WWII–-75th ANNIVERSARY DISCUSSION--#32---MARCH 1942

Today is the 100th anniversary of the launch of the British battlecruiser HMS Hood, the Royal Navy’s largest warship during the interwar period, sunk by the Bismarck in 1941, and (much later) the inspiration for the A&A 1941 Allied battleship sculpt.  The BBC story…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-45270946

…mentions that Hood’s round-the-world cruise in 1923-1924 included a stopover in Canada; I’ve attached below a photo of Hood anchored off Quebec City, with the easily-recognized Chateau Frontenac Hotel (site of the 1943 Quebec Conference involving Churchill, Roosevelt and Canadian Prime Minister King) in the background.
HMS Hood Quebec City 19 August-2 September 1924.jpg

at the start of the battle, the german OKH had two options. Both where considered. They had a very limited capacity to transport vital supplies to the front. They had enough to send the ammunition and fuel for a drive on Moscow without winter equipment. Or, they could send the  winter equipment, fuel and ammunition that was needed for defensive operations. They chose to send ammunition and fuel, but no winter coats. This resulted in the disaster in front of Moscow, and the loss of a lot of the elite leadership of the german army. I believe the only reasonable choice would be to realize that the campaign could not be won in 41 and plan for a 42 campaign. Instead they decided to launch a battle with the potential to lose to war.

Note that the typical Allied excuse for terror bombings and mass aerial exterminations of German and Japanese civilians was that such actions might “shorten the war” and “save the lives of Allied servicemen.” Had FDR cooperated with the German generals who’d wanted to overthrow Hitler, he could have shortened the war in Europe by two years, and saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Allied servicemen. FDR was not interested in shortening the war, or in saving the lives of Allied servicemen (black ants). Nor was he interested in preventing Soviet hegemony in the postwar world (which the German generals’ plan might also have accomplished).

No. They needed Hitler alive to guarantee victory, to kill him would result in some smarter leader taking over and extending the war. Thats why they didn’t kill him in 1940. Read your History. Heydrich was killed because he was too dangerous. Same reason they didn’t kill Goering. They just had to bomb the nearest Shakey’s Buffet, but they didn’t. That fat idiot was the best weapon the Allies had. And Carpet Bombing is not “extermination”. Gets the facts straight. Hitler destroyed Rotterdam for nothing as well as many other cities by bombing.

Mussolini (and many others) thought the war all but won by Germany - hence the quote you post. From that starting point, with his political views and territorial aspirations, declaring war was an easy decision.

When you say “at this day and age” I think you mean with the largely pro-facist Italian mindset of 1940? So ignoring hindsight and my own morality?

Please clarify RJL.

Thanks
PP

@KurtGodel7:

As you pointed out, actually capturing the city was unnecessary. But having captured the city, Hitler was very determined to hold onto it. Abandoning it would have presumably meant having to recapture it later; and once again suffering that same 1:1 ratio during the recapture.

One thing I’m wondering: why would Germany have to (or even want to) recapture at great cost a city that it was unnecessary (and indeed counterproductive) to capture in the first place?

Can you move your Triple A test post to software or play games area please?

Nürnberg is full of it…

the Trials the Colloseum Zeppelinfield Race laws Julius Streicher Bombing raids parts of the 4th Panzer - Division ( Wehrkreis Würzburg/Nürnberg) SS barracks went into Merryl-barracks used by the American Forces now used for Refugees

I also visited KZ- Dachau but only a tenth of the Konzentration Camp remains as well as Bergen Belsen…
I was once in the Wevelsburg for a tour…
and last but not least Berlin when the Wall was still up…

@ABWorsham:

I wonder how a Germany ruled by the Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm would have faired had WWI been just a large Balkan Conflict?

I think quite well.  The breakup of the Austrian-Hungary empire would probably have happened in which case I think Austria becomes very politically tied to Germany (perhaps it even becomes part of Germany).  Either way (or even without Austria) Germany would be the economic leader of Europe by the mid 1950’s.