Stalingrad :Was the order given not to retreat correct?

[Minimalist]

Hitler also tried that "no-retreat" crap at Moscow and El Alamein. Didn't work there, either.

Kind of a dick move.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hitler also tried that "no-retreat" crap at Moscow and El Alamein. Didn't work there, either.

Kind of a dick move.

Part of the trouble was the German concept of staff command - when 'staff' consisted of a gabble of political cronies with minimal military expertise. The world should be grateful that German tactical successes weren't back up by any significant strategic or political acumen.

Boru

[Minimalist]

They may have been better off had they stuck with that model.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-histo...no-retreat

n this day, in one of his first acts as the new commander in chief of the German army, Adolf Hitler informs General Franz Halder that there will be no retreating from the Russian front near Moscow. "The will to hold out must be brought home to every unit!"

Halder was also informed that he could stay on as chief of the general army staff if he so chose, but only with the understanding that Hitler alone was in charge of the army's movements and strategies.

[Artur Axmann]

The Wehrmacht was never prepared to fight for the long term. Blitz

worked in Poland and France and remained as the model. Barbarossa

had mosly elements of former blitz operations. Remember, Fuhrer's

orders were to finish Russia in 90 days.

El Alamaine was a tactical gambit designed to control the med from the east end ;since franco refused to allow Wehrmacht to kick the Brits off Gibraltar.

Moscow failed ,more due to General Winter and made a n orderly retreat impossible.

All orders to hold in place proved correct in hindsight.

[Minimalist]

That must be why they lost the war, then?

[DeistPaladin]

That must be why they lost the war, then?

A failure to learn from history.

"We've established a Third Reich"

"What happened to the first one?"

"We fought a war with the combined forces of the world and lost."

"What happened to the second one?"

"We fought a war with the combined forces of the world and lost."

"OK, so what's the plan now?"

"We're going to fight a war with the combined forces of the world and hope it works out this time."

(See also "the South shall rise again" and "building democracy in the Middle East just like we did in South East Asia")

At the end of the day, Germany is not that big a country. It doesn't matter how shiny your modern weapons are, how disciplined your troops or how brilliant your generals. Eventually, you bite off more than you can chew, nationalistic resistance groups bleed you from within your empire, the rest of the world unites against you and you finally run out of manpower and production.

The very fact that Germany was able to make either World War a close contest or even a lengthy war at all is a testimony to how well they could fight.

[Artur Axmann]

That must be why they lost the war, then?

A failure to learn from history.

"We've established a Third Reich"

"What happened to the first one?"

"We fought a war with the combined forces of the world and lost."

"What happened to the second one?"

"We fought a war with the combined forces of the world and lost."

"OK, so what's the plan now?"

"We're going to fight a war with the combined forces of the world and hope it works out this time."

(See also "the South shall rise again" and "building democracy in the Middle East just like we did in South East Asia")

At the end of the day, Germany is not that big a country. It doesn't matter how shiny your modern weapons are, how disciplined your troops or how brilliant your generals. Eventually, you bite off more than you can chew, nationalistic resistance groups bleed you from within your empire, the rest of the world unites against you and you finally run out of manpower and production.

The very fact that Germany was able to make either World War a close contest or even a lengthy war at all is a testimony to how well they could fight.

that's if you concede to what you claim..

Was Germany totally the guilty party in the first WW ? I don't think so.

Was Germany over reaching by trying to rectify the Versalles Treaty. ?

Remember England and France declared war on Germany in 39 and not the other way round.

[DeistPaladin]

Was Germany totally the guilty party in the first WW ? I don't think so.

A fair point. And actually, I agree to a large extent.

If a nation were to assassinate the vice president of the United States, there's no question what we as Americans would do. That said, the Kaiser W was, in my view, the German analog to George W Bush, a trigger happy idiot who's solution to every problem was unilateral and preemptive military action. Fortunately for us, the consequences were far less grave for America.

While I don't fault Germany for the first world war, there were steps they could have taken to mind their diplomatic relations so as to minimize their enemies. Bismark had a better understanding of how to promote Germany as a power not just through military might but through "softer" expressions of power that come through negotiations.

My point is that Germany lost the first world war not because they lacked a kick-ass war machine (they certainly did have that going for them) but because they took on too many enemies at once and their war machine eventually ran out of men and steam. Their justifications for being at war is beside that point.

Was Germany over reaching by trying to rectify the Versalles Treaty. ?

The Versailles Treaty was a rape, I will grant you that, one that I was horrified by when I read it. Even Churchill offered only a half-hearted defense of it, writing about how passions had run high over the terrible cost of the war.

It was also, in my opinion, the greatest tragedy of human history. We failed at a real opportunity to establish an equitable peace and a stable democracy in Germany. The war ended when the Kaiser was overthrown and the fledgling Wiemar Republic sued for peace. It would have been far better to not punish a people for what a dictator had done.

But once again, all this is beside my point. Germany didn't lose WWII for want of a kick-ass war machine. They lost because they took on too many countries at once.

No nation can take on the world.

Hopefully, we Americans won't have to learn that one the hard way.

[DeistPaladin]

...as an aside, I think that's why America was so reluctant to enter WWII until it came to our doorstep. We entered WWI with such high ideals of "making the world safe for democracy". Our grief was with the Kaiser, not the German people. President Wilson even said so at the time.

And then we saw what actually came of the end of the war and it was just another war for land and treasure. I don't think we even signed the Versailles Treaty. We just went back into isolation again, being "disillusioned" of world politics. That may be why we were so slow to get involved the second time around.

[Artur Axmann]

Was Germany totally the guilty party in the first WW ? I don't think so.

A fair point. And actually, I agree to a large extent.

If a nation were to assassinate the vice president of the United States, there's no question what we as Americans would do. That said, the Kaiser W was, in my view, the German analog to George W Bush, a trigger happy idiot who's solution to every problem was unilateral and preemptive military action. Fortunately for us, the consequences were far less grave for America.

While I don't fault Germany for the first world war, there were steps they could have taken to mind their diplomatic relations so as to minimize their enemies. Bismark had a better understanding of how to promote Germany as a power not just through military might but through "softer" expressions of power that come through negotiations.

My point is that Germany lost the first world war not because they lacked a kick-ass war machine (they certainly did have that going for them) but because they took on too many enemies at once and their war machine eventually ran out of men and steam. Their justifications for being at war is beside that point.

Was Germany over reaching by trying to rectify the Versalles Treaty. ?

The Versailles Treaty was a rape, I will grant you that, one that I was horrified by when I read it. Even Churchill offered only a half-hearted defense of it, writing about how passions had run high over the terrible cost of the war.

It was also, in my opinion, the greatest tragedy of human history. We failed at a real opportunity to establish an equitable peace and a stable democracy in Germany. The war ended when the Kaiser was overthrown and the fledgling Wiemar Republic sued for peace. It would have been far better to not punish a people for what a dictator had done.

But once again, all this is beside my point. Germany didn't lose WWII for want of a kick-ass war machine. They lost because they took on too many countries at once.

No nation can take on the world.

Hopefully, we Americans won't have to learn that one the hard way.

Thank you for your upbeat assessment of america's future.

but you didn't consider much of what I wrote. Germany did not declare war on England and france in 39..

Did Germany take on these countries or did they take on Germany.

I mean ,why thrust a world war on a smaller country for trying to recover stolen territory or over the status of one city?

What exactly did a "dictator" do that any American president would not be obliged to do ;and that is to recover states that were forcibly taken at gun point. ?

The threat of war is for cowards to consider.