15
   

What was the main reason that Germany lost w.w.2?

 
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 02:15 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
BTW as to the image of a an upper class RAF, apparently this was mostly a myth perpetuated by the "RP" accents Britsh actors needed to adopt in order to get employment in the war flim industry. The statistics on RAF recruitment indicate a much wider variation of idiolect.


I remember one with lots of WAAFs with cut-glass accents working on plotting tables. They were listening to R/T conversations via a loudspeaker on a wall and heard a Johnny-Head-In-The-air type burning up, trapped in his cockpit. he managed to scream in an upper-class accent, I swear! Anyhow they just gulped a bit and carried on.

Dad has a pretty pronounced Derby accent, went to a grammar, not public school, and made Flight Lieutenant. His best pal was a Squadron Leader from Romford with a very pronounced East End/Essex accent.

Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 02:28 pm
@contrex,
My Scottish pen-friend's father was a navigator in a bomber squadron, grammar school and "King's English".
I've met his squadron leader (and friend) a few times: a retired colonel like from a picture book, grammar school and ... Cheshire dialect (that's what I was told it was).

As an aside: when we looked at their flight diaries and maps from the war, I noticed that it was their squadron which bombed my father's hometown. (Most of his family was killed by that attack.)
0 Replies
 
count markovalley
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 04:00 pm
@Thomas,
try your own suggestion. i think england and france declared war on germany way back early on in oct. 1939 .. i don't know what color the polacks were ,probably yellow.
0 Replies
 
count markovalley
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 04:48 pm
Historians argue over events. Sometimes the simple truth is the hardest to understand. germany lost because it really did not want to go to war with the west. it couldn't win a world war . hitler gambled the allies would stay away. and they didn't. Why would the west start another world war over danzig? And after the misery of the first great war. He was set up from the start. Hitler was set up by the international bankers and bloody zionists to fight a war they knew he couldn't win. they wanted to get rid of him. too dangerous to live. but hitler only wanted to undo the versailles treaty as would any american president in the same situation.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 07:52 pm
@count markovalley,
Hitler gambled and didn't think he would lose? He wasn't a good gambler then and has no one to blame but himself.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 02:09 am
@mysteryman,
The F4 was intended as a dual-role plane, air superiority fighter and close support platform. It came as close as anything could come to that but at a price. Its wings had huge lift for carrying huge ordinance loads; when it returned minus the ordinance loads, it was very light and tended to hop on landings. For that reason they initially gave the F4 to marines on island bases where hopping on landings was not a problem and let the Navy use the F6. Faced with the kamikazes however, they wanted the fastest plane they had on the carriers and basically just said screw the landing problems so long as pilots survived.
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  5  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 02:23 am
@count markovalley,
So it is written that the leader of the boody zionists declared:
"I know, let's trick this Hitler guy into persecuting us, then rob us of our homes and possessions, herd us into ghettos and starve us, transport us in cattle trains to camps set up to torture and kill us and then burn us in ovens or bury us in mass graves...that is certain to drag him in to a war he cannot win".

The rest of the bloody zionists looked at one another and nodded in agreement. "What a brilliant plan", they all thought.

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 07:37 am
@count markovalley,
count markovalley wrote:

... He was set up from the start. Hitler was set up by the international bankers and bloody zionists to fight a war they knew he couldn't win. they wanted to get rid of him. too dangerous to live...


"Set up from the start"? "Bloody zionists"? Phew! Thank goodness you gave us the real reason for his obsessive anti-Semitism, and desire to conquer Europe. Otherwise, one could think that Mein Kampf was his early written blueprint/template for WWII.

izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 06:00 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
"Set up from the start"? "Bloody zionists"?


He's putting the cart before the horse, the Nazis used the supposed conspiracy as an excuse to persecute the Jews. It's a ridiculous notion, the idea that 'zionist' forces in Wall Street would ever conspire with 'zionist' bolcheviks in Moscow is laughable, and would only make sense to someone who listened to nothing but Nazi propaganda or was trying to justify his own repulsive ideology.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 07:40 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Foofie wrote:
"Set up from the start"? "Bloody zionists"?


He's putting the cart before the horse, the Nazis used the supposed conspiracy as an excuse to persecute the Jews. It's a ridiculous notion, the idea that 'zionist' forces in Wall Street would ever conspire with 'zionist' bolcheviks in Moscow is laughable, and would only make sense to someone who listened to nothing but Nazi propaganda or was trying to justify his own repulsive ideology.


You might be surprised how many Americans would be willing to find an excuse to disenfranchise Jews from American society. The British seem to have a sixth sense for false propaganda, in my opinion. Personally, I think it correlates to having so many centuries of a more literate populace. You can thank Henry VIII, perhaps?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 05:01 am
@count markovalley,
Quote:
... He was set up from the start. Hitler was set up by the international bankers and bloody zionists to fight a war they knew he couldn't win....



Bad thinking on their part if that's what they were thinking. Hitler had more ways to win WW-II than he had to lose it. Simply starting WW-II with the 300 ocean-going U-boat which Doenitz wanted (rather than trying to build battleships) would have won for him.
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 06:17 am
@gungasnake,
.........." Simply starting WW-II with the 300 ocean-going U-boat which Doenitz wanted (rather than trying to build battleships) would have won for him."

Pure supposition. Ifs and ands.....

If U boats were in such numbers and rightly identified as such a threat at the outset of war, then maximum effort would have been made to destroy their pens around the Atlantic coastline.
Search and destroy aircraft and the advancement of their technonlogy/munitions would also have been made a priority, as would the relevant technology developments for the Royal Navy.

Their pens wouldn't have lasted long, which would have rendered the Uboat fleet unarmed and unserviceable in pretty short order.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 07:03 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Simply starting WW-II with the 300 ocean-going U-boat which Doenitz wanted (rather than trying to build battleships) would have won for him.
And that's something, Dönitz actually didn't want before the war and in the first years of the war: he thought, U-boats to be a Nebengleis ("side track"). (Source: Karl Dönitz: 40 Fragen an Karl Dönitz, Bernard & Graefe, München 1980)
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 07:21 am
@Walter Hinteler,
He'd also seen "Das Boot" at the Cinema, and knew right from the start that it would end in tears.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 08:24 am
@Walter Hinteler,
You mean Gunga's wrong? Well that must mean that the flood depicted in Noah's Ark didn't really happen, that Peruvians didn't fly about on pterodactyls, and that with his rifle he is unable to mount a successful rebellion against the most sophisticated military apparatus in the world.

Who'd have thought?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 08:26 am
@izzythepush,
Talking of Donitz.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 08:44 am
@izzythepush,
Nota bene: I didn't comment on Noah's Ark and/or any Peruvians!

I'll do so, perhaps, when the sun has finished its daily orbit around our flat earth's disk.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 09:40 am
@gungasnake,
This is why historical "what ifs" are so often bullsh*t. War is not a game of Risk in which one allots new resources at the beginning of each "turn" where and how one chooses. Capital ships required rigid sheet steel for armor on decks, superstructure, gun turrets and the torpedo bulge below the waterline. You don't just stroll over to Krupp and tell them: "OK, stop making armor plate and start making the low grade, flexible, thin sheet steel we need for submarine pressure hulls." Submarines also use large amounts of ball- and roller-bearings. In 1939, ball- and roller-bearings were largely manufactured in Schweinfurt, which produced two thirds of Germany's ball- and roller-bearings. Production there dramatically increased from the end of the First World War to 1943 (when the USAAF bombed Schweinfurt). A good deal of Germany's ball- and roller-bearing supply also came from Sweden. You don't just wave a magic wand and expand the production of anything which requires precision machine-tools and highly skilled labor. You don't just grab some yob off the street and tell him now you'll be a machine tool operator, or now you'll be a highly-skilled welder making pressure hulls for submarines. It would have been robbing Peter to pay Paul. German aviation plants used well over two million ball- and roller-bearings each month. (Source for ball- and roller-bearing production and use in wartime Germany.) Any ball- and roller-bearing production diverted for submarine manufacture would have decreased the supply for the aviation industry nnd for the manufacture of armored fighting vehicles. Submarines used diesel fuel. The German army quickly learned that gasoline-fueled tanks were potential death traps, even in the event of a hit which did not pierce the armor. Any diversion of diesel fuel to submarines would have decreased the supply needed for AFVs.

Facilities for building and launching submarines would have needed to be dramatically expanded, as well as a concomitant increase in the skilled labor force to build the submarines. This would also have taken resources away from other wartime industries, as well as skilled labor.

Finally, this silly claim is predicated on the notion that Britain could have been starved by an aggressive submarine campaign. Diverting production from capital ships to submarines would have allowed English, Irish and Canadian shipyards to switch production to to frigates and destroyers. The Royal Canadian Navy escorted more convoys to Britain than all convoys escorted by the United States Navy and the Royal Navy combined. They did it overwhelmingly with mine sweepers and corvettes--anything which could sail in blue water and drop depth charges. Those mine sweepers and corvettes were built in Great Lakes shipyards which could not have been used for larger ships. When the frigate was re-introduced into modern navies, those same Great Lakes shipyards wree able to switch to frigate production from corvette production without missing a beat.

Last of all, although a greater success in attacking convoys bound for Britain would have, temporarily, decreased the supply of war materials to British factories, the people would not have starved. Women and elderly men went out onto the land and began farming former grazing lands so that Britain dramatically increased their food production during the war. The food may have sucked, but nobody was starving.

This is just typical Gunga Dim bullsh*t--ill-considered, and not thought out, and based on profound ignorance.
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 09:59 am
@contrex,
Plus the fact we had one of the most deadly secret weapons of the 2nd world war.

The Home Guard.

Here is some rare footage of those brave men in action:

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 10:10 am
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:
He'd also seen "Das Boot" at the Cinema, and knew right from the start that it would end in tears.


Visiting the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago to see an acual German submarine would help. More than anything else, reading Sharks and Little Fishes by Wolfgang Ott would help to understand the horror of service in German submarines--forget about Das Boot. Ott served in German submarines from age 17, and survived the war, which made him a statistical anomaly. About 80% of German submariners were lost.

Lordy has mentioned anti-submarine warfare techniques. One of the horrors they faced was crossing the Bay of Biscay from the French ports. You couldn't just "go at night," the Bay is too large. From an aircraft flying thousands of feet in the air, the Bay looks like a child's wading pool--submarines stood out like a sore thumb. To cross the bay, submarines left in late afternoon so that they were under fighter cover until nightfall, and as much as possible, with Germany's poor weather forecasting capacity, they left in bad weather which would hinder RAF and Royal Navy patrols. With no bases outside continental Europe, and no capacity to station weather ships at sea, the Germans ability to predict the weather was very poor.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

THE BRITISH THREAD II - Discussion by jespah
FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 12:28:40