WWII Deaths

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Williams

Unconventional technology.

Actually, what is sort of amusing here is that you are echoing Hitler's own belief. He was completely convinced, until the bitter end, that something miraculous would happen to turn around Germany's steady losses. They really went nowhere but backwards starting from the losses at Stalingrad (Feb 1943) and North Africa (May 1943).

For two years, Hitler thought that some technological breakthrough or SOMETHING would save Germany. Between those two battles though, the Germans lost well over a million men killed, wounded or captured, and never really recovered. From there, it was nothing but a long, slow, painful series of strategic losses with occasional limited tactical victories.

And no technology the Germans were then working on was going to reverse that trend.

[Aspengc8]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Actually, what is sort of amusing here is that you are echoing Hitler's own belief. He was completely convinced, until the bitter end, that something miraculous would happen to turn around Germany's steady losses. They really went nowhere but backwards starting from the losses at Stalingrad (Feb 1943) and North Africa (May 1943).

For two years, Hitler thought that some technological breakthrough or SOMETHING would save Germany. Between those two battles though, the Germans lost well over a million men killed, wounded or captured, and never really recovered. From there, it was nothing but a long, slow, painful series of strategic losses with occasional limited tactical victories.

And no technology the Germans were then working on was going to reverse that trend.

This. Hitler was an idiot and pretty much ignored any sound military advice given to him by his generals. His forces were spread too thin. If his generals killed him, it may have been a different outcome. My grandfather was a B-24 navigator, and told me some pretty crazy stories. He also said that if Hitler wasnt so tunnel visioned, they probably couldn't have landed on the beaches. He also told me a crazy story that the US was didn't want to really deploy, and that the british ended up sinking some american ships and blamed it on the germans to force us into it. German forces knew they were spread to thin to defend a landing and did NOT want us to deploy. Just food for thought.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Aspengc8

This. Hitler was an idiot and pretty much ignored any sound military advice given to him by his generals. His forces were spread too thin. If his generals killed him, it may have been a different outcome.

Let's unpack your post, since it's got some separate concepts going on.

First, the above. "Hitler was an idiot" is waaay too broad a statement. In many ways, yes he was. In at least some ways (for example, adopting von Manstein's invasion plan for France over the objections of more senior generals) he was a genius. In all ways he was ****ing mass-murdering psychopath.

However you have to take the "good" with the bad. If it wasn't for Hitler, Germany never would have controlled basically ALL of Europe at one point in time. If it wasn't for Hitler, maybe they could have held it longer.

My grandfather was a B-24 navigator, and told me some pretty crazy stories. He also said that if Hitler wasnt so tunnel visioned, they probably couldn't have landed on the beaches.

Well, questionable. The real issue wasn't so much landing, as Rommel did most all that could be done to prevent a landing, but rather whether the Allies could have been repulsed by, for example, an earlier release of the tanks around Pas de Calais to counterattack.

I dont' attribute that so much to Hitler being an idiot or tunnel-visioned, but rather the success of the Allied efforts to confuse/misdirect the Germans.

He also told me a crazy story that the US was didn't want to really deploy, and that the british ended up sinking some american ships and blamed it on the germans to force us into it. German forces knew they were spread to thin to defend a landing and did NOT want us to deploy. Just food for thought.

Too vague. Deploy what, when? You mean launch the actual D-Day attack? If so, do you mean launch it literally ON THAT DAY, or launch it in general?

I've read quite a bit on this stuff, between Churchill's (very self-serving) six volume World War II history to Alanbrooke's diaries (which are superb) and books on Marshall and Roosevelt, but need more information on what the story is here.