the odd behavior of the "cover-your-* " politicians in the leadership positions within the German Army and you can come to no other conclusion! OOPS #2 !! 3. Strategic Plan....or lack there of ! Imagine yourself in the shoes of Rommel, fighting the British...heart stopping thought, considering the inequity of supply. Now imagine Rommel with an army the size of the von Paulus' 6th, with several tank divisions of the best that the Fatherland had to offer, and intact supply lines covered by the Luftwaffe. The only thing between Rommel and the Suez Canal would have been burned out British tanks and camel poop. ALL OF THE OIL would have been theirs, with a flanking position on the underbelly of Southern Russia, their erstwhile WWI ally at their side {Turkey} and Britain confined to her island with little chance of supply to her empire in the east. OOPS # 3 I book I cannot commend too highly is "Hitlers Field Marshalls and their Battles", by Samual Mitcham Jr. In Omnibus Veritas et Caritus Christi, Jeff (halfcelt)

---

Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies simply because they are fashionable -GK Chesterton

Judge Dread

And what does make you think germany lost the war ? HEIL ! BUSH ! HEIL! AMERIKA ! BUSH! OUR SAVIOR! OUR GOD ! ZIG! HEIL !

halfcelt

Hummmmmm......... ***sigh***...so much for serious discussion.

---

Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies simply because they are fashionable -GK Chesterton

Iconoclast

halfcelt, your points are well taken. W/o doubt, the meddling of the Nazi political leadership in the military campaigns did at least as much to assure Allied victory in Europe as any other single factor. And while I had not addressed it (how much time & space does one really have in such a forum?), yes, the German military was grossly over confident after their stunning victories of 1939-40. The constant propaganda, 'political' officers and the like had to have some effect in this, although I've not seen the subject addressed in historical works. Side note: given the pervasive revisionist crap extant today, I personally am doubly distrustful of any new 'historical' work. Another factor that has been largely ignored in the West is the courage and sacrifice of the Russian people in defense of their Narodna (homeland). KGB commisars and later propaganda aside, Russians were (and are) an intensely proud and patriotic people. The spearhead of the drive on Moscow, the best German armored division with brand-new equipment, was turned aside by the 216th Militia Division, which was little more than civilian volunteers attacking tanks with whatever came to hand - literally shovels, hammers and the like.