Question(s) about WW2

[Swagger]

hi guys i got a doubt


what was the true cause that made hitler broke his german-russian pact of non agression?


i know operation Barbossa was planned long before it happened, but the common sence thinks it was hitler's ambition to conquer russia only, but i've always heard (from more reliable sources than the common sence) that it was mossulini who actually triggered the war on eastern front with russia

if im not wrong it was about mossulini's conquests and attacks on balkan countries wich by anyway had anything to do with russia


may anyone enlight this doubt, in a way i can understand the details between the true cause?


and a few minor doubts:

what made erwin rommel lose in africa?

i know they had shortage of man and equipment and that the devil's garden mined zone made a full tank assault impossible

but what were the main causes?



and about france, besides being heavly 'barbaric' in therms of equipment than the germans, and becouse they got trapped in belgium (after gunderian trapped the allied forces in the low countries, forcing them to flee to dunkirk afterwards) etc

why did france lost so quickly?


they had many soldiers from their colonies and british troops.. plus support from america's military equipment..

[Azog 150]

what was the true cause that made hitler broke his german-russian pact of non agression?

Hitler always wanted to invade Russia as part of Lebensraum (Translates as living space). Basically this was Hitlers idea to invade Eastern Europe and Russia in order to provide space for the Germans to live and have the Slavs as their slaves. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was never, in Hitlers mind at least, to be a permament pact. Rather, it was to allow both Germany and the USSR to prepare for an inevitable war.

what made erwin rommel lose in africa?

I think it was becuase the North African front was not in anyway a priority for Germany with the Eastern Front being the main focus, and any supplies/weapons/reinforcements were given priority to the Eastern Front. That, plus the Royal Navy still had dominance of the Mediterranean, and that made it harder for supplies to reach North Africa. Finally, Rommel overstretched his supply lines in his rapid advance across Libya and Egypt.

Rommel's Italian allies also proved pretty useless at desert warfare.

On the other hand, the North African front was a priority for Britain and we consequently had more manpower and overall commitment to fight there.

why did france lost so quickly?

The main reason is their over-reliance on the Maginot line. This was basically a heavily fortified defensive line that was built throughout the 20's and 30's and was deemed impenetrable. They thought any war against Germany would be a repeat of the World War 1 stalemate and simply weren't prepared for the speed of Blitzkrieg. The Germans recognized they wouldn't be able to pass the Maginot line, so simply went around it by moving through Belgium.

The reason many of Frances best divisions along with the BEF were surrounded in Belgium is becuase the German's moved through the Ardennes where France had put its worst divisions as they deemed it impossible for a large scale force to move through the dense forest. This allowed the Germans to move northwards encircling hundreds of thousands of French and British troops.

[Spartacus the Irish]

what was the true cause that made hitler broke his german-russian pact of non agression?


i know operation Barbossa was planned long before it happened, but the common sence thinks it was hitler's ambition to conquer russia only, but i've always heard (from more reliable sources than the common sence) that it was mossulini who actually triggered the war on eastern front with russia

Well you answered your own question here. The pact was only a short-term convinience, a way to eliminate a potential enemy, seal the fate of Poland (remember, at the time of the pact, Poland was seen as a tough enemy, and the Wehrmacht untested), and isolate further the Western Allies.

Hitler never intended the pact to be permenant by any degree.

what made erwin rommel lose in africa?

i know they had shortage of man and equipment and that the devil's garden mined zone made a full tank assault impossible

but what were the main causes?

Firstly, the 'Devil's Garden' was a German creation - it was the name given to the minefield the British inched their way through at the Second Battle of El Alamein. Basically, lack of supplies is right, to a degree. By lack of supplies, I mean that the theatre was not given the same importance that the Allies, especially the British, placed upon it; thus Rommel had to fight with less support, reinforcement and resupply than Montgomery.

Though Montgomery did best him. He did not engage in manoevre warfare, because quite simply Rommel was better at it than he or the British. His set-piece engagements were not subtle nor operational masterpieces, but they were what was needed to beat Rommel, and that is precisely what he acheived.

I'll let someone else field the France question, it is not my area of interest nor study.

EDIT:
@Azog: It's always good when someone posts pretty much exactly the same answers as you, at exactly the same time .

[Lord Claremorris]

hi guys i got a doubt


what was the true cause that made hitler broke his german-russian pact of non agression?


i know operation Barbossa was planned long before it happened, but the common sence thinks it was hitler's ambition to conquer russia only, but i've always heard (from more reliable sources than the common sence) that it was mossulini who actually triggered the war on eastern front with russia

No, Hitler had written down long before in Mein Kampf that he planned to create lebensraum for the Germans to the East. He hated communists and hated Slavs, he had been long planning their destruction. Mussolini's stupidity caused Hitler to get involved in Yugoslavia and Greece, which caused Barbarossa to be launched a few months late, which may or may not have saved the Soviet Union.

if im not wrong it was about mossulini's conquests and attacks on balkan countries wich by anyway had anything to do with russia

Mussolini attacked Greece without telling Hitler, and than the Italins failed to defeat the Greeks. Churchill offered to send aid to Greece, and the British sent aircraft, that were now in range of Romania's oilfields, which Germany needed. Hitler decided he needed to act and sought Yugoslavia's participation, they agreed but the Government was overthrown and Hitler just decided to wipe them out on the way to Greece.

may anyone enlight this doubt, in a way i can understand the details between the true cause?


and a few minor doubts:

what made erwin rommel lose in africa?

i know they had shortage of man and equipment and that the devil's garden mined zone made a full tank assault impossible

but what were the main causes?

As Azog mentioned, Germany wasn't too concerned about the Mediterranean theatre. However, even if they were, British Naval and Air superiority made certain that a large Axis Army would not last long in Africa, cut off from supply, if they could even get such an army across the Sicilian Gap.

and about france, besides being heavly 'barbaric' in therms of equipment than the germans, and becouse they got trapped in belgium (after gunderian trapped the allied forces in the low countries, forcing them to flee to dunkirk afterwards) etc

why did france lost so quickly?


they had many soldiers from their colonies and british troops.. plus support from america's military equipment..

The French were demoralised and disheartened. Deep down the French knew they could not survive another struggle with Germany on the scale of WWI. So in stark contrast to Foch, d'Esperey, Joffre and the rest, the French in WWII were timid and afraid. Most of their generals were old men who had seen action in WWI and were convinced that war was the same then as now. But most importantly, they threw away the numbers of excellent tanks in piecemeal scatterings whereas Germany concentrated their tanks creating armoured fists that punched holes in the French line and kept tearing at them. Complete German air superiority completes the package and France didn't have a chance.

EDIT: As for British help, the BEF was barely 6 divisions, and they were quickly cut off in the Low Countries, being forced to withdraw via Dunkerque. The colonial troops were used to partially offset Germany's manpower advantage, but Germany still had more men anyway, and the colonial troops were hardly any use against panzers. I wasn't even aware of American military aid at this juncture.....

[conon394]

The reason many of Frances best divisions along with the BEF were surrounded in Belgium is becuase the German's moved through the Ardennes where France had put its worst divisions as they deemed it impossible for a large scale force to move through the dense forest. This allowed the Germans to move northwards encircling hundreds of thousands of French and British troops.

Although the Germans still got very lucky that the French command insisted on an advance into Belgium. The British commanders distressed by the fact that the Low Countries were either not willing to plan a joint defense or just minimally, wanted to hold in France. Had they not advanced the German move through the Ardennes would not have cut off the Best allied troops...

-----

I wasn't even aware of American military aid at this juncture.....

Not aid but at least access to industry that Germany did not have. France for example in a belated attempt to updated and expand its air force did place a large number of orders in the US, but few delivers were ready in time (I believe the UK essentially took over the France orders after France collapsed).

[Swagger]

i knew most of what you said


but you haven't answered my first question

what i want to know is what were the role of the italians on the ultimate decision of war declaration of war by germany to the russians

[Xerrop]

what i want to know is what were the role of the italians on the ultimate decision of war declaration of war by germany to the russians

Nothing except from the delay of the attack as written below, it was only a german decision. Italy/Mussolini didn´t want a great war (as it was unprepared for any large scale operation against global powers), only to conquer Greece in order to strengthen his influence on the balkans and east mediteranean area.

But Italy failed and the British seemed to land troops in Greece. As Lord Claremorris wrote british aircrafts could reach Romania, a german ally and important supplier of oil.

So instead of starting the Russian invasion in April or early May the Germans had to help Italy in order to avoid british troop concentration on the balkans. So attack on Russia began only in June 1941. And as history told us that was too late. The germans weren´t able to conquer Moskow until winter broke out and stopped further advance into Russian territory.

[Lysimachos11]

i knew most of what you said


but you haven't answered my first question

what i want to know is what were the role of the italians on the ultimate decision of war declaration of war by germany to the russians

The decision to make war on the USSR was made pretty much without involving Mussolini, I think. As said before Hitler had ambitions into Eastern Europe, while Italy sought expansion in Southern Europe and North Africa. The main impact of Italy on Barbarossa was a. their failure to defeat Greece and b. their requirement of German aid because the Greeks were actually starting to defeat Italy. This diverted German manpower, and drained resources and time actually meant for Operation Barbarossa.

Basically Hitler thought he had time to prepare for Barbarossa, but Mussolini screwed his plans up by losing in Greece.

[conon394]

what i want to know is what were the role of the italians on the ultimate decision of war declaration of war by germany to the russians

Seems very unlikely to me - that the Italinas wanted a Russian war that is. Italian leaders never wanted a general war as early as Hitler was willing to accept, and later were always looking to talk Hitler into a armistice with Russia so as to fight on only one 'front'.

[Swagger]

oh ok, though i already knew the whole deal about the greek invasion i also thought it was mossulini who triggered the war with russian with attacks and such


i love ww2 subject.. and i can't stop blamming mossulini for hitlers lose

everytime the italians did a move, besides being killed, germany always had to go backup and take care of the business...

[Xerrop]

i love ww2 subject.. and i can't stop blamming mossulini for hitlers lose

It were Hitlers own bad decision why he lost WW2. You can´t stop attacking GB and instead start a new war with Russia, while the Brits with US help bomb german cities and industrial areas.
Germany (a nearly bancrupt state) was too weak fighting against the two dominant european empires at the same time ...

[OTZ]

oh ok, though i already knew the whole deal about the greek invasion i also thought it was mossulini who triggered the war with russian with attacks and such


i love ww2 subject.. and i can't stop blamming mossulini for hitlers lose

everytime the italians did a move, besides being killed, germany always had to go backup and take care of the business...

It might be considered that Italy's blunders may very well have been viewed as opportunities for Germany. You can't blame Benny for how Germany conducted their war effort. Italy was a liability that Hitler gladly accepted - end of story.

[Lord Claremorris]

oh ok, though i already knew the whole deal about the greek invasion i also thought it was mossulini who triggered the war with russian with attacks and such


i love ww2 subject.. and i can't stop blamming mossulini for hitlers lose

everytime the italians did a move, besides being killed, germany always had to go backup and take care of the business...

It was hardly Mussolini's fault. Il Duce was no doubt a bungling harlequin with quite ridiculous theatrics and an absurd confidence in his nations military capacity, but that doesn't mean Germany can blame Italy for all the disasters. The failure in North Africa hardly affected Germany, it was not in Germany's sphere of influence and Germany could not reach it by sea anyhow, except to a very limited degree. Greece concerned Germany more, but only because of Romania, the Aegean Islands and the Mediterranean bases coveted by Italy meant nothing to them. Italy's participation hardly mattered one way or the other, but I should think it would be better to have an ally's forces, no matter how pathetic, than not to have them. Furthermore, I would like it to be noted that Germany failed because it invaded the Soviet Union, and the Red Juggernaut ground the German Army into the dust with it's mighty war machine, Italy had no part in this decision, and the Italian Army did not play much of a role in Russia. I know the Italian 8th Army (I think) was holding the flanks at Stalingrad but Hitler's own decision to push into the center of the city, and then telling Paulus that he couldn't withdraw after Manstein, very briefly, offered him a window of escape. That was due to sheer stupidity, or arrogance (amazing how close those two coincide), on the part of Adolf Hitler.

Lastly, Adolf Hitler was no supreme warlord of genius, despite his most earnest desire to be one. He imagined himself to be superior to careers officers when he clearly was not. His dismissal of Guderian, Rommel, and others did not help him. His famous remark to Guderian when the Father of the Blitzkrieg advocated an assault on Moscow and the Russian Center of "My generals understand nothing of economics," referring of course to the oil fields of the Caucasus. I believe Guderian could easily have retorted with "Our Fuhrer knows nothing of war." Though naturally that would have jeopardised his life. The point though is Hitler was no strategist, he did not see great opportunities and mistook luck for superior judgement. He drove Germany and its fantastic fighting force into the ground with his blatant idiocy.

EDIT: All the brilliant operations of the German Army were not conceived by Hitler, by the way, though he may have claimed them. The amazing and daring invasion of Norway was planned by Falkenhorst and Raeder. The decision to invade France and throw the allies into the sea by way of the Ardennes was the plan of Erich von Manstein. And Barbarossa was the brainchild of the General Staff as a whole, with Hitler playing no part. In fact, it is clear that all operations planned by Hitler were miserable failures, the drive into the Caucasus, The Battle of the Bulge.....

[Dr. Croccer]

what was the true cause that made hitler broke his german-russian pact of non agression?

There were various reasons. The most obvious was Nazi doctrine, as written in Mein Kampf, that the German people should expand eastwards and take the vast and rich lands of Russia. Others were more logical, the USSR was the only significant power on the continent that could threaten Germany; the USSR was now at it's weakest, it could only become stronger; the fear of the USSR and Britain forming an alliance and ganging up on Germany; the massive ideological differences between the two countries and the USSR was filled with resources and population which was vital for the Germans. If they conquered most of the western USSR, they would have a massive economic boost.

i know operation Barbossa was planned long before it happened, but the common sence thinks it was hitler's ambition to conquer russia only, but i've always heard (from more reliable sources than the common sence) that it was mossulini who actually triggered the war on eastern front with russia

if im not wrong it was about mossulini's conquests and attacks on balkan countries wich by anyway had anything to do with russia

Yes and no. Mussolini's invasions in the Balcans forced the Germans to intervenr on their behalf and delay their invasion and IIRC the Soviets secretly supplied the Balcan countries and rebels during the short wars.

and about france, besides being heavly 'barbaric' in therms of equipment than the germans, and becouse they got trapped in belgium (after gunderian trapped the allied forces in the low countries, forcing them to flee to dunkirk afterwards) etc

why did france lost so quickly?

Again, a lot of reasons. Traditionalism for one, the French for some reason took little effort in modernising their army; organisation and doctrine of troops, especially tanks, was extremely poor; the defensive doctrine was flawed and stupid; officer corps who were incompetent and didn't properly coordinate; lack of backup plans; complex and unstable political situation and poor morale under the French generally.

they had many soldiers from their colonies and british troops..

Not really that much...

plus support from america's military equipment..

Eh?

[Darkhorse]

My Answers are bolded.

what was the true cause that made hitler broke his german-russian pact of non agression?


i know operation Barbossa was planned long before it happened, but the common sence thinks it was hitler's ambition to conquer russia only, but i've always heard (from more reliable sources than the common sence) that it was mossulini who actually triggered the war on eastern front with russia

if im not wrong it was about mossulini's conquests and attacks on balkan countries wich by anyway had anything to do with russia


may anyone enlight this doubt, in a way i can understand the details between the true cause?

Hitler broke the pact. Barborrosa was thankfully delayed by the Italians who needed Germany to help them in the Balkans, thankfully. That delayed the operation by 3 months, and that's 3 months closer to winter.

and a few minor doubts:

what made erwin rommel lose in africa?

el Alimein was the turning point really. It was vital to the war, if the British fell there, Rommel would have had control over the Suez Canal, and the ability to strike north through the middle east and within a year be in Russia. The New British commander, Monty, was a brilliant general, and before he took over there was kinda a new British general each month, more importantly, he was well aware of the limitations of himself and his forces. Monty also outnumbered Rommel, and had lots of new shiny tanks from the UK and US. A joint British/American landing in Algeria and Morocco (which knocked the French out of Africa) Threatened Rommel's position and he had to pull back. You can also argue that Spain not joining the war and annexing Gibraltar, Vichy France not holding Algeria, the shocking performance of Italian forces in the area, and the failure to capture Malta (like Crete was) and finally the destruction of the Italian fleet in Taranto to be plausible causes. A more likely reason is the fact Barborossa took priority, and Rommel had little reinforcements and supplies were dwindling.

and about france, besides being heavly 'barbaric' in therms of equipment than the germans, and becouse they got trapped in belgium (after gunderian trapped the allied forces in the low countries, forcing them to flee to dunkirk afterwards) etc

why did france lost so quickly?

Many reasons, putting their faith in the Maginot line, which the Germans just went around, and failing to concentrate their armour. Instead scattering it with Infantry divisions. France was the largest and most mobilised army at this time (hell, 70% of the German army was horse drawn in 1940) and they failed to make use of this effectively.

The British had no choice but to pull back, as the French decided to bugger off towards Paris. They eventually surrendered, the rumoured reason, they didn't want Paris to be destroyed. Okay, that may be true, but the real reason is more likely to be that at that point they were unable to mount an effective defence. The British and Belgians were stuck in the north, with a sizeable amount of French soldiers. And the leadership of the rest of the French Army was constantly infighting. The French air force was gone, and the RAF refused to support them any more.


they had many soldiers from their colonies and british troops.. plus support from america's military equipment..

British colonial forces spent most of the time in Burma, and North Africa. Only the BEF was sent to France. America wasn't involved in supplying the French until after Dunkirk, where French units in England were equipped with American and British gear.

[Town Watch]

France was the largest and most mobilised army at this time (hell, 70% of the German army was horse drawn in 1940) and they failed to make use of this effectively.

uhm, USSR had the largest tank force, the largest army and presumably somewhat good motorization in 1940.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

and about france, besides being heavly 'barbaric' in therms of equipment than the germans, and becouse they got trapped in belgium (after gunderian trapped the allied forces in the low countries, forcing them to flee to dunkirk afterwards) etc

why did france lost so quickly?


they had many soldiers from their colonies and british troops.. plus support from america's military equipment..

Several people have already answered, but in order to avoid simplifications I'm going to attempt a more complete explanation.

Several factors here:

1) The Dyle plan, developped by Gamelin, involved a move which was far too deep. Despite his staff criticizing it almost unanimously, offering a shorter move into Belgium, Gamelin decided to carry on. The most probable reason is that Gamelin was thinking as a politician -- he feared the backlash of accusations of "abandoning" the Belgians if he didn't create a line behind which the Belgian army could regroup.

2) Gamelin, once up North, thought that Army Group B was strongest, and engaged it successfully. Nevertheless, Army Group A, which was in fact the strongest, bypassed Gamelin's force and attacked the Ardennes gap.

3) In the Ardennes gap, Huntzinger, an incompetent officer who was nevertheless under Gamelin's protection, placed seven under-strength B reserve (the older reservists, A reserves being younger) divisions in the gap near Sedan. These divisions were overwhelmed and overrun by 7 panzer divisions, 3 motorized divisions and 30 infantry divisions of Army Group A.

This leads to 4) The BEF + the best French divisions are trapped in a pocket up North, whereas the troops in the Maginot line to the south are, likewise, separated from the rest. Due to a lack of reserves, the French are unable to close the widening gap, which the Germans, then, exploit.

5) Up north, the troops manage to put up a stiff opposition to the Germans. Ultimately, the BEF manages to evacuate, along with a sizeable amount of French troops, to Britain.

6) Elsewhere, the Maginot line forts managed to resist the German attacks successfully, but were obviously unable to contain the German advance through the rest of French territory.

After this, the French president's government suffered an institutional breakdown. A number of politicians along with a sizeable section of the officer corps actually had sympathies towards the nazis and have been described by historians as "salazarian", "mussolinian" or "franquist", as they had fascist ideas, despite not being nazis. Among them were Helene des Portes, Paul Baudouin, Paul de Villelume, Laval, and, of course, Petain. They were supported by monarchists such as general Weygand and Alibert. In the military, generals Colson and Darlan were also in favour of the fascists.

What followed was a veritable "coup" which began in Bordeaux on the 17th of June with Petain's broadcast announcing that the "fighting must cease", (said speech having been written by Baudoin) and concluding on the 10th of July in Vichy with the anticonstitutional transfer of power to Petain.

The fighting having begun on May the 10th, the armistice was signed on June 22nd, and the last shots were fired on the 7th of July. By that time the remnants of the French army were trapped into roughly three pockets and could do little to prevent the Germans from occupying the rest of French territory.

Hope this was helpful. I'm a bit of a buff on this particular bit of the conflict, so I'll be glad to answer any questions.

P.S.: You mention "American military equipment", whereas there was none during this campaign. Just thought I'd mention it.

[Sphere]

what made erwin rommel lose in africa?

Malta. People say El Alamein, but in reality, because malta wasn't captured, Rommel couldn't be resupplied/reinforced effectively as the planes/subs based in Malta reaked havoc on the Axis shipping out of Italy. Because of this Montey had an enormous material and numerical advantage by the time he counter-attacked at El Alamein.

and about france, besides being heavly 'barbaric' in therms of equipment than the germans

Thats false. In terms of tanks and infantry, French equipment was on par or better than the Germans forces. The French airforce, however was outdated compared to the Luffwaffe. The key was not numbers or equipment, but doctorine. The Germans used "Panzer-Divisions" and other highly mobile/armored units, combined with marvelous close-air support, to break through enemy lines and then rapidly exploit the opening. The french spread out their armor across the entire front, and did not have mechanized infantry divisions. Thus they repeatedly could not organize a counter-attack fast enough to stop the fast-moving German offensive. There are anecdotes of French units arriving in areas they are meant to defend only to find the Germans already there.

In short, the French were still fighting WWI while the Germans where fighting WWII.

[dragonsign]

After what I know, Hitler needed a secure source of fuel, and the greatest supply was in the Soviet Union, near Crimea if I remember correctly. Although the Germans had made a pretty good deal with the soviets about oil supply I would think that they knew that there would be war with the Soviet Union sooner or later. The red army was still weak after the wars with the Finns (that gave them one hell of a fight) and Stalin’s purges among the officers. Therefore it was best to attack them early before they could build up strength and maybe get boosted with the latest war tech from the allies.

[Darkhorse]

Well, I meant forces at war with Germany in 1940, I should have made that clear.

But nonetheless, after 1942/43 that would indeed be the case, but I'm talking as a % of a total force. As a % of forces, in 1940. Soviet mechanisation was really shockingly poor. That's why iron rungs became a feature on Soviet armour, so infantry could ride on them. And that was toward the end of the war, in 1940 the Red army was hopeless on that front. The Allies had a good 1200 tank advantage over Germany in France, and hardly any of them were British. The French had been mechanizing its army from 1928, far earlier than anyone else. Enough serviceable French and British vehicles were salvaged after the fall of France to equip several divisions on the eastern front. 1 Division was equipped solely with capture British vehicles form Dunkirk alone. Which shows the extent on how desperate Germany was for a similar amount of vehicles to her enemy.

As a comparison, a year later, the Soviets had 11000 tank's at the time of Barbarossa. Whilst this is indeed a far far greater number, as a % of its total force, this is smaller than France. And that just takes into account tanks. Mechanisation/motorisation includes anything from tank to a truck, anything that wasn't horse drawn or on bicycles. The Red army did indeed have many thousands of tanks, just not much else.