The Axis? Doomed from the outset?

World War II General WWII Discussion
#41

Um, Nick, I’m pretty sure that Hitler had ordered his troops to stop shortly before Dunkirk. The exact reasons are unknown, but some suppose it was to show good will to the British.

The order was revoked later, and they attacked, but the delay still significantly helped the British.

And you talk about a few hundred thousand troops as if they were nothing. ‘A few hundred thousand troops’ are not only a significant amount for any armed force, but also a big morale factor. If the expeditionary force had experienced a crushing defeat with horrendous losses, don’t you think that might have influenced the politics?

Also, IIRC the guys at Dunkirk were, for the most part, experienced professional soldiers. That’s not the kind of soldiers you want to lose in the ‘hundred thousands’ at the start of a war, if you ask me.

#42

LOL Really? Please provide the supporting evidence of that!

And you talk about a few hundred thousand troops as if they were nothing. ‘A few hundred thousand troops’ are not only a significant amount for any armed force, but also a big morale factor. If the expeditionary force had experienced a crushing defeat with horrendous losses, don’t you think that might have influenced the politics?

Also, IIRC the guys at Dunkirk were, for the most part, experienced professional soldiers. That’s not the kind of soldiers you want to lose in the ‘hundred thousands’ at the start of a war, if you ask me.

Of course it would have been a loss. But feel free to provide how the Wehrmacht was going to invade the British isles and how less than 300,000 soldiers (who left most of their equipment behind) would have made much of a difference…

#43

Under a scenario in which Germany does not enter war with the Soviet Union or the United States would Britain have been able to win through use of nuclear weapons or do people feel that the war would have been over before it reached that point.

The British seemed to have much of the worlds best military equipment during the war but as far as I can tell they did not test a nuclear weapon until 1952. Do people think they could have developed one sooner?

#44

Well there is no doubts if Britain was alone - it losed the war.
Before the developing the it’s hypotetical nuclear werpon.
Denitz simply would destory the any possibility to supply the British island with food and resources. Already in 1942 , latest in 1943 the Britain would face the famine and shortage of everything.
The USA is only the power who didn’t let Britain to capitulate and hold on surface, actively fighting.

#45

Ummm… tricky one that. We had our own nuclear weapons programme at the time (based in Canada) along with some rather bright nuclear physicists. The only better team of Physicists were in the US (a mix of Americans and European refugees). When the US joined the war, the two programmes were merged at Los Alamos. However, with the US passing the McMahon act at the end of the war (I suspect in ignorance of the UK contribution to the Manhattan project, but I’m not sure) the UK had to start again from a far worse financial position. It’s very hard to see the UK getting nuclear weapons before 1950 though.

Errrmmm… It’s a bit complicated. The U-boats were mostly under control when the US entered the war - the massacre off the US East Coast was largely due to chronic unpreparedness on the part of the USN, while the RN side of the ocean was heading towards stalemate. US support was critical though, but in different ways. The UK was running a total war economy, with little or nothing left for civilian use and no exports but weaponry and fighting men. That is totally unsustainable without someone to underwrite you financially (in this case the United States). If the US is willing to provide credit, the UK can keep fighting until Doomsday (or a major nuclear attack, whichever comes first). If it isn’t, the UK would need to seek an armistice by about 1942 or so.

#46

I heard the BRits contributed a lot in the early stage of Manhattan project.The British MAUD committe was developing an independent progect.That later have been included to Manhattan team.
BTW the jealous Americans din’t like to showed the British participation in project.:slight_smile:

Errrmmm… It’s a bit complicated. The U-boats were mostly under control when the US entered the war - the massacre off the US East Coast was largely due to chronic unpreparedness on the part of the USN, while the RN side of the ocean was heading towards stalemate. US support was critical though, but in different ways. The UK was running a total war economy, with little or nothing left for civilian use and no exports but weaponry and fighting men. That is totally unsustainable without someone to underwrite you financially (in this case the United States). If the US is willing to provide credit, the UK can keep fighting until Doomsday (or a major nuclear attack, whichever comes first). If it isn’t, the UK would need to seek an armistice by about 1942 or so.

It was, but I think it wasn’t just about money and credits.
In the mid the 1942 the kringsmarine sinked the 500 000 per mont, SO hardly the BRitain may support the quantity of their trade fleet to deliver enough tonns of materials, food and resources to island.Physically and technically.
Unless USA didn’t helped with their Lendlise supplies - sure the 1942 would be the final for Britain.

#47

Given just how secretive the entire project was, that’s hardly surprising!

Lend-lease is just another way of describing unlimited free credit. And despite all the sinkings, the British weren’t actually running out of merchant shipping - they were able to attract in ships registered all over the world, notably in places like Greece and Norway which had sizeable merchant fleets. The US was also building huge amounts of merchant shipping which it would have happily sold to the UK if paid (more shipping than the Germans could sink, in fact). In the end, it all comes down to money.

#48

It’s true , but american merchant shipping was only critical. The Yankees have build the entire new convoys for suppliing the Britain.But it has become only possible after the USA entering to war on British side.
So again, it wasn’t just all come down to money.
Even if you have a enough money - you have to find a seller/distributer.
In fact it was ONLY the single seller , that was able to help
If not US strong determination to HOLD the Britain on the surface as long as it was possible ( see the Roosvelt speech),
Will is the ONLY importaint ,not just the money.:wink:

#49

Of course they would have lost in the long term as the entire British strategy was predicated on the US entering the War sooner or later.

But this reveals an endemic weakness on the part of the Germans as well. The Wehrmacht was not prepared to fight a battle of attrition nor was it prepared to sustain a battle beyond the narrow confines of its armored thrusts into relatively close bordering states in battles where logistics wouldn’t be an issue. They had virtually no amphibious capabilities and the “naval infantry” the Kriegsmarine did have performed poorly in the Polish campaign. Even the invasion of France was a very big gamble that paid off in the short term, but doomed them strategically because Germany did not have the military nor economy necessary to defeat Britain…

#50

Well, I wanted to make it easy for myself and just post you the wikipedia article. But sadly there is no mention of the stop in the English one, only in the German one. I posted that one if you want to translate it for yourself.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dynamo

I quote (translated):

"On the 24th of May, Gerd von Rundstedt halted all advance at the order of Hitler himself. […] It wasn’t until the 26th of May that the German tanks were ordered to continue their assault at Dunkirk. The British were able to establish a strong line of defense during that period, and Operation Dynamo was largely finished by the time they arrived.

I don’t own any book that further talks about it, but I’m sure there should be people in this forum who can back this up.

As for the reliability of Wikipedia: I know it isn’t very high, but I am 100% sure that this halt in fact took place, as I heard in mentioned in several documentaries, both English and German.

EDIT:
It’s mentioned quickly in the English version of the Battle of Dunkirk, though not under Operation Dynamo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk

#51

I’ve seen a number of English-language accounts that state the German tanks were stopped because they were practically out of fuel. That seems reasonably logical - they had come a long way and the Wehrmacht logistics were never all that good (even the US Army struggled badly when going the other way at a slower pace). Just because the German tanks were stopped doesn’t mean that they could have continued an attack anyway.

#52

Dear Schuultz,
it would be the 24th of May and not march.
Here’s a quote from General Ironside’s (BEF) diary while withdrawing from Arras.
“The german mobile columns have definitely been halted for some reason or other.Rather similar to the haltthey made before.It is quite certain that there is very little movement about.”
It is a führer befehl called “Panzer halt” I think.
From Guderian:
“Hitler ordered the left wing(which now contained virtually all the german armour)to stop on the Aa.It was forbidden to cross that stream.we were not informed of the reasons for this.the order contained the words:“Dunkirk is to be left to the Luftwaffe”…We were utterly speechless.”
Halder diary on the 25th:
“A complete upset is thus occuring,I wanted to make Army Group A the hammer and Army Group B the anvil; but now “B” is to be the hammer and A the anvil.Since “B”,however,is faced with an organized front,this must necessarily be very costly and take a long time .another thing,the Luftwaffe,on which so much hope is now placed,is completely dependent on the weather”
Halder and Brauchtisch were very much against the order supported by Hitler and Von Rundstedt.
Halder again:
“for the decision that has just been taken,the General Staff is not to blame…”

#53

Sorry, a translating error on my part.

#54

I thought so.Not to worry.
The diaries quotes I got are from “To lose a battle,france 1940” by Alistair Horne BTW.Just realised I didn’t mention it on my previous post.

#55

If you guys want to discuss Dunkirk, we had a pretty decent thread on it here:

http://ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4189

#56

Nah, I’m pretty much done with the subject :smiley: