Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 8th, 2018, 01:05 PM   #11
hop
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 772

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
Germany, Europe's biggest motor and vehicle manufacturer of pre WW2 era had to demotorize its army because of the lack of oil.

Germany wasn't the biggest vehicle manufacturer in Europe, the UK was. Between 1933 and 1938 German vehicle production was 1,526,000, the UK's 2,447,000 (Source: War and Economy in the Third Reich, Richard Overy). In 1935 there were 45 vehicles per 1,000 people in the UK, 16 in Germany (same source). Germany never motorised their economy or armed forces to a great extent because their oil position was always poor.
hop is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 8th, 2018, 04:11 PM   #12

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,817

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
I think Russia was too weak to oppose the Germans on his own economic and technological strength. It was the mighty USA, who bombed Germany to the ground.
While important for the liberation of Western Europe, it's a bit hard to say that American bombing was a major decisive factor in turning the tide against the Axis, considering that the first US raid on Germany wasn't until 1943, by which time the war was all but unwinnable for the Axis.

History.com - Jan 27 1943: Americans bomb Germans for first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by hop View Post
Germany wasn't the biggest vehicle manufacturer in Europe, the UK was. Between 1933 and 1938 German vehicle production was 1,526,000, the UK's 2,447,000 .
Is that UK (only) vehicle manufacture?
Does it give a figure for the British Empire?

Last edited by Lord Fairfax; July 8th, 2018 at 04:16 PM.
Lord Fairfax is online now  
Old July 9th, 2018, 12:39 AM   #13
hop
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 772

It's UK only. Canada built 890,000 vehicles in the same period. No other Empire countries are listed.
hop is offline  
Old July 9th, 2018, 01:05 AM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,509

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fairfax View Post
While important for the liberation of Western Europe, it's a bit hard to say that American bombing was a major decisive factor in turning the tide against the Axis, considering that the first US raid on Germany wasn't until 1943, by which time the war was all but unwinnable for the Axis.

In terms of manufacturing output certainly. This was still at 80% when the Allies crossed the Rhine, according to Speer.

It is no small matter of debate as to the effect of diverting large numbers of the 88mm flak guns with their crews to the home front rather than deploying them, in equally large numbers on the battle front. It was also a hugely effective anti tank gun. Operation Pointblank, where the USAF and RAF agreed to act as a combined force started in March 1943. The famous tank battle at Kurst was in July and August of that year. The effect of the redeployment in that time is what is debated.
authun is offline  
Old July 9th, 2018, 01:44 AM   #15

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,502

Excuses.
It was surely a contributing factor. But I should think trying to fight Soviets, British Empire and USA all at the same time would be the main reason. The German army were not invincible Uber warriors and could handle the number of commitments they had.
Edric Streona is offline  
Old July 9th, 2018, 04:58 AM   #16
hop
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 772

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
I donít know about Dunkirk. Maybe the presenter is right about the Panzer Halt order. Iíve heard the arguments on both sides of this issue and still donít know enough to make up my mind.

The Dunkirk theory doesn't really make sense. If the plan was to allow Britain to evacuate the troops, why did the Luftwaffe mount a maximum strength effort that killed large numbers of evacuating soldiers and sank as many ships as possible? Why did the Germans then begin further attacks on the pocket as the evacuation proceeded?


The alternative, of cutting off the evacuation, and capturing 300,000 troops, seems far more likely to result in a peace deal. 300,000 British prisoners and 250,000 fewer soldiers in Britain strengthens the German hand in peace negotiations.
hop is offline  
Old July 9th, 2018, 05:16 AM   #17
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,509

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
It was surely a contributing factor. But I should think trying to fight Soviets, British Empire and USA all at the same time would be the main reason.
The irony is that the geopolitics of Karl Haushofer called for unity between Japan and Germany and good relations with Russia, in order to break the stranglehold on the worlds oil supplies, American naval presence in the Pacific and the British naval presence in the Indian and Atlantic oceans. Haushofer was most influential with Rudolf Hess though the extent of his influence on Hitler was not as great. Haushofer's influence on Hitler was mostly via his erstwhile student Hess who helped Hitler write Mein Kampf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Haushofer

The most recent book about him.

The Demon of Geopolitics. How Karl Haushofer educated Hitler and Hess.

https://www.europenowjournal.org/201...lger-h-herwig/
authun is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 06:00 AM   #18
Dir
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Kyiv
Posts: 1,169

Wehrmacht widely used horses in the WW II. The Germans constantly lacked trucks in the war. And the old Ukrainians remembered the endless German horse trains at that time. Here is one of them in the center of Kiev at the current Maidan. This is the first day of the German occupation of Kiev, and residents are watching with interest the German soldiers and their horse carts.

Click the image to open in full size.

Against this background half a million army trucks and jeeps delivered to Russians by the US and England under Lend-Lease in that war were absolutely critical for Russia. They provided the Russians with a significant transport superiority over the Germans.

Russia itself at that time did not produce specialized military trucks at all.

Last edited by Dir; July 12th, 2018 at 06:09 AM.
Dir is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 07:59 AM   #19
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 9,147

Quote:
Originally Posted by hop View Post
The Dunkirk theory doesn't really make sense. If the plan was to allow Britain to evacuate the troops, why did the Luftwaffe mount a maximum strength effort that killed large numbers of evacuating soldiers and sank as many ships as possible? Why did the Germans then begin further attacks on the pocket as the evacuation proceeded?


The alternative, of cutting off the evacuation, and capturing 300,000 troops, seems far more likely to result in a peace deal. 300,000 British prisoners and 250,000 fewer soldiers in Britain strengthens the German hand in peace negotiations.
I think youíre right about this.
royal744 is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 09:34 AM   #20
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,078

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
Yes.

The reason was the Red Army.
This. Oil was definitely a consideration, but Germany was defeated because they strategically failed to defeat the Soviets.

The Germans knew a chief purpose of invading the Soviet Union was not only an ideological or ethnic war but over natural resources. But did Barbarossa reflect that? No. If fuel was such a major concern their operational planning should have reflected that, instead it was the complete opposite, with three massive penetrations into Soviet territory where operational goals were vague at best, completely unrealistic, and which changed constantly as the operation progressed because reality got in the way.

The Germans should have just bum rushed the Caucuses, maybe that would have worked, they'd have gotten the oil and the Soviets would have lost their primary supply. But even then, Germans would still probably have failed. Nobody wins invading Russia, its just too big.
aggienation is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
defeat, demotorization, forced, german, main, oil, reason, video



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Main factors for German defeat in WW2? Prussian War and Military History 53 April 22nd, 2017 11:10 PM
Main reason the Romans lost Adrianople? Mrbsct Ancient History 15 July 1st, 2014 02:33 AM
The main reason for the fall of the Qing? Jake10 Asian History 29 March 11th, 2012 05:39 PM
what do you think was the main reason for WWI ? ekinokswest War and Military History 10 November 16th, 2011 07:26 AM
What was the most important reason for the German defeat in 1918? c.parsons War and Military History 70 June 12th, 2011 05:46 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.