I wonder if it would have been a better idea for Germany to fix the problems of this tank and produce them instead of the Panzer 3 and 4. Would this have been better for Germany? Thank you!
German WWII Technology
-
@CWO:
There was a great deal of anti-British sentiment throughout the Middle East. Middle Easterners were tired of being colonies of Britain and France. Initially, that sentiment would have allowed Hitler to recruit men for war against Britain. Later, those same recruits (and others) could be informed about the Soviet Union’s persecution of all religions (including Islam), and its repression of Muslims in the southern Soviet Union. A large force of Muslim men could invade the Soviet Union from the south, creating an additional front for it to have to deal with; not to mention entire armies that it simply didn’t have to face in WWII. Germany could supply this force with some jets and other modern weapons to improve its morale and military effectiveness.
If Germany had occupied the Middle East, I’m not sure Germany would have been able to recruit the local population to its cause (assuming Germany was inclined to try doing so in the first place). During the early days of Operation Barbarossa, some of the population groups in the western Soviet Union briefly entertained the hope that the Germans might prove to be more agreeable rulers than Joseph Stalin. The SS and the Gestapo soon came along and dispelled that particular notion. Germany was able to raise a certain number of troops in the various countries it occupied, but even with the help of collaborationist governments like those of Vichy France the forces asssembled in this manner were relatively small.
Similarly, the Japanese were never able to capitalize very much on the anti-British (and anti-French and anti-Dutch) sentiments that existed in the Far East. When Japan marched into one country after another in 1941-1942, it tried to market its conquests as a campaign for the liberation of Asia from white European colonial oppression. The conquered locals soon realized that they’d simply traded one kind of foreign imperialism for another, and that life under Japanese occupation was no picnic. Even Thailand, which was nominally an ally of Japan, was squeezed in a way which convinced pretty much everyone except the country’s top leadership that the proper response was to resist rather than collaborate. Japan also made efforts to cultivate the Indian nationalist movement, but apart from getting some support here and there from people like Subhas Chandra Bose it never got anywhere near to provoking a serious uprising against British rule.
And yet after the war, when it was safe to do so, most Indians praised Bose
-
@CWO:
If Germany had occupied the Middle East, I’m not sure Germany would have been able to recruit the local population to its cause (assuming Germany was inclined to try doing so in the first place). During the early days of Operation Barbarossa, some of the population groups in the western Soviet Union briefly entertained the hope that the Germans might prove to be more agreeable rulers than Joseph Stalin. The SS and the Gestapo soon came along and dispelled that particular notion. Germany was able to raise a certain number of troops in the various countries it occupied, but even with the help of collaborationist governments like those of Vichy France the forces asssembled in this manner were relatively small.
Similarly, the Japanese were never able to capitalize very much on the anti-British (and anti-French and anti-Dutch) sentiments that existed in the Far East. When Japan marched into one country after another in 1941-1942, it tried to market its conquests as a campaign for the liberation of Asia from white European colonial oppression. The conquered locals soon realized that they’d simply traded one kind of foreign imperialism for another, and that life under Japanese occupation was no picnic. Even Thailand, which was nominally an ally of Japan, was squeezed in a way which convinced pretty much everyone except the country’s top leadership that the proper response was to resist rather than collaborate. Japan also made efforts to cultivate the Indian nationalist movement, but apart from getting some support here and there from people like Subhas Chandra Bose it never got anywhere near to provoking a serious uprising against British rule.
In the Soviet Union, anti-communist sentiment was strong enough that nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army. Had Germany actually been in a position to feed the people in the territories it conquered–which it was not–the number of people who joined might have been significantly larger. You also raised a good point about the heavy-handedness of the occupation effort–a heavy handedness which may have been due at least in part to the desire to suppress Soviet partisans and guerrilla warfare.
In the scenario I have hypothesized, Germany would have ruled its Middle Eastern colonies with a light touch, with an eye toward winning over as large a percentage of the local population as possible. Cooperation with local leaders would have been paramount. Obtaining adequate food supplies would also have been critical–if necessary by advancing southward along the Nile.
-
But is the food surplus of the Middle East enough to offset the food defecit elsewhere?
-
@CWO:
If Germany had occupied the Middle East, I’m not sure Germany would have been able to recruit the local population to its cause (assuming Germany was inclined to try doing so in the first place). During the early days of Operation Barbarossa, some of the population groups in the western Soviet Union briefly entertained the hope that the Germans might prove to be more agreeable rulers than Joseph Stalin. The SS and the Gestapo soon came along and dispelled that particular notion. Germany was able to raise a certain number of troops in the various countries it occupied, but even with the help of collaborationist governments like those of Vichy France the forces asssembled in this manner were relatively small.
Similarly, the Japanese were never able to capitalize very much on the anti-British (and anti-French and anti-Dutch) sentiments that existed in the Far East. When Japan marched into one country after another in 1941-1942, it tried to market its conquests as a campaign for the liberation of Asia from white European colonial oppression. The conquered locals soon realized that they’d simply traded one kind of foreign imperialism for another, and that life under Japanese occupation was no picnic. Even Thailand, which was nominally an ally of Japan, was squeezed in a way which convinced pretty much everyone except the country’s top leadership that the proper response was to resist rather than collaborate. Japan also made efforts to cultivate the Indian nationalist movement, but apart from getting some support here and there from people like Subhas Chandra Bose it never got anywhere near to provoking a serious uprising against British rule.
In the Soviet Union, anti-communist sentiment was strong enough that nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army. Had Germany actually been in a position to feed the people in the territories it conquered–which it was not–the number of people who joined might have been significantly larger. You also raised a good point about the heavy-handedness of the occupation effort–a heavy handedness which may have been due at least in part to the desire to suppress Soviet partisans and guerrilla warfare.
In the scenario I have hypothesized, Germany would have ruled its Middle Eastern colonies with a light touch, with an eye toward winning over as large a percentage of the local population as possible. Cooperation with local leaders would have been paramount. Obtaining adequate food supplies would also have been critical–if necessary by advancing southward along the Nile.
wich “nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army” are you talking about,please?
-
@aequitas:
@CWO:
If Germany had occupied the Middle East, I’m not sure Germany would have been able to recruit the local population to its cause (assuming Germany was inclined to try doing so in the first place). During the early days of Operation Barbarossa, some of the population groups in the western Soviet Union briefly entertained the hope that the Germans might prove to be more agreeable rulers than Joseph Stalin. The SS and the Gestapo soon came along and dispelled that particular notion. Germany was able to raise a certain number of troops in the various countries it occupied, but even with the help of collaborationist governments like those of Vichy France the forces asssembled in this manner were relatively small.
Similarly, the Japanese were never able to capitalize very much on the anti-British (and anti-French and anti-Dutch) sentiments that existed in the Far East. When Japan marched into one country after another in 1941-1942, it tried to market its conquests as a campaign for the liberation of Asia from white European colonial oppression. The conquered locals soon realized that they’d simply traded one kind of foreign imperialism for another, and that life under Japanese occupation was no picnic. Even Thailand, which was nominally an ally of Japan, was squeezed in a way which convinced pretty much everyone except the country’s top leadership that the proper response was to resist rather than collaborate. Japan also made efforts to cultivate the Indian nationalist movement, but apart from getting some support here and there from people like Subhas Chandra Bose it never got anywhere near to provoking a serious uprising against British rule.
In the Soviet Union, anti-communist sentiment was strong enough that nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army. Had Germany actually been in a position to feed the people in the territories it conquered–which it was not–the number of people who joined might have been significantly larger. You also raised a good point about the heavy-fronthandedness of the occupation effort–a heavy handedness which may have been due at least in part to the desire to suppress Soviet partisans and guerrilla warfare.
In the scenario I have hypothesized, Germany would have ruled its Middle Eastern colonies with a light touch, with an eye toward winning over as large a percentage of the local population as possible. Cooperation with local leaders would have been paramount. Obtaining adequate food supplies would also have been critical–if necessary by advancing southward along the Nile.
wich “nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army” are you talking about,please?
They were affectionately called Hiwis by the Germans, and like the other post said they made up a ridiculous amount of manpower for the German army on the Ostfront. They were used a lot for labour duties, better to work a Hiwi to death than a soldier of the Third Reich, their thinking not mine. Another reason for using the Hiwis was already evident by the end of 1941, In 1939, only 19,000 German soldiers had been killed; and in all the campaigns of 1940, German losses had totalled no more than 83,000-serious enough, indeed, but not irreplaceable. In 1941, however, 357,000 German troops were reported killed or missing in action, over 300,000 on the Ostfront. From 22 June 1941 onwards, at least two-thirds of the German Armed Forces were always engaged on the Ostfront.
-
@Krupp:
From 22 June 1941 onwards, at least two-thirds of the German Armed Forces were always engaged on the Ostfront.
60% of the German GROUND Army not 60% of the German Armed Forces.
-
You also raised a good point about the heavy-handedness of the occupation effort–a heavy handedness which may have been due at least in part to the desire to suppress Soviet partisans and guerrilla warfare.
In the scenario I have hypothesized, Germany would have ruled its Middle Eastern colonies with a light touch, with an eye toward winning over as large a percentage of the local population as possible.
The heavy-handedness Germany showed in Russia may also have had something to do with Hitler’s view that the conflict in the East was a “war of annihilation” whose ultimate purpose was the extermination, expulsion, Germanisation or enslavement of the Slavic people.
I quite agree that it would have been in Germany’s strategic interests to win over the population of the countries it conquered. I’m just wondering about their track record in this regard. Offhand, I can’t think of any instances of a country occupied by Nazi Germany being treated with a light touch. It would be interesting to hear of such a case.
-
@aequitas:
wich “nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army” are you talking about,please?
From Feldgrau.com:
The forerunner of the volunteer formations was a voluntary auxiliary service, of a para- military character, which was started in the autumn of 1941 by the German Commands on the front. On their own initiative, they organized auxiliary units of various services, made up of Soviet deserters, prisoners, and volunteers from among the local population. These so-called “Hilfswillige,” or “Hiwi,” were employed as sentries, drivers, store- keepers, workers in depots, etc. The experiment surpassed all expectations. In the spring of 1942 there were already at least 200,000 of them in the rear of the German armies, and by the end of the same year their number was allegedly near 1,000,000.(2) . . .
During 1943 the number of volunteers in the eastern formations increased allegedly to some 800,000.(19)
See http://www.feldgrau.com/rvol.html
According to Wikipedia, 1,000,000 Soviet residents who joined the German Army were taken prisoner by the USSR; and an additional 215,000 Soviet residents were killed or MIA. That implies a minimum of 1.2 million Soviet citizens or residents took up arms against communism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties
The source for the Wikipedia quote is Richard Overy–a highly respected historian.
-
@CWO:
Offhand, I can’t think of any instances of a country occupied by Nazi Germany being treated with a light touch. It would be interesting to hear of such a case.
Norway… :wink:
-
…Ostlegionen!..they way you described it made me wonder…now I know what you were talking about…the “eingliederung” of the HiWis and " Legionen Ost "…to catch the stretch of the Frontlines and German casulties…
One who I talked with said that his Hiwi was reliable but it was more the issue were some of them came from…Ukraines would more likley fight were a Uzbeke may take a hike…@KurtGodel7:@aequitas:
wich “nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army” are you talking about,please?
From Feldgrau.com:
The forerunner of the volunteer formations was a voluntary auxiliary service, of a para- military character, which was started in the autumn of 1941 by the German Commands on the front. On their own initiative, they organized auxiliary units of various services, made up of Soviet deserters, prisoners, and volunteers from among the local population. These so-called “Hilfswillige,” or “Hiwi,” were employed as sentries, drivers, store- keepers, workers in depots, etc. The experiment surpassed all expectations. In the spring of 1942 there were already at least 200,000 of them in the rear of the German armies, and by the end of the same year their number was allegedly near 1,000,000.(2) . . .
During 1943 the number of volunteers in the eastern formations increased allegedly to some 800,000.(19)
See http://www.feldgrau.com/rvol.html
According to Wikipedia, 1,000,000 Soviet residents who joined the German Army were taken prisoner by the USSR; and an additional 215,000 Soviet residents were killed or MIA. That implies a minimum of 1.2 million Soviet citizens or residents took up arms against communism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties
The source for the Wikipedia quote is Richard Overy–a highly respected historian.
-
better engines and transmissions for the tiger and king tiger tanks. that would of be decisive in both eastern and western fronts
Suggested Topics
