Tag Info

New answers tagged

-1

If I read correctly all the answers so far, the only general missed related with this seperate ( not seperate at all but non-seperate in essence, seperate just in pro forma ( only by Soviet's demand on 5/9 )) surrender was Ivan Susloparov then the general in charge at Berin at the day of the signing. But he feared as is quoted below that he tried to sign on ...


6

I found a picture, a newspaper article and a book excerpt about this ship. According to the book the ship was a 5 mast schooner, built in 1918 in Vancouver. It was acquired by German Ministry of Transport in 1939. In 1939 it was named "Kapitän Hilgendorf" (after Robert Hilgendorf). It seems that in 1939 it was only used as stationary school for sailors. ...


7

After some more research I stand by my earlier comment in general the gun ports had minimal protection, relying on small size and being in the shadow of the gun. There is a large amount of negative evidence for this, for example in his books Warrior to Dreadnought, The Grand Fleet and Nelson to Vanguard D. K. Brown does not mention protection to turret gun ...


0

One factor not mentioned in the other answers is this: Those openings are very small relative to both the size of the vehicle and the accuracy at engagement ranges of the weapons trained against it. In other words, chances of the openings being hit are very small indeed, even if deliberately aimed for. Hence they're typically either unarmoured or armoured ...


2

Telling from your pictures of the Yamato and an Iowa-class, the holes were covered from the inside using steel, probably with less thickness than the turret armament. The combat environment of tanks and battleships is different, with battleships receiving more fire from higher elevation angles than tanks. This leaves mostly shrapnel from the deck as a threat ...


0

An interesting fact was that Turkey actually proposed a tripartite alliance against German expansin at Balkans between Turkey, the USSR and Britain. They proposed to attack Germany in case they invaded Romania. But after Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was concluded such alliance became infeasible. The British proposed Turkey to make a bilateral treaty but Turkey ...


1

Had Hitler's plan to conquer both the Caucasus (part of Operation Barbarossa) and British-occupied Palestine (through Rommel) worked, Germany's intent was to link up both forces through Turkey. If Turkey would not have given its consent to German troop movements across its territory, then probably Germany would have attacked Turkey. Both German campaigns ...


1

2 Reasons: 1. Had to do with the early attitude of the Nazis towards moving the German Jews to Palestina. A friendly Turkey would serve the purpose as a large guardian state to keep Palestina in check. 2. Turkey was a muslim state and Hitler sought to galvanize the muslim world against the Jews - the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem would become one of Hitler's ...


1

I don't disagree with what others have said about Finland's actions during the Siege of Leningrad. But I wish to point out that Finland's official war aims in 1941 do not tell the whole story. Finland's official war aims in 1941 were merely to recover the territories lost in the Winter War of 1939-40, but statements by Finnish politicians reveal that ...


0

This pistol had specific Cyrillic alphabet marking for the army, Latin alphabet marking for Police - "Policijski", Officer marking - "Oficirski" Etc. and specific name: "Vojno-Drzavni pistolj" - "Military-State pistol" http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/FN_Model_1922_1653.jpg http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_1910/22_Vojno-dr%C5%BEavni


4

Well, I happened to be native Japanese. Simply saying, the answer is because the relationship after the WW1, Japanese Imperial Army aggressively started invading China ( Second-Sino War )., which had them expanded so deep into China, whereas, the U.S and its allies were pressuring more and more on Japanese about it. ( Even Imperial Japan relied heavily on ...


6

The Night of the Long Knives was undertaken to pacify the GENERALS and officers of the German Army, not the soldiers. The problem arose because Hitler's private "army," the S.A., was actually larger than the official army of 100,000 men permitted by the Versailles Treaty. So the leaders of the S.A. demanded that the less-numerous army be placed under them. ...


4

You (or your history professors) are overly concerned with the sexual orientation and/or criminal tendencies of the SA leadership. And you make the curious assumption (or seem to) that homosexuals and paedophiles aren't to be found in the aristocracy. Yes, the German Army, with its aristocratic leadership, wanted the SA neutered. But only because it was ...


5

One intriguing use of the term "blowback" I've seen was from Bob Woodward's Veil. In propaganda terms, he used it to indicate a situation where lies told to further US interests "blew back" into US intelligence gathering, causing the US to believe their own lies. When that happens you think you know the truth when you actually do not, which can lead to ...


5

I am sorry, but as a German I must dismiss your precondition that "the Germans" hoped for a separate peace. To the best of my knowledge the Germans were in general not aware of that idea because it sounds ridiculous. Hitler had the ideological view of Lebensraum in the East, the submission of the Slavs and the enemy image of Bolshevism. There were several ...


6

I think you answered your own question. The Western Allies indeed never wavered from the doctrine of "unconditional surrender". However, some Germans did try for a separate peace and those attempts were sufficiently worrisome for the SU - even though they were soundly rebuffed both times: Canaris 1943: In 1943, while in occupied France, Canaris is ...


12

Let me illustrate @StuartAllan's answer: if they hear "Japanese castle", people think about this: And while that is pretty and impressive, it will of course be a heap of smoking rubble after no more than a few hits from a battleship's guns. But what the attacking military is really up against is this: and laying waste to it is gonna take some time... ...


3

During Russian-Japan war and WWI the Japan wanted to be a member of the "civilized" nations club. And often behaved according to its rules. During the WWII, Japan already was the member of a very different club, the German-Italy-Japan alliance, that STRUGGLED against that old club and its rules were despised or neglected at best.


24

This is probably a slightly garbled account of the destruction of Shuri Castle in Okinawa. During the Second World War's Battle of Okinawa, the battleship USS Mississippi shelled the historical Ryukyu palace for three days prior to its capture by US marines. At 0718 on May 25, the Mississippi began a murderous onslaught with her 5 and 14-inch guns that ...


6

I do not know of this incident. Check naval archives or with a librarian in naval archives. This does, however, seem highly likely. The castle itself would be a smoldering ruin (as it was almost entirely wood, designed in such a way to better absorb earthquakes). The stone/Earthwork, on the other hand, would be extremely resilient to artillery fire. Getting ...


0

hitler would have gone two ways if the Russians got a hold of him-slow torture trial then death if the western allies got him trial at nurmeburg most likely death by hanging


2

When all is said and done though, with the advent of accurate and more deadly weapons across the war fighting spectrum, movement was the key to survival. Also completely wrong. Throughout WW2 well dug-in defending troops had a large advantage over mobile ones - something like a 3 to 1 firepower advantage was required for attacks to succeed. Fixed defenses ...


2

Germany Invented the "Storm Trooper" This is the reason that trench warfare ended in 1918. This is complete nonsense. The Stormtroopers were not effective (hint: the Germans LOST the war!) What happened was that (see my previous answer) the Germans stopped trying to make holes in the enemy lines through which logistics could pass and instead had the ...


3

Re. Blitzkrieg: this is History Channel nonsense. Read the German Army's own analysis, "Legend Of Blitzkrieg" - http://www.usni.org/store/books/history/blitzkrieg-legend - which would probably have been called MYTH of Blitzkrieg, but the title was already taken. The rapid fall of France was due not to firepower concentration and mobility but to several low ...


3

Germany Invented the "Storm Trooper" This is the reason that trench warfare ended in 1918. They were desperate for a new tactic and left the trenches behind. Storm Troopers were poised on critical offensive goals that would have detrimental effect on enemy positions. Therefore abandoning the defensive trench strategy. It had nothing directly related to ...


-1

Hitler actually wanted his generals to attack and capture Turkey but his generals changed his mind. They could capture Istanbul but that's it...if German army entered Anatolia, they would be annihilated in a matter of weeks. Turks proved how they fight by beating England and France in Dardanelles. after 8 months of fierce fighting, Brits had to run away ...


0

As Oldcat said, no, Hitler had no plan for defeating the US outright. He didn't need to have one. It was enough that he believed that the Japan had one, and could carry it on up to victory. Thus, his declaration of war against the US was a strategic move, very similar to the declaration of war by the UK to Japan at about the same time. Churchill explains ...


10

The short answer is Finland had no official involvement in the siege of Leningrad. They did have a significant indirect involvement, however. Also, the Finns did do what little they could in an unofficial manor in regards to helping individuals who came to their border looking for food. What they could do didn’t amount to much but they were in a no-win ...


4

The decrypted "Ultra" evidence revealed in "Marching Orders" suggests just the opposite: that the Japanese were more likely to attack Soviet Siberia if the Germans were successful in the Soviet Union, e.g. at Moscow, Stalingrad and/or the Caucasus, than if they attacked the United States. Therefore, in theory, Hitler should have concentrated his arms ...


0

In 1942, the western Allies were not nearly as concerned about an eventual Soviet victory as they were about an imminent Soviet collapse that would have left North America, South America and the British Isles alone against the Axis. They were too weak help the Soviet Union directly with an attack in western Europe, but what they did do was helpful all the ...


8

Fitting to your understanding, the stated purposes of Finland's involvement with Germany in the Siege of Leningrad was to regain lost lands from the Winter's War. To this end, they didn't participate in the direct siege far beyond the pre-war border, by Mannenheim's orders. However, they did aid the Germans in blockading Russia's supply routes. Had peace ...


11

No, tanks are not, evolving strategy for using new technology was. A quick look at the Principles of War as espoused in many military doctrines over time and across the globe (and usually posited as timeless) shows a focus on how to achieve a goal. A few key points among these lists are maneuver and initiative. In other words, warfare is about getting ...


3

Toward the end of the war, both sides (but more to the German side) were finding that defense in depth gave them the best option to reserve man power. Rather than a static line of defense, it used a mixture of strong points and pretargeted artillery killing fields. Let the other side attack, defense takes losses and pulls back to the next defensive strong ...


27

Yet another concurring (tanks were important, but not the only reason), but different, answer. Already at the end of WWI, the tactics for trench assault had improved. Instead of just swarming enemy trenches with infantry, weak points were exploited and strongholds bypassed. The role and nature of artillery support also changed. The barrages that lasted ...


2

This definition of "Blitzkrieg" explains the reason for the abandonment of trench warfare. "Blitzkrieg is a German term describing a method of warfare whereby an attacking force spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorized or mechanized infantry formations, and heavily backed up by close air support, forces a breakthrough into the enemy's ...


6

I agree with Alex, I would add up a big point, I wanted to comment it, but it became bigger. Appearance of mass parachute also made trech warfare useless. In the time when the enemy could cross only through the sea and trenches they didn't expect double front battle from trenches, but when it was possible to parachute troops beyond the trenches there were ...


7

Tanks were an important factor but not the only one. Among other factors are: Increased mobility (automobile transport, self-propelled artillery). This made possible large encirclement operations which were so common in WWII. The front can be broken in weak points and entrenched troops can be cut off. Second. Aviation is not just "another kind of ...


0

England and the Soviet Union had huge stockpiles of chemical weapons. There was a joint statement from Stalin and Churchill essentially confirming that they would observe the convention prohibiting them, unless Germany used them first. If Germany did use them, they promised to drown its cities in iprite. :-) The Soviets did not have the technical capability ...


-1

The Japs got their asses handed to them at Kalkin Gol in 1939. They had no defense against Russian armored warfare. Also, Hitler had made alliance with Stalin in 1939. Also, the Japs were completely distracted by fighting the Chinese.


1

Hitler did, in fact, go to war with Italy, de facto, if not de jure. His "excuse" was to restore the "rightful" Italian government (under Mussolini). This was after the Italians rebelled and went over to the allies in 1943. If the Axis had been winning, the Italians might have rebelled (against Mussolini) anyway, because of the hardships of the war. In ...


0

I think most of you are passing by the real answers. I don't think Finance is about where you create work, business, etc. It's about LENDING money. Who was lending money to Hitler. Regulars Companies are too small to lend that huge amount of money. The only companies that were able to were the Banks. I read an interesting article, well sourced, about ...


3

Two Problems There are really two issues you raise: 1) The contrast in the American voice (I limit myself to diplomatic and political, since the press was arguably equally anti-Japanese and anti-German) of condemnation of Japanese aggression, versus the lack of same against Germany 2) The apparent contrast in severity of provisions against Japan (in case ...


3

I don't know where you got the idea that the US was more "vocal against" Japan than the Axis powers. I picked a random week in 1938 (July 15-21) and looked at all the stories on page 1 of the New York Times. There were 8 negative stories on the Axis and 3 negative stories on Japan. And remember this was a time when Japan was actively attacking China, but ...



Top 50 recent answers are included