Is It Just Me...

[Visna]

For an invasion of Britain to be succesful, Germany would not only have to win the Battle of Britain, they would have needed to plan and prepare for it years in advance. It's not something you improvise on the spot, and even a notorious gambler like Hitler could see that when the time came.
As for the German atomic program, if they hadn't made living conditions so harsh for their resident Jews who could perhaps have helped them in that project, who knows, maybe they would have struck lucky. As it was, the program was severely underfunded and they were researching in the wrong direction. They had the theories more or less in place, but they didn't apply those theories properly. Germany was years away from producing an atomic bomb.

I think where the Allies and Soviets really got "lucky" was with their intelligence, they had an amazing spy network and of course the capture of an intact enigma machine helped as well. Or the British radar system which proved so invaluable during the Battle of Britain.

[Knight_of_Ni]

Yeah, I like to mantain that it was Hitler who defeated Germany in WW2. Read Bevin Alexander's book, How Hitler could have won World War 2. It details a plan that would have allowed Hitler to win and the mistakes and errors he made.

[Pious Agnost]

Axis had their fair share of luck.

1.) Chamberlain
2.) Daladier
3.) Stalin

[SonOfAlexander]

Very true. The reason the Allies win WW2 is because of hundreds of little victories and Axis mistkaes that all pile on top of each other, but without even just a few of them, the War would have been lost. Little things have aknock on effect too. The Battle of El Alamein was not won because of Montgomery (the t wat) but because of how the Ulster Divisions held the line, getting no credit for it, but therefore causing the turn around of the war in Africa.

One of my faves is the Pacific War - that's almost nothing BUT flukes.

Pearl Harbour - Yamamoto (great man) made the one mistake in his life, and that was to call off the 3rd wave of fighters, which would have destroyed the USA's fuel and made it impossible for them to send their carriers out. And of course, the carriers were at sea. What good luck, as you say NK .

[pannonian]

Very true. The reason the Allies win WW2 is because of hundreds of little victories and Axis mistkaes that all pile on top of each other, but without even just a few of them, the War would have been lost. Little things have aknock on effect too. The Battle of El Alamein was not won because of Montgomery (the t wat) but because of how the Ulster Divisions held the line, getting no credit for it, but therefore causing the turn around of the war in Africa.

Would this be the same Alamein whose course Montgomery had predicted before the battle took place? Whose strategy was geared towards the strengths of the British and Commonwealth army? Also, please enlighten me on the unacknowledged Ulster divisions that held the line at Alamein. Which divisions were they?

[Lysimachus]

(the t wat)

Whaaaaat?

Montgomery pwns those American n00b generals hands down. He was cautious because he preferred things to be well prepared and he had to take into account the limited manpower of the British Empire.

[Mathias]

Perhaps there is a reason why the ancients praised luck as one of the greatest traits a general could have

[SonOfAlexander]

Montgomery was an idiot who nearly lost the battle. Luckily for him his troops were fantastic and he realised late in the battle that he had actually trapped Rommel as his advisors pointed out. The little moustachioed git set out then to cut off supplies etc. So the weirdo persuaded the Americans to go for Market Garden rather than their invasion plan (secondary invasion - D-Day had already happened of course).

Look how well THAT turned out.

[boofhead]

Yeah, well let's just sit here a generation or two away making judgements on a man in a serious position and whose very way of life was at stake.

Easy!

[Lysimachus]

Montgomery was an idiot who nearly lost the battle. Luckily for him his troops were fantastic and he realised late in the battle that he had actually trapped Rommel as his advisors pointed out. The little moustachioed git set out then to cut off supplies etc.

Bear in mind that the Afrika Korps were excellent soldiers and the Italian armoured and motorised divisions were quite capable as well, and therefore the two cancel eachother out. Because of that, a degree of tactics would have to have been used to win the battle.

So the weirdo persuaded the Americans to go for Market Garden rather than their invasion plan (secondary invasion - D-Day had already happened of course).

Actually, tensions in the joint Allied command were quite high and since all the American commanders slagged him off, he thought that he needed to prove to them that he does have a bit of daring and so Market Garden was born to try and bring the war to a conclusion for Christmas '44. You can't blame Monty for being careful with his troops, and i'm pretty sure his troops appreciated him more for that. Well, not the Americans because the Britis hwould always brew up tea half way through a battle if it comes to that time of the day

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Or is WW2 full of oh-so lucky flukes in favor of the Allied nations?

I mean, just to start the list off - General Winter.
The years of WW2 knew some of the hardest winters Europe has ever seen, and Stalin himself said (I think it was him) that Russia's most important general is General Winter, I believe that if those hard winters didn't win their wars for them after Operation Barbarossa, they helped quite a bit.

In a show I saw (I think it was called "Battle 360"), which tells the story of the US carrier "USS Enterprise" (Big E), there have been numerous occasions in which just big fat luck won the day for them, for example:
A gigantic assault of Japanese "Zero" aircrafts and bombers were bearing down on the Enterprise's position, and just by short and random luck, a patrol flight (5 planes) who were COMPLETELY missguided and went off course, spotted those planes, giving the Enterprise a little heads up.

In addition, there was a battle (Sadly, I don't remember the name, again) near the end of the war, in which the Japanese were quite desperate, they sent two large fleets to attack (And destroy) and invading US force, invading an island in bomber-strike range of Tokyo, the first fleet had been intercepted and so was the second, the second retreated.
After a while, the second fleet doubled back, and lead a surprise attack at the invading US forces, it had very large/powerful ships against a very small and helpless ships from the US left behind to make sure the Marines take the island.
Guess what?
The smaller US ships charged at the larger ships, in a clear suicide mission, and made the enemy run for their lives!
In addition to that, even though the general leading the US counter-offensive got killed, no other ship was hit, and the Japanese were running for their lives!

The Nukes - A recent documentary I saw showed that Nazi Germany could have developed the nuke far faster than the US, not only that, it could have been operational and it New York, BUT, Hitler decided the weapon wasn't worth the budget and scrapped the whole thing!

The list goes on, and on, and on...

Just to clarify, I'm an Atheist, so I don't believe in all that "God's intervention" and stuff like that... But it seems that lady luck was on our side, and it can get quite suspicious.
Getting to my main point - My question is, is it just me or were the soldiers fighting for the Allied forces were EXTREMELY lucky, or is this war? I mean, is war naturally about luck? I believe some general said "No plan of attack survives the first encounter" - Is this valid here?

I don't mind if this turns into a little debate, but I mostly want to hear your opinions.

Also I can give 100 ways how Germany could have won the war in the first year. Maybe I´ll write a short book for you all...

[conon394]

Also I can give 100 ways how Germany could have won the war in the first year. Maybe I´ll write a short book for you all...

How bout just one? What profound diffrent thing could have been done between September 39 and 40 to win the war.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

How bout just one? What profound diffrent thing could have been done between September 39 and 40 to win the war.

-In the invasion of France in May of 1940, German high command surrounded around 300,000-400,000 British troops in the well known town of Dunkirque. Here General Herman Göerring sent only the Luftwaffe to attack the evacuating soldiers, but they did not realize that British RAF airplanes were within range of their Attack Aircraft and thus distracted the Luftwaffe for some time, allowing a successful evacuation, to england. However, If Hitler, and Göerring would have sent just 1 Germany army or Tank army, they would have had 300,000 POW´s in their hands, and would have drastically reduced the British army. This has been proven because when Germany invaded Norway and Denmark, the British attempted to blockade Norway from the Mainland, but failed to see that German Airpower could easily fly over the ships and send supplies. The British RAF weren´t in range to help, so much of the Royal navy was cripplied their by Attack aircraft. Same would have happened to Dunkerque if a tank army or any other army would have come, because the huge luftwaffe would have distracted British fighters far too much...

-The battle of Britain was not all that strategic. It was a buffer so Hitler could feel confidant and sure that operation Sealion would win... His commanders failed to attack military bases, instead of their usually Cities, to deplete morale, after Britain bombed Berlin. Also the German strategy was winning, because in late 1940, British officers were telling Churchill, that they only had 6 weeks or tops so, before German aerial victory, but Hitler decided to halt the offensive and thus concentrate for Operation Barbarossa... The Germans would usually attack Britain in small groups of 8, usually a squad, and very disperse. Even though Britain had radars, if the Germans would have launched a huge attack 1 at a time of around 200+ aircraft, then they would have gained victory far more easier. As for operation Sea lion, even if the Luftwaffe failed to gain air superiority, the invasion would still have dozens of German Aircraft in the sky backing up the main Fleet. The RAF would have been torn to shreads with this strategy. Imagine this: You are Germany, and you hate this kid (he represents Britain), and another kid (France). You go on a 2 vs. 2 with the help of Italy, and you take down France, but you see Britain still up, what Germany did in this 1 vs. 1 brawl was slap and merely Pinch Britain. What he should have down was Punch Britain hard, 1 at a time....

[pannonian]

-The battle of Britain was not all that strategic. It was a buffer so Hitler could feel confidant and sure that operation Sealion would win... His commanders failed to attack military bases, instead of their usually Cities, to deplete morale, after Britain bombed Berlin. Also the German strategy was winning, because in late 1940, British officers were telling Churchill, that they only had 6 weeks or tops so, before German aerial victory, but Hitler decided to halt the offensive and thus concentrate for Operation Barbarossa... The Germans would usually attack Britain in small groups of 8, usually a squad, and very disperse. Even though Britain had radars, if the Germans would have launched a huge attack 1 at a time of around 200+ aircraft, then they would have gained victory far more easier. As for operation Sea lion, even if the Luftwaffe failed to gain air superiority, the invasion would still have dozens of German Aircraft in the sky backing up the main Fleet. The RAF would have been torn to shreads with this strategy. Imagine this: You are Germany, and you hate this kid (he represents Britain), and another kid (France). You go on a 2 vs. 2 with the help of Italy, and you take down France, but you see Britain still up, what Germany did in this 1 vs. 1 brawl was slap and merely Pinch Britain. What he should have down was Punch Britain hard, 1 at a time....

Gawd, not that myth again. Fighter Command was never in serious danger of being taken down sufficiently for Sealion to remotely be possible. Also, air attacks aren't land attacks, where concentration in numbers is always a good thing.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Gawd, not that myth again. Fighter Command was never in serious danger of being taken down sufficiently for Sealion to remotely be possible. Also, air attacks aren't land attacks, where concentration in numbers is always a good thing.

Myth its true, dude Britain was depleted. It was not in such seriousness, but the situation was serious. Jeez what is more serious then waking up every morning seeing German fighters over your house. A key error was the fact that after the bombing of Berlin, hitler concentrated on cities. If he would have kept concentrating on Military bases, he would have won faster. Stop thinking Britain is so powerful because it isn´t....

[pannonian]

Myth its true, dude Britain was depleted. It was not in such seriousness, but the situation was serious. Jeez what is more serious then waking up every morning seeing German fighters over your house. A key error was the fact that after the bombing of Berlin, hitler concentrated on cities. If he would have kept concentrating on Military bases, he would have won faster. Stop thinking Britain is so powerful because it isn´t....

11 Group was never close to destruction at any point in the Battle of Britain. It was close to incapacitation, because of the constant activity and stress deriving from it. This would be relievable by giving them a period of rest. Guess what had been planned for them, had the attacks on the airfields continued? Then look at the German side of affairs, and one realises that, bad though 11 Group's fighting readiness was getting, the Fighter element of the Luftwaffe was in an even worse state, except that their battle readiness wasn't relievable through rest (since their pilots were permanently lost, rather than just tired).

[Angrychris]

Hitlers mistakes were the allies god send.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Hitlers mistakes were the allies god send.

See??? Tis why I will write a book...

[Dr. Croccer]

Yeah, the Allies and Axis both had strokes of luck. The Axis in the beginning, the Allies later. Hell, the entire beginning of WW2 was a massive stroke of luck for the Germans. If the Brits and French grew a pair in 1938 they could've easily destroyed the German army. Not only did they have significant military advantages over Germany, the Czechoslovaks were considerably better prepared for war than the Poles in '39. And the Soviets declared that they would support Britain and France in the case of a war, on the basis of an earlier agreement with Czechoslovakia in '35. The fact that France and Britain never took steps to form some sort of alliance with the USSR was already a massive break for Germany, especially seeing as it drove the latter into their arms. The fact that the French and Brits never attempted to undertake serious offensives into Germany in 1939-1940 was also a lot of luck for them. The Germans had few divisions in the West, a Franco-British offensive could've been quite succesful.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Yeah, the Allies and Axis both had strokes of luck. The Axis in the beginning, the Allies later. Hell, the entire beginning of WW2 was a massive stroke of luck for the Germans. If the Brits and French grew a pair in 1938 they could've easily destroyed the German army. Not only did they have significant military advantages over Germany, the Czechoslovaks were considerably better prepared for war than the Poles in '39. And the Soviets declared that they would support Britain and France in the case of a war, on the basis of an earlier agreement with Czechoslovakia in '35. The fact that France and Britain never took steps to form some sort of alliance with the USSR was already a massive break for Germany, especially seeing as it drove the latter into their arms. The fact that the French and Brits never attempted to undertake serious offensives into Germany in 1939-1940 was also a lot of luck for them. The Germans had few divisions in the West, a Franco-British offensive could've been quite succesful.

Thats just a panzy war, 3 vs. 1 D: remember what happened to them in 1914, they couldnt against Germany a gangbang on the western front wasn´t even enough...