Democracy for surely not... but they need to improve the standards of living of the general population, and the military spending will be cut back, as there no reason for an inflated military after France defeated and humiliated and a nice chain of German dominated buffer states separates Germany and Russia.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Democracy for surely not... but they need to improve the standards of living of the general population, and the military spending will be cut back, as there no reason for an inflated military after France defeated and humiliated and a nice chain of German dominated buffer states separates Germany and Russia.
Like I said before I dont deny it is possible that things are improving for everyone if Germany wins ww1 but thats unlikely imo. Even more unlikely than Germany winning that war in the first place.
Also again it depends alot on when/how Germany wins that war.
Well depends on whether Krupp and lookalikes pull the chords or someone more consumer oriented. Since the consumer goods market is one order of magnitude larger than the military goods I would have put my bet on the guys with at least dual purpose products.
I like this derail, one of my favorite ww2 debate directions, but I think it's missing a critical element. Germany in both wars entered in with a mindset that the current status quo is unfriendly/unfavorable and that future prospects are bleak, and so must be changed at all costs. Given that as an underlying worldview in 1914 and 1939, it actually isn't so surprising to find that a militarily crushed Germany which upends the status quo and alters the course of Europe is better off than had no war ever taken place.
A better question to me is if Germany losing these wars left it better off than Germany winning them. The short term will probably always be no, but long term I would hold that both Germany and Japan are better off having loat WW2 than had they somehow won. Germany today is an economic powerhouse and has the desired influence over Europe, whereas a Nazi success superpower version of the USSR I anticipate having the same or worse eventual fate.
It's all very what if though. Germany winning ww1 probably means a hegemonic dominance that's bad in the short term, but no Hitler and probably no superpower USSR so maybe good long term, or maybe it means ww2 comes in the 60s+ and with nukes and this phone I'm holding never gets invented. That's the problem with what ifs.
For statesman, I am a fan of Benes, who I consider a very great yet very flawed man. A Stalin like presence but over a very not USSR sized nation. I admire him drawing a clear line that he would fight if presented 1 ally, and respect his decision to back down once abandoned, even if it might have been better had Czechoslovakia gone to war. His work in exile I view as being a much more difficult task than say de gaulle, but he managed it even to the point of getting Britain to reverse upholding the Munich agreement and have his state restored post war.
The sad part to me is that having been so bruised by Germans and repeatedly betrayed by the West, he would end his life and unfortunately legacy with a mass expulsion of Germans and concessions to commumists, leaving him to die cursing Stalin. In my opinion one of the most remarkable statesmen and maybe a good lesson/insight into the people of the time. I consider him a great man who spent too much time staring into the abyss and being corrupted by what happened to him.
No, the losses were not very high. The Royal Navy lost 153 destroyers during ww2, 51 of which in 1942 alone, losing another one was inconsequential. As for the landing crafts, these were relatively simple to repair, the loss of 33 out of a conservative 90 (and probably closer to 200 if you take the the other numbers into account ... but I cannot be certain) is also quite inconsequential. The vast majority of the landing craft losses were of the replaceable 'Landing Craft Assault' and 'Landing Craft Tank' type (the ones made famous in the Robin Hood film) and over 2000 of these were built during the war. To put this in perspective, fewer Hawker Tempest were built during the war and far far more were lost. So I am sorry, but the naval casualties should be considered relatively light in comparison to other operations of 1942.
Apologies for 'snipping' the rest of the text - I think we agree on the most part with the detail but disagree in the interpretation. The Dieppe Raid was a tactical failure both on land and in the air - we both agree on this and I won't detail this any further. However, the strategic objectives:
- Demonstrate to the British population that the UK military was still fighting in order to maintain 'fighting morale'
- For the Canadian Forces to engage as an independent Brigade size force
- To provide important data regarding future amphibious operations on the continent
- To demonstrate to the US and Soviet Union of Britain's ambition to open a second, western front via amphibious assault on the French coast.
So why a draw? Well, the tactical events still linked to strategic objectives - strategic objectives that would be successful in spite of tactical failure. Actually, I don't like the idea of calling the 'operational level' either a success or failure. However, on the basis that the 'operational art' it links the tactical outcome to strategic objectives it cannot be considered a failure (but I am equally opposed to calling it a success). Interesting that such a disastrous tactical failure could only have limited effect on the strategic objectives. I will append this with the caveat, that this concept of better understanding 'operational art' is more modern than WW2, at least in the way I was taught it.
Well, WW2 was a tactical success that failed to translate to strategic success ... so mostly an operational failureSo was ww2 for Germany
Edit: And sorry for the slow response - I have been operationally failing on my ability to translate tactically complete work to strategically complete work and giving more time to procrastinate on the internet
I think (and somebody will prove me wrong, I am sure) that the largest military operation was the Western Allied invasion of Germany in 1945.
I suspect it depends on your definitions of 'largest' and 'military operation'. Sorry...
This is probably the largest Western Allied operation in WWII with 5.5 million of personnel involved (the Allies 4.5 million and Germany 1 million). The Axis invasion of the Soviet Union is considered the largest military operation in history with 6.7 million of personnel involved (the Axis 3.8 million and the Soviet Union 2.9 million).
Previous conversation gave me an idea about a trivia of some significant battles in history, please argue with me.
Battle of Kursk (5 July 1943 - 23 August 1943) was the first time that the German offensive failed to penetrate enemy lines to its strategic depths. Also considered as the largest armored battle in history with some 8 000 tanks and 3.4 million of personnel. A Soviet victory, the Germans never got the initiative again in the Eastern Front.
A Soviet machine gun-team during the Kursk Battle.
Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 - 2 February 1943) was the largest confrontation in due its day in WWII. Fought only for the Hitler's obsession to deprive a Soviet city carrying his opponent's name, the bitter close-quarter combat of Stalingrad was also the bloodiest battle of WWII. The fight was involved with some 2.2 million of personnel. A Soviet victory, a destruction of the German 6th Army, has been described as the biggest defeat in German military history, also described one of the turning points of the WWII, all the German European allies were shattered during Stalingrad, except Finland.
German prisoners of war marching past the Stalingrad grain silo.
Battle of Tali-Ihantala (June 25 1944 - July 9 1944) is the largest battle in the history of the Nordic Countries. The Soviet offensive had earlier penetrated every time the Finnish defensive lines with significant gains. At Tali-Ihantala the Finnish strength of 54 000 of personnel (including 5 000 of German soldiers) halted the Soviet armies of 150 000 of personnel. A Finnish victory, led to a standstill in all fronts in the Continuation War with no further Soviet gains. The Leningrad Front failed to advance in Finland as ordered by the STAVKA.
A Soviet assault gun, JSU-152 destroyed by a panzerfaust at Tali-Ihantala. SA-kuva.
Second Battle of El Alamein (23 October 1942 - 11 November 1942) 'Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein, we never had a defeat' - Winston Churchill. The Second Battle of El Alamein was beginning of the end of the Western Desert Campaign eliminating the Axis threat to Egypt, the Middle Eastern and the Persian oil fields, eventually preventing the Axis' presence in the North Africa. The belligerents had a total strength of 300 000 of men. An Allied victory, reviving their morale after having a success against the Axis for a long time.
British soldiers on a Valentine-tank during the Second El Alamein.
The First Battle of Kiev (7 July 1941 - 26 September 1941) resulted an encirclement of Soviet troops in the vicinity of the city of Kiev - the largest encirclement in the military history with over 600 000 of Soviet troops trapped in a pocket. Exceeding even the earlier Soviet disaster in Bialystok-Minsk, the First Battle of Kiev was an unprecedented defeat for the Red Army with 5 of its armies annihilated. A decisive German victory, the Soviet Southwestern Front had to be re-created, the German Army Group South resumed the unstoppable offensive overrunning much of Ukraine and the Crimea, but was driven to a total exhaustion and suffered a major defeat in the Battle of Rostov late in 1941.
German bombardment on Kiev in September 1941.
The Battle of Antietam (17 September 1862) A one-day battle in the American Civil War, also the most costliest in dead, wounded, or captured in a single day's fight in the history of the United States - over 22 000 of casualties. After pursuing the Confederate Army into Maryland, the US Army launched attacks against the Confederates behind the Antietam Creek. With no decisive success attacks and counter-attacks were followed by one and another. Finally, the Union attacks and the assaults against Sunken Road pierced the Confederate center, but the Federal success was not followed up, the US Army didn't take advantage of the collapsing Confederate lines. At a crucial moment, the Confederates were reinforced by A.P. Hill's division, which counter-attacked driving the US Army back. Inconclusive, despite having a superiority in numbers, the US Army failed to destroy the Confederate forces - instead Lee was capable to leave the battlefield, but had to abandon the invasion of Maryland making Antietam Union strategic victory.
At the Sunken Road the US Army penetrated the Confederate center.
.Battle of Kursk (5 July 1943 - 23 August 1943) was the first time that the German offensive failed to penetrate enemy lines to its strategic depths. Also considered as the largest armored battle in history with some 8 000 tanks and 3.4 million of personnel. A Soviet victory, the Germans never got the initiative again in the Eastern Front.
A Soviet machine gun-team during the Kursk Battle.
Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 - 2 February 1943) was the largest confrontation in due its day in WWII. Fought only for the Hitler's obsession to deprive a Soviet city carrying his opponent's name, the bitter close-quarter combat of Stalingrad was also the bloodiest battle of WWII. The fight was involved with some 2.2 million of personnel. A Soviet victory, a destruction of the German 6th Army, has been described as the biggest defeat in German military history, also described one of the turning points of the WWII, all the German European allies were shattered during Stalingrad, except Finland.
German prisoners of war marching past the Stalingrad grain silo.
Battle of Tali-Ihantala (June 25 1944 - July 9 1944) is the largest battle in the history of the Nordic Countries. The Soviet offensive had earlier penetrated every time the Finnish defensive lines with significant gains. At Tali-Ihantala the Finnish strength of 54 000 of personnel (including 5 000 of German soldiers) halted the Soviet armies of 150 000 of personnel. A Finnish victory, led to a standstill in all fronts in the Continuation War with no further Soviet gains. The Leningrad Front failed to advance in Finland as ordered by the STAVKA.
A Soviet assault gun, JSU-152 destroyed by a panzerfaust at Tali-Ihantala. SA-kuva.
Second Battle of El Alamein (23 October 1942 - 11 November 1942) 'Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein, we never had a defeat' - Winston Churchill. The Second Battle of El Alamein was beginning of the end of the Western Desert Campaign eliminating the Axis threat to Egypt, the Middle Eastern and the Persian oil fields, eventually preventing the Axis' presence in the North Africa. The belligerents had a total strength of 300 000 of men. An Allied victory, reviving their morale after having a success against the Axis for a long time.
British soldiers on a Valentine-tank during the Second El Alamein.
The First Battle of Kiev (7 July 1941 - 26 September 1941) resulted an encirclement of Soviet troops in the vicinity of the city of Kiev - the largest encirclement in the military history with over 600 000 of Soviet troops trapped in a pocket. Exceeding even the earlier Soviet disaster in Bialystok-Minsk, the First Battle of Kiev was an unprecedented defeat for the Red Army with 5 of its armies annihilated. A decisive German victory, the Soviet Southwestern Front had to be re-created, the German Army Group South resumed the unstoppable offensive overrunning much of Ukraine and the Crimea, but was driven to a total exhaustion and suffered a major defeat in the Battle of Rostov late in 1941.
German bombardment on Kiev in September 1941.
The Battle of Antietam (17 September 1862) A one-day battle in the American Civil War, also the most costliest in dead, wounded, or captured in a single day's fight in the history of the United States - over 22 000 of casualties. After pursuing the Confederate Army into Maryland, the US Army launched attacks against the Confederates behind the Antietam Creek. With no decisive success attacks and counter-attacks were followed by one and another. Finally, the Union attacks and the assaults against Sunken Road pierced the Confederate center, but the Federal success was not followed up, the US Army didn't take advantage of the collapsing Confederate lines. At a crucial moment, the Confederates were reinforced by A.P. Hill's division, which counter-attacked driving the US Army back. Inconclusive, despite having a superiority in numbers, the US Army failed to destroy the Confederate forces - instead Lee was capable to leave the battlefield, but had to abandon the invasion of Maryland making Antietam Union strategic victory.
At the Sunken Road the US Army penetrated the Confederate center.
Perhaps if you count men. But then this begs the question 'what does largest actually mean?'. The western allies invaded with more tanks, aircraft, artillery and transport vehicles than Barbarossa ... While Barbarossa clearly wins in the number of horses
If nothing else, crossing a body of water and establishing a transportion infrastructure out of nothing definetily adds to the level of difficulty when the judges post their scores. .
More men in the East, more technology in the West. Stop me if it sounds familiar.
The Soviet Union began and ended the WWII with more tanks than the rest of the world combined.
Edit: During Operation Barbarossa the initial Soviet frontline strenght was 11 000 in tanks, the Axis had 3 500 tanks.
Edit II: Just noticed that the Allies had over 15 000 tanks in their invasion of Germany...oops!
Last edited:
Technology level is way too subjective to make a good measurement. Number of men is good because it is simple. Scale can also be useful since again it's measurable. Cost is probably the closest decent measurement I can think of to what I suspect is the goal, since you could measure resources and maybe even the manpower requirements to manufacture to get to a complex measure of sophistication level that's grounded in numbers?
Personally I would still probably side with number of men and possibly that + scope. Measuring sophistication could be cool, but sophisticated measuring rarely is...
Personally I would still probably side with number of men and possibly that + scope. Measuring sophistication could be cool, but sophisticated measuring rarely is...
please argue with me
OK...
The Italian army was not really shattered until the related, but definitely separate actions of Little Saturn. Likewise the Hungarian army was not destroyed until after the actual Stalingrad operations were concluded. Both the Hungarian and Romanian armies were rebuilt and continued to add real combat value to the Wehrmacht although this is consistently downplayed in German histories of the Eastern Front. By the end of the war the Romanian army (under Soviet control) was over 1 million men, with more than 500000 actively attacking the Axis forces.
In the aftermath of the Battle of Stalingrad and simultaneously during the fight for the city, to exploit the gains in the Operation Uranus the Soviet Union launched Operation Little Saturn in order to annihilate the Italian, the Hungarian, the Romanian and the German positions along River Don. In this operation the 8th Italian Army, consisting of some 130 000 of men was surrounded - 45 000 were able to withdraw or escape from the encirclement. In February 1943 Mussolini withdrew what remained of the 8th Army from the Soviet soil.
Part of the Hungarian Second Army involved in the Battle of Stalingrad (Operation Uranus and Operation Little Saturn) and protected the 8th Italian Army's northern flank on the River Don. In the Operation Little Uranus, in January 1943 the Hungarian Second Army was annihilated in Svoboda, on the River Don.
In the Battle of Stalingrad and in the Operation Little Saturn the Romanian 3rd and 4th Army were surrounded and destroyed.
Unless I'm missing some vital information, to me this all sounds pretty much that the German European allies involved in the Battle of Stalingrad being shattered
.Tell that to Saddam and his 'mother of all battles'.
Deploying an f35 for CAS strike ops is far more challenging than deploying a Hawker Tempest.
The term 'largest' is not a very objective measure in my opinion and often judging size can be difficult.
In the aftermath of the Battle of Stalingrad and simultaneously during the fight for the city, to exploit the gains in the Operation Uranus the Soviet Union launched Operation Little Saturn in order to annihilate the Italian, the Hungarian, the Romanian and the German positions along River Don. In this operation the 8th Italian Army, consisting of some 130 000 of men was surrounded - 45 000 were able to withdraw or escape from the encirclement. In February 1943 Mussolini withdrew what remained of the 8th Army from the Soviet soil.
Part of the Hungarian Second Army involved in the Battle of Stalingrad (Operation Uranus and Operation Little Saturn) and protected the 8th Italian Army's northern flank on the River Don. In the Operation Little Uranus, in January 1943 the Hungarian Second Army was annihilated in Svoboda, on the River Don.
In the Battle of Stalingrad and in the Operation Little Saturn the Romanian 3rd and 4th Army were surrounded and destroyed.
Unless I'm missing some vital information, to me this all sounds pretty much that the German European allies involved in the Battle of Stalingrad being shattered
The Hungarian 2nd Army was a total writeoff... sure an army of the same name was reconstructed, but most of the manpower and all of the equipment was lost.
(the German 6th Army was also reconstructed in that fashion)
Largest is subjective or not depending on how you define it. Land area and manpower are not subjective. Sophistication certainly is. Or perhaps Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply the 2 largest battles in history by a large margin?