On this day during W.W. 2

Hey Kurt have you ever been to Auschwitz, Dachau or Wewelsburg?

@Gargantua:

I saw a documentary one time, that discussed the halt order.

The conclusion was that it was to do with the power dynamic of who was in charge of the Wehrmacht.  Hitler, or the High command.

The Dunkirk thing basically became a pissing match between the two parties, with Hitler winning the “halt” order, and exerting his will over total command.  At least… that was the opinion of the documentary, and I don’t know remember what the dynamics behind why Hitler wanted the halt order were, and why the Wehrmacht forces didn’t.

My impression–and I could be wrong–is that a large portion of the German general staff wanted the halt order. However, its most able, creative, aggressive generals–such as von Manstein–were strongly against the halt order.

Maybe the scale of the evacuation came as a surprise to many. On the other hand, it was common knowledge that Britain was a sea power with plenty of boats in or near the English Channel, so the idea that the soldiers might be evacuated should not have been a surprise. Perhaps more importantly, those Allied soldiers were on the run. The halt order gave them time to regroup, assume defensive positions, and to become a much harder nut to crack.

Von Manstein wrote that there are times when very important–but very fleeting–opportunities present themselves. When such is the case, it is often necessary to push soldiers to the absolute limits of human endurance. While this may seem cruel, seizing the opportunity in question is absolutely necessary to save your own soldiers’ lives.

The halt order was one of the two most important deviations from von Manstein’s original plan to conquer France. (Both deviations occurred over his objections.) The other deviation was that von Manstein had wanted to proceed to phase 2 (the conquest of Paris) even before having completed phase 1 (the encirclement and destruction of the BEF and nearby French forces).

You will recall that after the Germans reached the Channel, the French counterattacked from the south. Von Manstein didn’t want Germany to sit around waiting for that counterattack. Instead, he wanted to attack the French in their assembly areas, before they were ready to strike. That German attack would have secured the German path to the Channel, while also constituting the first part of phase 2.

@CWO:

A question: if the Allies had concentrated their efforts and resources on conquering the southern part of Europe, and had not invaded France, isn’t it possible that the Russians would have driven westward through Germany in 1945 and would have kept going through France (which Germany would still be occupying in this scenario) until they got to the English Channel?  In other words, doesn’t a scenario in which the Anglo-Americans end up controlling the southern and eastern parts of Europe create a situation in which the Soviets end up controlling the northern and western parts of Europe, with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark and possibly Norway being switched from Nazi occupation to Soviet occupation?

You’ve raised a very good question.

In the scenario I outlined, one possible Allied objective would have been to reach the Baltic before the Red Army arrived. Had this been achieved, all of Europe west of this Anglo-American line would presumably have been protected from the Red terror. Whether that was achievable goal is difficult to say.

@CWO:

Here’s a set of D-Day photographs with a cool feature: if you use your mouse to grab the dividing line that runs down the centre of each shot, you can sweep it back and forth to compare the scene as it was at the time with a shot of the same location today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/before-after/d-day/index.html

These are cool photos Mark. thanks for sharing. :-)

That era of fighting men is fading into the past, and I hate it!

I’m glad that WWII is so documented so these men’s deeds are never forgotten.

Truly an anniversary worthy of being celebrated with a bang.

I scored Finland, I’m trying to score Italy to see what it says  :-D

@yamamato456:

Well actually the battle of britain itself was not necassarily a German mistake.  The way the battle of britain was fought was a mistake.  In the beginning of the battle the Germans were smart to only target the British airforce.  However, the air battle was lasting longer than Hitler wanted… so he decided he would bomb London instead.  All of the german generals thought this was a huge mistake and wanted to keep attacking the airforce.  In fact on the day that they started targetting london there were only 14 operational planes in the whole UK.  If the German generals would have had their way the Germans would have won the battle of britain.

Even assuming Germany “wins” the air war, they never win the battle of Britain. Britain never gets successfully invaded, Germany just doesnt have the operational power to do so.

The mistake was in attacking Britain, rather than the Med. Taking Egypt (and gaining access to Iran/Iraq oil) and depriving UK of supplies was the only way to “win” (which eventually would not have worked as the USA would eventually enter the war and supply Britain with whatever was needed).

Had the med been conquered and become an axis lake, you could delay Torch till 44. Perhaps egypt is never retaken until 45. Which would give Germany time to mass produce its "super-weapons). This also assumes the blunders on the eastern front are also ignored.

Squirecam