Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

WW2 Misconceptions

ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 2:56:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Post any you think people have wrong. Here's mine.....

"Most of the French army didn't surrender with the government"
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 3:29:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 2:56:38 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
Post any you think people have wrong. Here's mine.....

"Most of the French army didn't surrender with the government"

"We have been defeated. We are beaten; we have lost the battle." Churchill, attempting to offer some comfort to Reynaud, reminded the Prime Minister of all the times the Germans had broken through the Allied lines in World War I only to be stopped.

French Cowardness, which led to surrender

"O" est la masse de manoeuvre?" ["Where is the strategic reserve?"] that had saved Paris in the First World War. "Aucune" ["There is none"] Gamelin replied. After the war, Gamelin claimed his response was "There is no longer any."

French Pessimism, even if they had tonnes of reserves.

The best and most modern French armies had been sent north and lost in the resulting encirclement; the French had also lost much of their heavy weaponry and their best armoured formations.


How the French literally left their guns.

lol France.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:00:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 3:32:43 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
Here's mines:

"The advance to Stalingrad after Blue was easy"

What?
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:47:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:00:41 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/18/2014 3:32:43 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
Here's mines:

"The advance to Stalingrad after Blue was easy"

What?

After the splitting of Army Group South into Army Group A and Army Group B, these two army groups were to carry Case Blue. Army Group B was tasked with advancing down south to capture the Oil Fields, while A was tasked with capturing Stalingrad. The advance of A to Stalingrad wasn't easy, but it was steady. Stiff, but disorganized resistance was by A.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:54:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The war wasn't just thought in Europe and South East Asia (It was fought in Iran, New Guinea, Bhutan, Madagascar, and ever Greenland)
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
YouMonster
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 9:39:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 3:29:32 AM, Kc1999 wrote:

"We have been defeated. We are beaten; we have lost the battle." Churchill, attempting to offer some comfort to Reynaud, reminded the Prime Minister of all the times the Germans had broken through the Allied lines in World War I only to be stopped.

None of those breakthroughs were anywhere close to the one in WW2.
French Cowardness, which led to surrender

"O" est la masse de manoeuvre?" ["Where is the strategic reserve?"] that had saved Paris in the First World War. "Aucune" ["There is none"] Gamelin replied. After the war, Gamelin claimed his response was "There is no longer any."
How is that cowardice? There reserves were used in the fight. Strategic mistake yes but not cowardice.

French Pessimism, even if they had tonnes of reserves.

The best and most modern French armies had been sent north and lost in the resulting encirclement; the French had also lost much of their heavy weaponry and their best armoured formations.


This is pretty ridiculous. The French had become encircled. They had to retreat, and in case you didn't know, heavy weaopnry is exactly that, heavy, and many of the armored divisions became cut off from supply.

How the French literally left their guns.

lol France.

Honestly, people know so little of how France was defeated its awful.
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 10:42:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 9:39:13 PM, YouMonster wrote:
At 6/18/2014 3:29:32 AM, Kc1999 wrote:

"We have been defeated. We are beaten; we have lost the battle." Churchill, attempting to offer some comfort to Reynaud, reminded the Prime Minister of all the times the Germans had broken through the Allied lines in World War I only to be stopped.

None of those breakthroughs were anywhere close to the one in WW2.

True story. But keep in mind, even with the Tommies in for the help, the French still had low morale, which led to surrender.

French Cowardness, which led to surrender

"O" est la masse de manoeuvre?" ["Where is the strategic reserve?"] that had saved Paris in the First World War. "Aucune" ["There is none"] Gamelin replied. After the war, Gamelin claimed his response was "There is no longer any."
How is that cowardice? There reserves were used in the fight. Strategic mistake yes but not cowardice.

No. They had tons of response. Apart from this, if France had the guts to attack the Germans when they attacked Belgium and Netherlands, then the war would have been won, IN 1940, as all of Germany's forces were invested into Belgium and Netherlands. If the French had a bit more guts to fight, then hell yeh, they would have won the war.


French Pessimism, even if they had tonnes of reserves.

The best and most modern French armies had been sent north and lost in the resulting encirclement; the French had also lost much of their heavy weaponry and their best armoured formations.


This is pretty ridiculous. The French had become encircled. They had to retreat, and in case you didn't know, heavy weaopnry is exactly that, heavy, and many of the armored divisions became cut off from supply.

No my friend. The French had some hopes, in fact, a lot of hopes of escaping the encirclement. Apart from this, if the French deployed more B1s, the German would have been severly f***** up in the arse, as the B1s was one of the only French tanks that could penetrate the PzKampwagen IV.


How the French literally left their guns.

lol France.

Honestly, people know so little of how France was defeated its awful.

Is it? Kay brah, if the French tactical mistakes are too less for you, then:

1,900,000 Allied soldiers, almost entirely French, were captured during the Battle of France.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
YouMonster
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 9:36:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 10:42:55 PM, Kc1999 wrote:

True story. But keep in mind, even with the Tommies in for the help, the French still had low morale, which led to surrender.
This was less to due with them being French and more due to political infighting, unwanted conscription, and the legacy of WW1. The British did not have very high morle either, just more so than the French because they were more unified politically and did not suffer as greatly during WW1.


No. They had tons of response. Apart from this, if France had the guts to attack the Germans when they attacked Belgium and Netherlands, then the war would have been won,
No, they did not. Most of the professional army was eliminated in the blitz, and all that remained were conscripts. These conscripts, poorly trained and forced into service, were much more inferior in their tasks. The reserves were used up trying to defeat the Germans. By the time France realized they needed more reserves, it was too late.
IN 1940, as all of Germany's forces were invested into Belgium and Netherlands. If the French had a bit more guts to fight, then hell yeh, they would have won the war.
Not at all true. When Germany invaded Belgium and the Netherlands(they invaded both countries simultaneously) France did indeed attempt to send forces into Belgium. However, because of strict Belgian neutrality any military planning that happened before the war was done in secret and against the Belgian government. As it turned out, Belgian defenses were extremely inadequate and the only sensible decision was for Belgian, Dutch, and French forces to fall back to the defenses they had built at the Franco-Belgian border.


No my friend. The French had some hopes, in fact, a lot of hopes of escaping the encirclement. Apart from this, if the French deployed more B1s, the German would have been severly f***** up in the arse, as the B1s was one of the only French tanks that could penetrate the PzKampwagen IV.
You see the problem here was that French politics before the war made this very hard to do. The French tanks were, in fat, superior to the German Panzers. However, the industrial buildup before the war was a disaster. Conservatives and Fascists attempted to destroy the power of unions. Liberals tried to reject state intervention and privatize the production. Socialists, Social Democrats, and Communists(who couldn't agree with each other) attempted to pass labor reforms and strengthen the power of unions through strikes. Airplane, tank, and weapons production plummeted as a result.

There is also the fact that the concept of separate armored divisions was a rather radical concept unique to Germany. France, with the exception of de Gaulle, who was a junior officer at the time, believed that tanks best served as infantry support rather than their own divisions. This was proven to be a terrible idea during the war but it was too late to change French military doctrine from the ground up.

1,900,000 Allied soldiers, almost entirely French, were captured during the Battle of France.
Captured after the surrender of the French government, not during the encirclement.
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 10:26:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 9:36:22 AM, YouMonster wrote:
At 6/21/2014 10:42:55 PM, Kc1999 wrote:

True story. But keep in mind, even with the Tommies in for the help, the French still had low morale, which led to surrender.
This was less to due with them being French and more due to political infighting, unwanted conscription, and the legacy of WW1. The British did not have very high morle either, just more so than the French because they were more unified politically and did not suffer as greatly during WW1.

That is my point. France had no stomach for fighting.



No. They had tons of response. Apart from this, if France had the guts to attack the Germans when they attacked Belgium and Netherlands, then the war would have been won,
No, they did not. Most of the professional army was eliminated in the blitz, and all that remained were conscripts. These conscripts, poorly trained and forced into service, were much more inferior in their tasks. The reserves were used up trying to defeat the Germans. By the time France realized they needed more reserves, it was too late.
IN 1940, as all of Germany's forces were invested into Belgium and Netherlands. If the French had a bit more guts to fight, then hell yeh, they would have won the war.
Not at all true. When Germany invaded Belgium and the Netherlands(they invaded both countries simultaneously) France did indeed attempt to send forces into Belgium. However, because of strict Belgian neutrality any military planning that happened before the war was done in secret and against the Belgian government. As it turned out, Belgian defenses were extremely inadequate and the only sensible decision was for Belgian, Dutch, and French forces to fall back to the defenses they had built at the Franco-Belgian border.

Right here, I'm saying if the French launched a massive offensive, then Germany would have fallen.



No my friend. The French had some hopes, in fact, a lot of hopes of escaping the encirclement. Apart from this, if the French deployed more B1s, the German would have been severly f***** up in the arse, as the B1s was one of the only French tanks that could penetrate the PzKampwagen IV.
You see the problem here was that French politics before the war made this very hard to do. The French tanks were, in fat, superior to the German Panzers. However, the industrial buildup before the war was a disaster. Conservatives and Fascists attempted to destroy the power of unions. Liberals tried to reject state intervention and privatize the production. Socialists, Social Democrats, and Communists(who couldn't agree with each other) attempted to pass labor reforms and strengthen the power of unions through strikes. Airplane, tank, and weapons production plummeted as a result.

The SOMUA S-35, a French light tank, was armed with a short 47mm gun, which could 90mm of armor. However, the slope of the 88mm armor of the Panzerkampfwagen IV literally means that all shells would bounce off. 90mm was a statistic for the tungsten rod rounds too. With normal rounds, SOMUA S-35 could penetrate 52mm of armor, far inadequate to the Panzerkampfwagen's armor. Let us now look at it's mobility; the SOMUA could go up to 37kp/h, while the Pnzr IV could go up to 42kp/h, with a higher operational endurance than the SOMUA.


There is also the fact that the concept of separate armored divisions was a rather radical concept unique to Germany. France, with the exception of de Gaulle, who was a junior officer at the time, believed that tanks best served as infantry support rather than their own divisions. This was proven to be a terrible idea during the war but it was too late to change French military doctrine from the ground up.

The Soviets also had a similar strategy under Marshall Tuchakevsky, before he was shot by Stalin. The Fritzs described the strategy in the book Achtung! Panzer by Heinz Guiderian. However, I thought the idea was very Clausewitz-ian, and inadequate for the lessons of modern warfare, as apart from Deep Operational Warfare.


1,900,000 Allied soldiers, almost entirely French, were captured during the Battle of France.
Captured after the surrender of the French government, not during the encirclement.

I'm trying to refute post no. 2
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
YouMonster
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 12:54:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 10:26:00 PM, Kc1999 wrote:
That is my point. France had no stomach for fighting.
Perhaps not, but that does not mean they were "cowards". And the political infighting had nothing to do with their "stomach" since it was almost entirely the fault of the politicians.



No. They had tons of response. Apart from this, if France had the guts to attack the Germans when they attacked Belgium and Netherlands, then the war would have been won,

Right here, I'm saying if the French launched a massive offensive, then Germany would have fallen.
The German forces were much more mobile and the terrain of the Low Countries was an armored divisions dream. Without invading Belgium before the war started I don't see what they were supposed to do in that respect.



No my friend. The French had some hopes, in fact, a lot of hopes of escaping the encirclement. Apart from this, if the French deployed more B1s, the German would have been severly f***** up in the arse, as the B1s was one of the only French tanks that could penetrate the PzKampwagen IV.

The SOMUA S-35, a French light tank, was armed with a short 47mm gun, which could 90mm of armor. However, the slope of the 88mm armor of the Panzerkampfwagen IV literally means that all shells would bounce off. 90mm was a statistic for the tungsten rod rounds too. With normal rounds, SOMUA S-35 could penetrate 52mm of armor, far inadequate to the Panzerkampfwagen's armor. Let us now look at it's mobility; the SOMUA could go up to 37kp/h, while the Pnzr IV could go up to 42kp/h, with a higher operational endurance than the SOMUA.
I don't know where you are getting your facts.

"Despite increasing production of the medium Panzer IIIs and IVs prior to the German invasion of France on 10 May 1940, the majority of German tanks were still light types. According to Heinz Guderian, the Wehrmacht invaded France with 523 Panzer Is, 955 Panzer IIs, 349 Panzer IIIs, 278 Panzer IVs, 106 Panzer 35(t)s and 228 Panzer 38(t)s.[58] Through the use of tactical radios[59] and superior tactics, the Germans were able to outmaneuver and defeat French and British armor.[60] However, Panzer IVs armed with the KwK 37 L/24 75-millimetre (2.95 in) tank gun found it difficult to engage French tanks such as Somua S35 and Char B1.[61] The Somua S35 had a maximum armor thickness of 55 mm (2.17 in),[62] while the KwK 37 L/24 could only penetrate 43 mm (1.69 in) at a range of 700 m (2,296.59 ft).[15]"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The SOMUA S35 was optimised to fulfil the latter r"le: it had good speed, an adequate range, a gun powerful enough to easily destroy its two probable opponents: the Soviet BT-7 and the German Panzerkampfwagen III and armour thick enough to be practically immune to the fire of both. So it could carry out deep strategic penetrations and destroy enemy armour reserves trying to prevent them. This is why today the S35 is sometimes described as the best medium tank of the thirties.[1] "
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Panzer 4 was powerful, but it was not in great number nor was its purpose to even fight other tanks.



The Soviets also had a similar strategy under Marshall Tuchakevsky, before he was shot by Stalin. The Fritzs described the strategy in the book Achtung! Panzer by Heinz Guiderian. However, I thought the idea was very Clausewitz-ian, and inadequate for the lessons of modern warfare, as apart from Deep Operational Warfare.
It as the perfet strategy to defeat Poland and France, regardless of its effectiveness on the USSR. German strategists corretly predicted a solid blow to France would take them out of the war quickly, while Poland was weaker and invaded from two sides.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:39:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 2:56:38 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
Post any you think people have wrong. Here's mine.....

"Most of the French army didn't surrender with the government"

I know it's terrible, but this reminds me of a joke I heard on the radio the other day. The joke was disguised as an advertisement, and went something like this: "For Sale - One mint-condition French WW2-era military rifle. Never fired, only dropped once."

One misconception which always amazes me is that most people seem to think that the Allies would have won the war no matter what. If not for a few totally astounding and unexpected defeats on the Axis side (Stalingrad, Midway), it is quite possible that an armistice might have been forced upon the Allies. People forget that small armies can conquer and hold vast territories, as evidenced by Rome, Macedonia, etc.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:42:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's another one. Many people treat vichy france like they weren't a part of the war. They get almost no spotlight as our enemies. Yes, the allies fought Vichy France in several different countries, and within France itself. Yes, the leaders of Vichy France were tried under the same trials as other WW2 leaders.

The same goes for Hungary, who many owe the success in the Balkans to.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:06:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
That Germany had a shot at actually winning.

Paul Kennedy takes this on directly in the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Against any one adversary he might have had a chance. The conic equivalents of GB, Russia, and Germany were roughly even - in such a scenario, German military superiority may very well have lead the day. (Japan more than offset itself by involving itself in China, leaving the Japanese and Americans to gat at each other with the remaining scraps).

The combined weight of Russia, GB, and the US? the economic advantages began telling almost right away. They were losing more men and equipment than they could replace, while not inflicting the same attritional reality on their enemies.

By the end of the war, things like the Allied 1,000 bomber raids with nary a fighter to resist, and the nevi table reality in industrialized modern warfare. Simply put, Germany never had a serious chance of winning WWII.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:22:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another misconception - especially in the West. Japan was aimed primarily at the US.

the bulk of Japan's aggression was aimed at Korea and then China, with eh South Pacific just being low hanging fruit. Had the entire imperial Army been arrayed against the US? Had Japanese Marines hit Pearl Harbor rather than just bombed it? It would have been a FAR more difficult war with both Empires operating at the extreme limits of their logistical capabilities.

The simple fact of the matter is that Japan was bogged down in China. Millions of its Soldiers were locked in brutal racially motivated conflict that was bleeding Japan dry. The rape of Nanking, and the steady flow of atrocity to 'pacify' China have had long term regional effects.

Its why so many countries in Asia are so sensitive to Japanese nationalism. I don't think , especially in the West, we really understand how brutal the Chinese/Korean occupation was. Its hard, having been to Japan, to see Japan in such a horrible light. But China and Korea specifically? They know. And will not soon forget.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 7:01:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:22:31 AM, neutral wrote:
Another misconception - especially in the West. Japan was aimed primarily at the US.

the bulk of Japan's aggression was aimed at Korea and then China, with eh South Pacific just being low hanging fruit. Had the entire imperial Army been arrayed against the US? Had Japanese Marines hit Pearl Harbor rather than just bombed it? It would have been a FAR more difficult war with both Empires operating at the extreme limits of their logistical capabilities.

The simple fact of the matter is that Japan was bogged down in China. Millions of its Soldiers were locked in brutal racially motivated conflict that was bleeding Japan dry. The rape of Nanking, and the steady flow of atrocity to 'pacify' China have had long term regional effects.

Its why so many countries in Asia are so sensitive to Japanese nationalism. I don't think , especially in the West, we really understand how brutal the Chinese/Korean occupation was. Its hard, having been to Japan, to see Japan in such a horrible light. But China and Korea specifically? They know. And will not soon forget.

I agree with this one. Japan extended its attacks as far as India and Australia believe it or not. Hell, they somehow made it all the way to Bhutan.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8