Pelican Parts Forums - Why Was V-E Day In 1945 And Not 1944?

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Why Was V-E Day In 1945 And Not 1944? (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/495745-why-v-e-day-1945-not-1944-a.html)

HUH? Half truths and revisonist history....

That was a very good post MRM.

History is always easy to judge with 20/20 hindsight. Not too easy to do in the heat of battle.

History rule #1

You cannot accurately judge the past with today's knowledge or values.

Other than No. 1 and the "fog of war" the consclusions drawn are capital B and Capital S.....

Ohh yeah....Hitler didn't drink Bier, he was a VEGGIE.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabs (Post 4914712)

Other than No. 1 and the "fog of war" the consclusions drawn are capital B and Capital S.....

Ohh yeah....Hitler didn't drink Bier, he was a VEGGIE.....

According to eyewitnesses, he did drink the occasional beer. You might want to research that. Not drinking beer has nothing to do with being a vegetarian.

Also agree that was a thoughtful post MRM - even if some points are arguable.

As for some of the others:

And the award for troll of the year goes to....
- No Imma let you finish....but Fast Paste was the best troll of the past few years....

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRM (Post 4914496)

The question of why V-E Day wasn't in 1944 instead of 1945 can be answered in about five parts. I'm just going off the top of my head, so if I'm wrong on some detail, I am sure someone will correct me.

First: the fog of war. All battles in all wars are completely F-ed up fiascos. SNAFU and FUBAR are GI slang for a reason. All battles are FUBAR. One side makes fewer mistakes, or their mistakes balance each other out and that side comes up the decisive winner. In retrospect it's easy to see how a move here or there would have made a decisive difference and saved or cost millions of lives. But battles can't be judged that way. They have to be evaluated in context. That includes having the bombs burst around your ears and having incomplete or faulty information.

All plans go out the window once the battle or campaign starts..or as the immutable Vincent says, "Now we gotta make the best of it, improvise, adapt to the environment, Darwin, **** happens, I Ching, whatever man, we gotta roll with it."

Second, the Allies had material superiority and knew it would win a set piece war that ground down the enemy as long as the Axis didn't pull off the one-in-a-million long shot to cut off the western front (much like the Inchon landing or Yorktown). To avoid that one-in-a-million defeat, calls for such a war to be fought conservatively. That is, you plan your action based on the worst your enemy can do to you, not what you actually think he will do. This makes you much more conservative but ensures victory.
the first thing Churchill said after Pearl in December of 1941, was that the Allies would win the war, because of the American Arsenal of Democracy." This was a given. FM Rommel knew that given Allied Air Superiority the Germans would have to stop the invasion on the beaches and that D Day would be The Longest Day. The Germans could have stopped the invasion on the first day if they moved quick enough with the single Panzer division in the area of Normandy. Thus the Allies were gambling on D Day and the weather.. Ike even wrote a note about taking the blame for the invasions failure

Third, as a subset of two, the Allies knew they had more men than the Axis had bullets. Perhaps not literally, but you get the point. The Allies could afford to lose a tank more than the Axis could afford to lose the anti-tank shell that it cost to kill the Allied tank. The Allies could take their time, lose men and battles, but once they were established on the mainland, they would prevail as long as they weren't overrun, simply because the German would run out of gas, bullets, spare parts and food before the Allies would run out of ground, men and material.

Keitle told Guderian in 1943 that Germany was losing 150,000 men a month without fighting a major battle and could only replace 75,000 a month, thus a war of attrition would lose the war for Germany..

Fourth, concentration of force was the watchword of the Allies. This is one of the prime rules of warfare. The Allies always made sure they concentrated their forces before attacking. Again, this made the Allies extremely conservative and by failing to rush into battle immediately, time and time again they forfeited the initiative and gave the Axis time to get over their shock, regroup and dig in. A prime example in Anzio. For all who are Pink Floyd fans, the way The High Command took Daddy from me is pretty accurate. If the Allies had attacked immediately, they would have hit panicked and demoralized troops. Instead, they massed their forces over three or four days, iirc, and drove straight into regrouped and reinforced troops that were now well dug in and supplied. Sure, the Allies won and the cost to the Axis was far worse than the casualties to the Allies, but a less conservative immediate attack would probably have saved lives and scored great territorial gains at minimal cost.

Anzio was a cluster fk on the part of the Allied commander. He was chastised at the time for not taking the INIATIVE, the road to Rome was open. The Germans did real well at Monte Casino, causing far more casualties than if the Allies had exploited the landings at Anzio. It caused the whole Itie campaign to bog down until the very end of the war. The Allies certainly didn't take the "conservative" approach in the Pacific, nor in the Allied daylight bombing campaign

Likewise, if Market-Garden had been pushed harder, faster and jumped off a week earlier, Ike probably would have been drinking Hitler's beer in the Eagle's nest by Christmas 1944. But that wasn't the Allied way; conservative tactics with zero long term risk, trading men for the certainty of eventual victory was the way the war was won.
Market Garden was all about RISK. Monte's great gamble.Conversely Monte at Normandy didn't push hard enough, and was chided for it by the Americans

Even at the Battle of the Bulge, if the Allies had been on the offensive a day before the Axis attack, the breakout probably would have been averted and the war would have been shortened considerably.

The Americans were attacking in the Hurtgen Forest the day the Hitler launched his Last Gamble in the Ardennes

And finally, the failure to defeat the Axis decisively in 1944 is attributable to Field marshal Model's efforts and decision to fight the best, most professional defensive war possible, and make the Allies pay for every step with blood, even though he knew the Axis could not win as soon as it was clear that the Normandy landing was successful. In the weeks and first month or so after Normandy, the Germans were completely demoralized, confused and running. Hitler sacked three (iirc) field marshals in quick order, before returning to Model. Model reorganized the entire defense, put iron in the spine of the Army, and turned what was at that time a rout into a bloody set-piece battle.

Von Rundstedt, Rommel and Kleist...Rommel was wounded and implicated in the July 20Th plot, Kleist put a bullet in his head, because he was about to be implicated in the plot. Model came on board after the Falaise pocket collapsed and the Germans ran faster back to Germany then the Allies could keep up. Model was a good NAZI who Hitler could trust, at the end Model put a bullet in his head.

I'm sure there are a few things I'm overlooking, but that's pretty much the overview. Of course, all of this assumes a Normandy invasion of 1944 instead of 1943, but the decision to go into North Africa instead of opening the second front on the continent is a subject best left to another post. The short answer was that the Allies didn't have the landing craft available to ensure the landing would be successful. The long story involves Stalin, the Eastern front, so forth and so on and back to the Treaty of Versailles. And that goes back to . . . well Adam and Eve. But that's a different topic all together :)

Churchill wanted to open the second front in the Balkans, the Allies could not let the Axis have the Med as their own lake, and had to end the threat to the Suez. The US troops were Green. The Allies didn't have air superiority over the continent as they did in the middle of 1944. Patton in Africa, Sicily and again in France after the breakout and again at the Bulge showed that initiative was what it took. The Allies invaded Italy to help knock Italy out of the war, tie up German troops in Italy in part to help the Soviets on the Eastern front.

Your conclusions about being a "set piece" war fought "conservatively" by the Western Allies is revisionist. The daylight bombing campaign, Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal throws your whole argument out the window.

The problem for the Allies is that at Normandy they were pouring men into a funnel, and at the outset would be their weakest point. As they would have fewer men and resources then the Germans. This it was a gamble. Given a beachhead and time they could build up their forces to out muscle the Germans. Rommel knew it. The Germans stripped everything in the hinterland to reinforce their lines at Normandy. It took the Allies apx 2 months of heavy fighting to slog their way through the Germans. Once the dam gave way they collapsed back to Germany and it was only the lack of supply that kept the Allies from keeping up with the running Germans.

The Germans were a tough determined foe, who kept on fighting long after the outcome was determined.

heres the bottom line:

if donuts(doenitz) had more u-boats england would be in german hands period.

had the allies(dont want to ferget the canadians) not been able to supply england all was lost for europa. including any and all invasions.

now please look at how material was sent. by airplane? NO. by submarines? NO. sleds pulled by poodles across the frozen tundra? NO.

merchant ships.

and had doenitz had more subs as i had mentioned, before i was rudely poo'ed on by a certain poodle-phile, there would be no discussion on france or any other hysterical follies of certain generals or countries.

up until 1943 u-boats operated with impunity within sight of u.s. shores. in case some of you dont realize, sinkings,infiltrations by spys was kept hush hush by war dept.

example: woman and her kids killed by balloon pacific northwest with bomb floating over jet stream from japan was kept MEGA HUSH HUSH!

i doubt some of you realize the islands of the carib-bean,let alone eastern seaboard, were absolute meccas for sinking cargo ships by the u-boats. crews would lounge on deck, and not waste torpedoes and sink merchant ships with deck guns for target practice and general nazi"feel good" principle. this was called by the crews "the good times". u-boats would pull up to islands for freeking r&r, the pickings were so good. no allies to bother them. NONE!

if you take a good look after 1943 how many u-boats were sunk along u.s. coast and in carib-bean, you should thank u.s. technological anti-sub advances for europe not being given up as a goner.

the island of barbados was smack dab in the vortex of this action. one emboldened kapitan spied a merchant ship doing the classic ziggy-zaggy and pursued it. merchant ship was heading for bridgetown harbor. harbor had torpedo nets. nets opened for merchant ship, then closed, while on surface kaptian, yells "vier torpedo los" 2 torpedos blow nets, one hits merchant ship and blows bow off to hell, and 4th torpedo runs up onto beach and is now in bridgetown barbados museum. i scubee dove on that world war II merchant ships bow, in bridgetown harbor. ship was righted, new bow installed and then sailed on murmansk run and was sunk by a u-boat!

how much bolder can you get? u-boats in plain sight of a armed enemy harbor, blowing hell out of anything that moved.

the figures i have read are if donuts(doenitz) had double the number of submarines, we quite possibly if not fer sure, be singing a different tune here.

and the french, well they had spies all thru the islands held in the carib-bean, obviously helping the allied war effort. and thats from some real live people that lived thru WWII on barbados. and they were not english, and they were not americans, they were real live bajans, with really big white teeth....and very very dark skinned. ie. natives.

now if that doesnt freeze yer huevos, the turks and caicos islands were heavy duty shell oil, as well as south america which isnt that far away. nazi u boats fired on refineries with deck guns, and made a real point of sending a hell of alot of tankers to davy jones locker. any questions please check any u-boat.com map and you will grab yer ass and thank buddah you were not on a tanker pre-1943!

so...........with that aside once again we have the question?????

how was the war won?

it sure as hell wasnt french destroyers dropping depth charges, off the carib-bean/eastern u.s. seaboard

it sure as hell wasnt french aircraft dropping depth charges, off the carib-bean/eastern u.s. seaboard.

it was allied(not french) industrial might. theres no room here to bicker about that.

the technology was not as far off as you think, whereby u-boats could go undetected and pack a hell of a big whup ass stick. and put the permanent hurt on the u.s.

please go to u-boat.com and count how many u-boats sunk and how many merchant ships were sunk off the u.s. and carib-bean alone!

without u.s. merchant ships the war in europe/afrika/italia was over. gawd i hate to rewrite history. there goes 25 more pins into my voodoo doll likeness, and probably a coupla more keyboards smashed to poo.

yes thru enigma/and a comedy of errors in the allies favor , we managed to pull it off. we were very very very lucky. dont fool yourselves.

One of Daddy's best friends was a Dirigible pilot stationed in the Caribbean...on anti-sub patrol during the Great Patriotic War.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCF (Post 4914177)

If the French were Americans (and had the Atlantic, or at least the Channel between them and a vastly superior force) .....
If in 1812 the British were not more concerned about the French we might have been English once again.
If the French didn't finance and supply (and to an extent) fight our Revolution for us we would [still be] British.

That may be the greatest concentration of if's i've ever seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPKESQ (Post 4913811)

Again, one sad chapter from part of a nation, applies to the entire nation?

Apply that to America and see where you end up in conclusion.

BTW, Nazis marched in at least 10 European contries capitals which surrendered during the first half of WWII. France held out longer than any of the others (except Britian), why don't you brand the others cowards? The double standard is clear.

When have i lauded the great fighting spirit or performance of the low countries? Or Norway? Any country that surrenders outright without a serious defensive attempt to hold at least it's capitol is obviously in the same boat as the French.

Conversely, the Poles fought damn hard and inflicted severe casualties on the vastly more technologically advanced Nazi air and mechanized invasion forces that attacked them. The Brit and Russian and for that matter the German defensive efforts and the fighting spirit of thier people and leadership when confronted with the Nazi menace, their backs against the wall...are the stuff of legend.

France does not get to sit at that table of legendary WWII nations, nor do the low countries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charleskieffner (Post 4915003)

yes thru enigma/and a comedy of errors in the allies favor , we managed to pull it off. we were very very very lucky. dont fool yourselves.

Charles,
Much of what you write is coloured by your obvious narrow minded bias...but here you are spot on....regardless of what we think happened and why, luck, whether 'we' made it or not, played a huge part in the outcome.

Churchill knew it in 1940....and knew that in order to win Lady Luck had to encourage to stay on the Allied side.....

Question re: The French fleet:

Why, instead of scuttling, didn't they steam the ships to England, or to the US/Canada (dicey, with the u-boats, I guess)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcar (Post 4916787)

Question re: The French fleet:

Why, instead of scuttling, didn't they steam the ships to England, or to the US/Canada (dicey, with the u-boats, I guess)?

Churchill wondered the same thing many times. If they'd have joined the RN fleet that came to assail them in Algiers they would have even had an escort back to the UK.

But that did not happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MFAFF (Post 4915308)

i was pulling my narrow minded pud thru that one............

hey does this mean i get a entire french fleet as a " consolation" prize?

"why did the french sink 30+ ships?"

"i'd go with door numba #1 monte." (monte hall)

here we go....................................

well as any fine french admiral knows you ALWAYS keep your ships all bunched up in a harbor that the opposing side just may invade and capture.

it makes NO SENSE AT ALL to move your ships thruout the med or atlantic, and keep them safe from opposing airpower/subs/surface fleet/suicidal kamikaze poodles.

it does make sense to refuel your fleet in a harbor that may be invaded and captured by an opposing enemy.

my best educated pud pulling guess was they just liked that port of call and dropped in for some vino, some coiffures for their poodles, a lil lipstick on the ol dipstick, and just wanted to chat at a nice corner cafe and discuss politics. the foremost topic being "WHO THE HELLS SIDE ARE WE ON????"

obviously the vino ran out/the frapp-a-chinos ran out, the poodles ran away with french history professors, AND TIME RAN OUT for an INTELLIGENT DECISION BY THE FRENCH ADMIRALS!

i cant think of anything more embarassing than being an admiral of a fleet and scuttling all of them. now that is UBER PUD PULLING!

at least capn hans langsdorff(graf spee-commited suicide-imagine what that german pistole is worth?) had an excuse with battle damage and a host of british ships breathing down his neck outside the river plate!

man i had to run to wiki-pudia to confirm...................

a total of 77 ships destroyed by the french!

if i was a french poodle or even a skunk like pepe le pew.........i would be ashamed!

and the KICKER! they had enough fuel to get to algiers.

ya just got to love those vichy, always looking out for their countrymen.

the coolest thing about this debacle..............was the french ships started shooting the panzers. NOW THAT I WOULD PAY TO WATCH!

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21sniper (Post 4915262)

That may be the greatest concentration of if's i've ever seen.

Ifs ands and buts - isn't that what this thread is all about ? ;)

LOL, i suppose it is. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcar (Post 4916787)

Question re: The French fleet:

Why, instead of scuttling, didn't they steam the ships to England, or to the US/Canada (dicey, with the u-boats, I guess)?

There were a variety of reasons, some reasonable, some not.

No air cover, these ships were extremely venerable to air attack. Germany had plenty of airpower to sink them if they tried to run. Britain could not supply air cover for them for most of the trip. Resulting dilemma: should we lose the ships in a suicide run or keep the ships safe for France in harbor.

After all, plans were already in place to prevent the Germans from acquiring use of these ships. Remember Vichy France was a non-occupied country for some time and did not follow much of what the Nazis were commanding in Northern France.

This strange truce with Germany that allowed Vichy to attempt to remain independent from Occupied France was in reality a pipedream, but a pipedream that at least initially seem to work and protect large numbers of the French population from Germany, and this included Vichy's Naval assets. No other occupied country had succeeded in obtaining such a truce, at the time the French government thought it was the best solution. They were wrong, but which government has never been wrong?

Many in Vichy France sought to resist the Germans at every opportunity and that increased after the Germans occupied Vichy France. When your government leaders fail you, there is little outright overt combat that a civilian population can do. A study of warfare in history will show you that.

In the North the French navy fought heroically to help with the Dunkirk evacuation and to support Allied actions.

Remember, judging history from the outside is not very accurate. What would you do when you saw countries repeatedly fall to the Nazis with great loss of life (and many civilian deaths) and their capitals laid waste, in such a short period of time? The British did not make any better decisions in France then the French did. They repeatedly lost to the Germans and could not stand fast (and that was the "professional British Army, all their best units). Anyone who swears they would fight to the end in the exact conditions that France had in May 1940 is untruthful or deluded at best and downright lying at worst.

To say that Britain survived because of courage is blatantly wrong in the sense that courage was all it took.

They survived because of two things (one would not help, they required both to survive):

21 miles of rough sea and the foresight (and courage) of Fighter Command.

With at least one of those benefits, no other country had the luxury of enjoying.