Ask me anything about WWII

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What target do you think was best for Hitler to attack first (instead of all at the same time) for Operation Barbarossa; Leningrad, the Ukrane, or Moscow?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not really sure about this. I know that the Moscow was not important from a military perspective, but Hitler insisted on it over the objections of his generals. Barbarossa likely would have succeeded were it not for the freak winter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barbarossa likely would have succeeded if it were launched within the original timeframe, and if Italy would have refrained from invading Greece. The Italians failed so miserably at taking Greece that the Germans had to divert troops earmarked for Barbarossa to help bail out the Italians in Greece.

Germany had advised Italy against attacking Greece, but Mussolini insisted that Greece could only put up a token resistance. Such was not the case. In some instances, the under-equipped Greeks, resorted to biting off noses and ears of the Italian attackers as the figting drew in close. The Italian soldiers were (understandably) freaked out by the Greeks determined defense and were not able to effectively complete the invasion without the aid of the Germans.

[WhoIam]

[ QUOTE ]

How freakish was that winter?

[/ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly, it was one of the worst of the 20th century. The Germans were also poorly prepared and equipped to deal with it as their invasion projections were extremely overoptimistic.

[MacGuyV]

What were Hitler's overall feelings on the US/UK? Obv. he didn't despise them as much as Russians/Jews; and respected that many of its citizens had 'German blood'. How were non-Jewish American POW's treated? The Japanese were worse in this respect; correct?

I read a book in college that basically said Churchill was a fraud; and not much less of a wuss than Chamberlin. Thoughts?

My history prof. - (Polish guy who hated England) said something like 25% of French males (of a select age group I don't remember) died in WWI. Would you agree that France takes too much crap for their military performance and not enough crap for being anti-semetic?

[JaredL]

Is it basically known for certain that it was the Nazi's that burned the Reichstag so they could blame the communists?

How different would WWII have been had the US supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War?

[WhoIam]

[ QUOTE ]
Hm I thought that was the opposite conclusion that the author of "a world at arms" came to - that is the german intentions in regards to the UK and America.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not familiar with that book, but the Nazi regime considered the Anglosphere to be Aryan and therefore pointless to fight with. They were more concerned with obtaining lebensraum (living space) from "inferior races," especially slavs.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How accurate is Band of Brothers?

Favorite World War II movie that isn't Patton or Saving Private Ryan?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've only seen bits of BoB and obviously didn't fight in WWII so I'm not sure of the accuracy.

My favorite WWII movie would probably be a German movie called "The Bridge." It's about 16 year olds who are drafted into the army in the closing days of the war. I happened to see it when I was 16 and found it very disturbing. The other standout that comes to mind is another German movie "Oberst Reidl." For something slightly more upbeat, there's a movie about a Jewish kid who is sent to an elite aryan school, captured by the Russians, then recaptured by the Germans. It's supposedly based on a true story, though the name escapes me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The books is completely accurate. The author, Steven Ambrose, is considered one of the best (if not the best) WWII historians. (He passed away a few years ago). Many of his books even feature interviews with German soldiers, and materials from non-Allied sources.

The movie is very true to the book, but some minor changes were made to make the story flow better. For example, some characters (like Blyth) are composite characters. The real Blyth was injured by a shot to the neck, but he survived the war, unlike the one in the movie.

- Otherwise, you are watching a true story.

[LuckOfTheDraw]

[ QUOTE ]
How accurate is Band of Brothers?


[/ QUOTE ]

It sticks very close to the book. And, as far as I can tell, the book is fairly historically accurate. The only possible embelishment comes from the mouths of the soldiers, not from the author collecting the information.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How freakish was that winter?

[/ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly, it was one of the worst of the 20th century. The Germans were also poorly prepared and equipped to deal with it as their invasion projections were extremely overoptimistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the original invasion was supposed to launch at least three months' earlier. It was delayed as the Germans were bogged down in the Balkans.

As the winter set in, Hitler refused to allow winter provisions to be sent forward as 1) he was dillusional (or over-optimistic as was put by the OP) about the invasions' progress; 2) he was of the belief that his troops would be more motivated to complete the operation before the "real" winter set in (think Bill Murray in Caddyshack "I don't think the heavy stuff is going to come down for awhile.")

[WhoIam]

[ QUOTE ]
What were Hitler's overall feelings on the US/UK? Obv. he didn't despise them as much as Russians/Jews; and respected that many of its citizens had 'German blood'. How were non-Jewish American POW's treated? The Japanese were worse in this respect; correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
See below. American POWs were treated well on the whole, but obviously there are exceptions.

[ QUOTE ]
I read a book in college that basically said Churchill was a fraud; and not much less of a wuss than Chamberlin. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, in 1938, it was apparent that someone was going to have to stand up to Germany. Chamberlain went to the army and RAF, who insisted they needed another year of armament and preparations. This obviously couldn't be stated publicly, hence the apparent appeasement of Germany and "peace in our time" speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My history prof. - (Polish guy who hated England) said something like 25% of French males (of a select age group I don't remember) died in WWI. Would you agree that France takes too much crap for their military performance and not enough crap for being anti-semetic?

[/ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly, 100,000 French died defending the country, so it's not as though they just stepped aside and let the Germans in. Resistance would have been mostly futile as they were completely outclassed by the German military. I have no idea about that 25% number. It seems high to me even if you include the resistance. France probably doesn't get enough grief over the number of rapes committed by its soldiers (under the eye of commanders) in their occupation zone.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
How were non-Jewish American POW's treated? The Japanese were worse in this respect; correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very much so: Brit/UK prisoners taken by the Germans could generally expect to be treated reasonably; the same observation was not true at all vis-a-vis the Japanese, who had no respect for anyone that surrendered. There are reports of Japanese cannibalism, vicious torture (such as in cutting off a prisoner's penis and feeding it to him), horrible conditions, etc. etc.

One example is the Death March on Bataan: the Japanese took the Phillipines and forced Allied prisoners on a lengthy march with zero food and little water. As I recall it, the march was 160 km, and something like 10,000 guys (out of 75,000 or so prisoners) died on it.

[ QUOTE ]
I read a book in college that basically said Churchill was a fraud; and not much less of a wuss than Chamberlin. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be very surprised if that were true. Who wrote the book? I've read a good bit of British WWII history and I've not encountered that theme before.

[ QUOTE ]
My history prof. - (Polish guy who hated England) said something like 25% of French males (of a select age group I don't remember) died in WWI. Would you agree that France takes too much crap for their military performance and not enough crap for being anti-semetic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Their military performance against the Germans was poor, but nobody expected the Blitz -- the Stuka and grouped armor were a deadly combination. After everyone saw what happened in France, tactics changed.

I don't know much about the anti-Semitic French theme.