Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
Ah yes, the mighty Maginot line... One of the most foolish strategic mistakes in history.
|
Probably
Quote:
Now this isn't true. Hitler wanted all of Europe. He could have never successfully occupied it all, but he wanted it. And he despised the Swiss:
"Hitler himself denounced the Swiss repeatedly as "despicable and wretched", "misbegotten", "renegades", "repugnant", "a pimple on the face of Europe" which "cannot be allowed to continue". (Stalin couldn't stand them either.)
The Fuehrer despised their purely defensive military philosophy: "An army whose only goal is to secure peace" is craven, he said. "In addition to all the other characteristics of the Swiss that Hitler disliked," Halbrook adds, "he hated them because of their free market capitalism, which he associated with Judaism." The ever-abusive Voelkischer Beobachter resorted to the epithet "Berg-Semiten": mountain Jews."
|
Well, that might be all true, but it does not change my point that conquering Switzerland was of pretty little to no strategical value for the Germans. They might have made it a task after WWII. But even then I doubt it would have paid of to make a mountain war where little can be gained and only much can be lost in such a bad terrain that can be defended so efficiently. It just did not pay off.
Quote:
I will agree with that point, BUT that still doesn't change the fact that the Nazis were not a true threat to control all of Europe for decades, or to control the world.
Hitler could have never conquered the world. Why? Because...NO NATION HAS THE ECONOMIC CAPABILITY OF SUSTAINING A WORLD-WIDE OCCUPATION. No population would work under the taxes to fund such a "machine". Also, the superiority of the German army was based on several myths. The facts are that Hitler was being routed on the Eastern front after the beginning on 1942. German factories couldn't meet the demands of the troops with equipment and supplies, as they were running low on almost everything due mainly to the severe Russian winter. Hitler had been so confident of his ability to defeat the Russians he had ordered cutbacks in war production in 1941, this from a supposedly brilliant leader.
|
Well, why talking about reigning the world? Lets start with Europe. I think that was principally a possible task. Even though excluding Russia from this task would have helped a lot.
Quote:
|
The following quotes are from "World War 2, The Rest of the Story" by Richard Maybury: "A little known fact is that the Germans actually had two armies. One was the high tech mechanized force you have seen so often in movies. The aircraft, tanks, and artilleries are impressive, no doubt about it. But this force was small. It was only the tip of the spear. The rest of the spear, the main body of the army, was foot soldiers and horses. Yes, horses. When Hitler's massive invasion force was poised on the Soviet frontier in June 1941, it was at its peak. Lined up ready to strike at Stalin were 3,350 tanks. And 650,000 horses. Hollywood devotes a lot of film to the tanks, but how often have you seen the thousands of horses? Most of the horses were used as substitutes for trucks, but the Germans did have a horse cavalry division that was thrown against the Russians. (In contrast) when the British and Americans invaded Normandy in June 1944, they were fully mechanized, while the German army was still dependent on 1,250,000 horses."
|
The support units where largely horse based indeed, due to a lack of resources to support a fully motorized Wehrmacht. At the very front all the modern stuff was used. For fighting Partisans it would have been stupid to waste ultra modern units, as you did not need heavy arms to fight them, they were of rather little use in fact against them.
Anyway, I am not sure what you argument is here. The German Reich was without any doubt the militarily most powerful country in Europe. The fact that it could lead a war for about 6 years against such a large number of not small enemy countries, should prove this. Of course much of this power was aquired by sufferage and death of others, but I dont want to defend the German Reich anyway. It was the best thing that happened in the 20th century that it lost this war.
My Grandfather who fought himself on the east Front said to himself during the war, that if there is a god in heave, Germany has to loose this war.... and he fought for the Wehrmacht.
Quote:
|
No one has ever truly conquered the world. Taking it and holding it are two different things. Even the Roman Empire didn't control the entire world. The "Pax Romana" was a myth--there was actually no such thing. There were constant insurrections, revolutions, uprisings, assassinations, and all manner of violence. There was never any true lasting peace or freedom. It's an historical illusion. To say that the Romans ruled the world is false and it never really happened that way. That's why I say no one can conquer the world in a complete and lasting way--especially a centralized or socialized economy.
|
Who claims that the Romans ruled the world? They did however rule their empire. Those ancient empires where of course no monolithic blooks of course. But its quite telling when even 1500 years after the downfall of the Western Roman Empire, one can clearly see their heritage in those regions they ruled, at least in Europe.
Of course they could succeed in certain things and of course they could weaken them and be a pain in the ass. But they could not stop a large army in full move.
Quote:
|
Because Hitler despised them and wanted to conquer all of Europe. He wanted all of Europe and he wanted to turn Berlin into Germania - the capital of Europe.
|
Also Hitler did not act free from any ration. He might have liked to have seen Switzerland being part of the Reich at some point in the future, but that clearly had time and was no priority at all as Switzerland did pose not much strategical worth at all.