• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why Hitler Declared War On The United States

Segnosaur said:
- At least part of the reason the Russians did so well at the operational level is because of materials provided by the Americans. If the U.S. had not entered the war, they may not have been willing to supply the Russians with as much as they did.
Click to expand...

Could you be more specific? I'd say the lend-lease aid was mainly of importance at the strategical/logistical level (trucks, above all else - which Russia could have produced by cutting down on their enormous number of tanks or bought with their enormous gold reserves).

Their operational performance was mainly a function of doctrinal superiority.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Could you be more specific? I'd say the lend-lease aid was mainly of importance at the strategical/logistical level (trucks, above all else - which Russia could have produced by cutting down on their enormous number of tanks or bought with their enormous gold reserves).

Their operational performance was mainly a function of doctrinal superiority.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can say the Soviets were operationally superior. It was quite common for them to lose more tanks, equipment, and men in battles that they won.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I'm not sure you can say the Soviets were operationally superior. It was quite common for them to lose more tanks, equipment, and men in battles that they won.
Click to expand...

Operations refer to the level connecting strategy to tactics. I'm talking about effective coordination, communication, deception etc. The doctrine of operational warfare did not even exist in the Wehrmacht.

Also, your comment is meaningless without specifying what part of the war you are talking about, and regardless, the number of dead is not the important thing, securing of military objectives is. Gaining the initiative at Kursk was far more valuable than the men lost, as was the destruction of the 6th army at Stalingrad.
 
Last edited:
TubbaBlubba said:
Operations refer to the level connecting strategy to tactics. I'm talking about effective coordination, communication, deception etc. The doctrine of operational warfare did not even exist in the Wehrmacht.

Also, your comment is meaningless without specifying what part of the war you are talking about, and regardless, the number of dead is not the important thing, securing of military objectives is. Gaining the initiative at Kursk was far more valuable than the men lost, as was the destruction of the 6th army at Stalingrad.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it was a strategic victory, one of the biggest of the war. I guess I'll take your word for it that the Soviets were better by 1943 (Kursk) at comms, coordination and deception, since I don't really know either way. I don't mean that as a rhetorical statement, I honestly don't know.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Absolutely it was a strategic victory, one of the biggest of the war. I guess I'll take your word for it that the Soviets were better by 1943 (Kursk) at comms, coordination and deception, since I don't really know either way. I don't mean that as a rhetorical statement, I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation - decent article.

The biggest reason for the disparities in losses are, one, differences in tactical doctrine (I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that the Wehrmacht was superior here!), difference in the quality of officers (naturally, this got better throughout the war), differences in approach, but maybe above all else difference in the experience of troops. The mass casualties in the USSR were at least in part caused by relatively fresh recruits either losing their nerve, routing, and being slaughtered (or surrendering to capture), or German veterans refusing to surrender either out of commitment or out of fear for revenge for the horrors they had inflicted on civilians.

But, also, causing mass casualties was part of the German doctrine; they used a lot of bombing, artillery, et cetera to great effect for the purpose of killing a lot of people, even when it was not necessary to achieving their objectives. Soviet leaders were more focused on achieving longer-term objectives halting the advance and putting the Germans in disadvantegous positions where they were guaranteed to lose, even if that meant losing more men.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Could you be more specific? I'd say the lend-lease aid was mainly of importance at the strategical/logistical level (trucks, above all else - which Russia could have produced by cutting down on their enormous number of tanks or bought with their enormous gold reserves).
Click to expand...

Lend Lease provided some tanks but it was never intended to supply the Russians with weapons.

It provided railway track, locomotives, rolling stock, engines, trucks, jeeps and tyres.

This freed the Russians to produce tanks and weapons . Russia didn't have the industrial capacity to produce both tanks and trucks.

One of the important things they got was as as simple as wire for electrical systems. No good building a tank if it won't run.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Lend Lease provided some tanks but it was never intended to supply the Russians with weapons.

It provided railway track, locomotives, rolling stock, engines, trucks, jeeps and tyres.

This freed the Russians to produce tanks and weapons . Russia didn't have the industrial capacity to produce both tanks and trucks.

One of the important things they got was as as simple as wire for electrical systems. No good building a tank if it won't run.
Click to expand...

We also shipped them a lot of raw materials and food. I believe mainly through the Pacific and Persian routes. Some 2.6 million tons of petroleum and 1.75 million tons of food. Also more tanks and airplanes than people may realize. Some 4,000 Shermans and 4,700 P-39's (out of 11,000 total airplanes). The British and Commonwealth also sent some 5,200 tanks of various kinds, and 7,000 aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
 
Last edited:
TubbaBlubba said:
You could say the same thing about Hitler's position with Germany losing a one-front war against the USSR though...
Click to expand...
Providence would have taken care that he'd moved another innocent-looking suitcase to another part of the room and thus avoided another attempt on his life. Or left another meeting early, like at the Beerhall memorial in 1939.

For the rest, Hitler was safe from those below him rebelling. The Nazi state consisted, by design, of various fiefdoms with poorly delineated competences, so that Hitler's underlings continually quarreled amongst each other who was entitled to do what, and did not eye for the top job.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Lend Lease provided some tanks but it was never intended to supply the Russians with weapons.

It provided railway track, locomotives, rolling stock, engines, trucks, jeeps and tyres.

This freed the Russians to produce tanks and weapons . Russia didn't have the industrial capacity to produce both tanks and trucks.

One of the important things they got was as as simple as wire for electrical systems. No good building a tank if it won't run.
Click to expand...
And food, boots, vacuum valves, machine tools, cotton, explosives, fuel and additives...

Not that the tanks weren't useful; for example at Moscow in early December 1941 almost 40% of the heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces were British-supplied.
 
They particularly liked the Valentine.

I was going to include vaccuum tubes and machine tools in my post
 
Keep to the topic of this thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
More evidence of Roosevelt's warmongering and mendacious nature. Even the British ambassador had negative things to say about Roosevelt -
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018...ey-reveal-exactly-who-desired-instigated-ww2/
Even if Pearl Harbor was not attacked and Germany did not declare war on the US Roosevelt had the Rainbow 5 Plan ready to wage war against Germany. The US and Germany would have been at war even without Hitler's declaration.
www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2008/...lts-secret-pre-pearl-harbor-war-plan-exposed/
As Roosevelt told Churchill at the Atlantic Charter conference "I may wage war but I may never declare war. If I did the Congress might argue about it for 3 months".
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7486
 
Mondial said:
More evidence of Roosevelt's warmongering and mendacious nature. Even the British ambassador had negative things to say about Roosevelt -
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018...ey-reveal-exactly-who-desired-instigated-ww2/
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that the German Army invaded Poland to obtain proof that FDR was a bad man?

From your link;
There is a feeling now prevalent in the United States marked by growing hatred of Fascism, and above all of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with National Socialism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press.
Click to expand...
I don't suppose your have ANYTHING at all that supports this claim? Since this kind of claim has been shouted out for decades, you must have a list (hundreds or thousands of names) of the jews who controlled the American media.

Ranb
 
Mondial said:
More evidence of
........


Of Mondial doing more seagulls postings......I mean how is this appropriate to the memory of Adolph?

Where Mondial is your SS resolve?

I mean just because you cannot debate since you get completely shredded each time you do is that any reason to post and run?

Are you really a Zionist out to make Neo-Nazis look ineffectual?
Click to expand...
 
Mondial said:
More evidence of Roosevelt's warmongering and mendacious nature. Even the British ambassador had negative things to say about Roosevelt -
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018...ey-reveal-exactly-who-desired-instigated-ww2/
Even if Pearl Harbor was not attacked and Germany did not declare war on the US Roosevelt had the Rainbow 5 Plan ready to wage war against Germany. The US and Germany would have been at war even without Hitler's declaration.
www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2008/...lts-secret-pre-pearl-harbor-war-plan-exposed/
As Roosevelt told Churchill at the Atlantic Charter conference "I may wage war but I may never declare war. If I did the Congress might argue about it for 3 months".
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7486
Click to expand...

Re the highlighted portion - contingency plans are proof of nothing. Actions are what counts, and in the end the ACTIONS of the Nazi regime demonstrated that their word was worth less than a thimble of warm spit, and that they would wage aggressive war against anyone unless that nation agreed to do exactly what Dolphy wanted.

For example, the US had War Plan Red, and Canada had Defence Scheme No. 1 - plans for the invasion of each other nation. And drawn up at the time when we were looking at bettering continental defence.
 
Border Reiver said:
Re the highlighted portion - contingency plans are proof of nothing. Actions are what counts, and in the end the ACTIONS of the Nazi regime demonstrated that their word was worth less than a thimble of warm spit, and that they would wage aggressive war against anyone unless that nation agreed to do exactly what Dolphy wanted.

For example, the US had War Plan Red, and Canada had Defence Scheme No. 1 - plans for the invasion of each other nation. And drawn up at the time when we were looking at bettering continental defence.
Click to expand...

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/revealed-americas-secret-war-plan-invade-canada-15359

Just to add to how far the contingency plans went, here is a story about the US plan for war with Canada.
 
Doubt said:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/revealed-americas-secret-war-plan-invade-canada-15359

Just to add to how far the contingency plans went, here is a story about the US plan for war with Canada.
Click to expand...

I helped formulate, and execute a plan for the British to invade South Carolina. Operation Big Drop Three saw some 2000 soldiers from 2 Para Regiment (and SAS, elements from the 82nd, 101st, 10th Mountain, AF TACP and Rangers). This was the largest deployment of British forces to North America since 1814 (and worked much better for them than New Orleans).

We constantly plan for operations, some likely, some contingency, some purely fictional (invading or defending notional countries). This is all to maintain and improve our ability to plan and carry out operations when needed.
 
It's fair to say that Roosevelt was certainly doing his best to provoke the Germans in 1940-41, especially with the activities of the US Navy in the Atlantic. Thing is this could hardly have been a surprise to Hitler who expected the USA to support Britain from the outset, which makes it all the more ludicrous that he started a war with no plan as to how to defeat either of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom