Conduct of battle

[nampigai]

Well Denmark tried to stay neutral so that we could profit on the war nothing to be proud of. When the german forces came they only met a few border guards, and they did nothing. On the other hand Denmark isn't the greates land to defend all flat and not many forrests or obsticles, so if it came to war it would have been a walkover for the german. This isn't am excuse though.

[Mahdi]

I wouldn't feel so bad Feyd, the States remained neutral for the same reason.  They only entered the war when there was no more profit to be had (ww1) and were doing the same n ww2, but then the Japanese attacked them.

[garth]

"Everything I've ever learned says the generals ended the war, the politicians wanted to keep it going."

That's wrong, Luddendorf wanted to continue the war and after  the politicians pushed him to surrender he went home to Germany and started pushing the idea of the "stab in the back theory":  the civilians had betrayed Germany's war effort.  This idea was very popular and helped propel Hitler into power.

"Seeng as the Russians were knocked out of the war by 1915 most of the soldeirs on theeastern front were already in the western trenches, and the allies had numerical superiority including the Germans fighting the Russians."

I don't know where you're getting these dates, the treaty that ended the war between Germany and Russia was signed on March 1918.  Russia was fighting all the way up to then, just not under the Tsar's govt, who abdicated in 1917.

"When the British attacked with one hundred tanks and completly rolled over the Germans, that was when the Germans realized they wre screwed. "

November 21, 1917 - Battle of Cambrai starts

November 23, 1917 - British advanced checked in violent battle of Bourloun Wood

Here's a quote from a German officer about the tanks:

"Armoured vehicles have entered the village, it is found that they are able to conquer ground but not hold it.  In the narrow streets and alleyways they have no free feield for their fire, and their movements are hemmed in on all sides.  The terror they have spread amongst us disappears.  We get to know their weak spots.  A ferocious passion for hunting them down is growing.  We tie several grenades together and make them explode beneath the tanks."

(Martin Gilbert's The First World War, pages 380-381)

He's a british author also.

So much for the German Army running in terror from the tanks LOL!

"In the actual battles the Americans were no differnt than British or French troops, machine gun fodder."

Exactly, they were cannon fodder that were simply overwhelming the Germans with superior numbers.  The Americans certainly helped win the war because before their arrival it was a stalemate, then as soon as they arrived things swung in the Allies' favor.

"The allies already ahd numerical superiority."  

Actually the numbers on the western front were surprisingly balanced, which is why it became a stalemate.  But once again, the Germans had troops ready to pour onto the front from the east.

"The American arrival probably made the Germans morale go down a lot and may ahve helped them to decide to surrender when they did, but they would have surrendered anyway within a month or so."

Not so, as I have already proven those veteran troops hadn't had time to arrive on the Western Front.  I agree absolutely the the American arrival caused the German's morale to go down, but more importantly it broke the spirit of the German civilian.

[Mahdi]

I don't think you've proven anything and I've got arguements agaisnt everything you said, but seeing as neither of us is gong to convince each other or anyone else Is ay we put this arugement to bed.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Do u think The Nazi's would won the War if they conquerd the sovjets early in the war? Thus giving the Japanese some advantage against the Americans

[alejandro]

And do you think The Nazi's would not make the War if they havent tested their weapons in Spain against the Republic goverment, with the allies knowledge and aprovement?

[nampigai]

They thought Franco would help them, but the spanish campaign was more like a test of the strategies and new weopons like you said Alex.

No I don't think they would have won, the german warmachine was really exaguated, and their tanks didn't work very well in Russia.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Russia was the biggest front of Germany, if they were still allied or conquerd them with not much losses, They would have won the war i think. Russia slaughterd alot of Germans in the war when they used that Sneaky Tactic :)

[alejandro]

Franco help them, but only with volunteers to figth against USSR.

But without Hitler and Mussolini support, Franco would lost the war here and Spain wouldl figth on the allies side.

[nampigai]

Yes, but didn't the allies support Franco rather than the communists? I really don't know that much about the spanish civil war

[alejandro]

The allies doesnt make anything. Italy an Germany give Franco, planes, tanks, manpower...

Only USSR helps the republic, and only Mexico sold weapons. There were a lot of volunteers from very diferent countries in thr Republic side, but they wasnt soldiers and has no weapons.

[nampigai]

By not doing anything they kinda sided with Franco in my point of view. They was afraid that spain would have communism, and would like the leader to be more friendly toward the western countries.

[alejandro]

yes, that is true, but if they could know the future, i am sure, they prefer a communist friendly goverment that could help in 1940 in the western front.

[nampigai]

Yes I think they would.

[quoudam72]

The Nazi's should have left England alone and concentrated on Russia. Two fronts in a war splits your forces, I mean he should have either targeted Russia or England. Germany had the pact with Russia about Poland or was it Finland. Hitler should have let his generals be generals. Attacking Russia before winter is insane, Germany should have waited until spring but then again Hitler's plan was to catch them while they were weak. But going after Moscow was about the oil reserves, that could help fuel his war machine. Germany got what was coming defeat.

[nampigai]

It was about splitting Poland, but your right Hitler should have let his generals fight the war instead of thinking of himslef as a military strategist, Luckely he didn't ;D.

[alejandro]

Hitler broke the non-agression pact(half poland for either), if he didnt i am sure he could conquer england, and some time before he can attack USSR, but this is insane in winter, spring or summer.

[quoudam72]

Yeah he failed at Machiavellianismsm 101. Ironic Germany's own aggression was really their own undoing, in certain aspects of WW2.

[nampigai]

Yes you could say that, Noone can fight a two front war, Hitler overestimated himself thinking he was a genius.

[nemafakei]

Damn, I missed a lot.

Hitler lost to Britain because the height of the Blitzkreig didn't work - it wasn't quite enough. In 1940, the tide began to turn - once that had happened, due to his early tactics, Hitler had basically lost.

As to the US, the early trade was certainly useful. By the time people got from the US, D-Day was already in the pipeline, and the US helped merely in shortening the end.

[nampigai]

Also G

[ordos45]

Actually Russia and Nazi Germany had an agreement not to attack each other.  They just broke it.

[muaddib]

the only thing preventing nazi germany to conquer the world was the stupid german high command  with the exeption of a handfull of german generals  all of them were morons that is why they lost the war  if they would have had great generals we would all learn german today bros

[nampigai]

It was Hitler who wanted to be in charge and all he's generals had to accept he's plans, he had some good commanders it's our luck he didn't use them.

[ordos45]

Had Japan not attacked the US we most likely we would not become involved.  The US would have been conquered had Germany have conquered Europe.