At what point did German defeat in WW2 become inevitable?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sikander


Maybe they shouldn't make peace, but it's a huge strategic blow nonetheless. For starters how about axis submarines loosed in the Persian Gulf and all over the Indian Ocean?

And where do these additional subs come from? If they pull them from the Atlantic, theyre doing the Brits a favor, as they do much more damage there. In the Indian Ocean the brits will fight them with convoys and air power, kill lots of subs. Trying to run subs past Aden should be a lot of fun too - not. And if the brits ever feel overstretched on asw, they can always pull planes from bomber command.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yep, taking Egypt would have cut the British Empire in half. That would have been both a strategic and morale blow big time.

how does this cut the empire in half? They were in communication with India and the East via Good Hope, NOT via Suez. The Suez route was too dangerous cause of axis air in the central Med.


It would be a morale blow, but not a huge strategic blow.

[lord of the mark]

gad, none of you people read SHWI, do you?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


there was no appeasement camp anymore in 1942. the last gasp for that was the attempt by Musso to mediate in 1940, and even Chamberlain opposed that (though Halifax didnt) If Churchill falls in 1942 the new UK govt continues the war. There was PLENTY of criticism of WSC, especially after the Greek disaster, but no important critics calling for peace.

What happened was the appeasement lobby was conveniently air brushed out of history. Noone after the war was going to admit that they thought Britain should seek terms in 1941 or 42. Just as those who complained about the blitz kept mum after the war. Churchill was booed in that period and couldn't go into parts of the East end of London, or other cities. Of course this is all forgotten now.

Churchill fell into a deep depression during that period because he heard the dog whistle.

This also explains why Churchill sacked 8th army commander after commander - he needed success badly for political reasons. The loss of Egypt and the canal would probably have finished him.

[Ecthy]

yeah, but at what point became Polish defeat inevitable?

[Alexander's Horse]

day 2

[Ecthy]

heh, and why only day 2 of all.... of all 28?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


What happened was the appeasement lobby was conveniently air brushed out of history. Noone after the war was going to admit that they thought Britain should seek terms in 1941 or 42. Just as those who complained about the blitz kept mum after the war. Churchill was booed in that period and couldn't go into parts of the East end of London, or other cities. Of course this is all forgotten now.

Churchill fell into a deep depression during that period because he heard the dog whistle.

This also explains why Churchill sacked 8th army commander after commander - he needed success badly for political reasons. The loss of Egypt and the canal would probably have finished him.

theres plenty of evidence that there was dissatisfaction with WSC. Thats NOT whats being disputed (ISTR PM Menzies fell during the war. Australia did NOT appease anyone or make a seperate peace. Now do you see the difference?) What evidence do you have for any major UK pol being pro-peace, post July 1940?

[Alexander's Horse]

Actually the major evidence, which is only coming to light now, is Churchill's own letters and diaries, and those of other cabinet members.

I expect that once the WWII generation has passed on there will be some revision of this period of history. The crucial period is from 1940 through to the turning point victory at El Alamein in October 1942. This was a very dark period for Britain.

This is still a very sensitive subject so not much is written about it yet.

[Capt Dizle]

I can't read this whole thread but I credit Franco for standing up to Hitler. Had he supported ole Adolph's desire to control the Rock, well, England would have been in a pretty pickle and things could have turned out quite differently than they did.

[Alexander's Horse]

Hitler met Franco once and never put any real pressure on him to allow the transit of German troops to take Gibraltar. This was a major strategic error.

[Dr Strangelove]

Franco was too busy obsessing over little boys in short pants to effectively participate in the axis. That just goes to show what kind of talent fascism attracts.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander



Another large reason that we suffered so many infantry casualties was our "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" mentality at all levels. If anything the grunts learned more quickly to try and bypass strongpoints and take terrain with maneuver than the brass did, though with so many green units being fed into the meatgrinder and no successful means of disseminating this information to incoming units everyone pretty much had to learn the hard way. Ike's insistence on pushing the Germans back step by step rather than attacking the shoulders of "the bulge" caused a huge number of infantry casualties, and still mystifies me to this day. Patton was exactly right about this. Attack the shoulders and they'll fall all over themselves giving away the terrain that took months and tens of thousands of casualties to regain. And we'd have bled them a lot more in the process.

This very scene is played out in Thin Red Line when Nick Nolte orders a platoon over the middle against 3 machine guns the guys can't even see.

The LT. in charge wants to flank it and refuses the order. Nolte calls him a coward and sends him home, but the LT. was right and he saved his entire platoon.

Of course the machine guns stopped firing when Nolte arrived on the scene to see what was going on.

[Alexander's Horse]

While we're on the subject of Rommel, OKW did not resource him for offensive operations. That is the real reason he couldn't take Egypt, not supply problems. His mission was to stiffen up the Italians and help them hold Libya. He exceeded his orders by undertaking offensive operations and Halder considered disciplining him or even removing him from command. He was seen as a show pony by his fellow general staff officers but was enjoyed a meteoric career because of Hitler's patronage and the myth Goebbels built around him, the desert fox and all that BS. Churchill also had motive to build him up because he used it to show how well the British forces were doing holding him off.

There was a brief period in 1942 when the German army was advancing into the Caucasus when some sort of giant pincer movement from Russia and Africa was briefly dreamed of but Rommel never received the resources to carry out his end and the tide of war quickly turned against Germany in Russia and that was that.

Its fortunate really because even one decent German infantry corps could have shifted the balance in Rommel's favour. There was a rough parity of forces, about 7 divisions each, for most of the desert war so taking Egypt was always a bit of a pipedream in spite of all Rommel's fancy moves. As soon as the resources shifted against him, which was in the second half of 42, he was finished.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



how does this cut the empire in half? They were in communication with India and the East via Good Hope, NOT via Suez. The Suez route was too dangerous cause of axis air in the central Med.


It would be a morale blow, but not a huge strategic blow.

I'm not sure I agree.

There were 3 wars fought over that canal since 1950, and alot of oil ships through it to this day.

I have no hard data on what was being shipped in 1940 UK, but it's a looong way around the Cape to Britain. And on top of that, it's strategically right in the middle of Africa and the Middle East, cutting off most of the UK's colonial possessions from it, or at least making shipping much much harder to undertake.