Were the Nazis more advanced than the British and French?

The Germans were way ahead in rocket science and indeed both the United States and the Russians borrowed heavily from the Germans to build cruise missiles. As I have pointed out before cruise missiles and ICBMs have drastically changed modern warfare. Indeed states that do not have this technology cannot begin to compete in warfare with nations that have masted it.

Furthermore with regards to nuclear fission, the Germans had the means in terms of skill to master this technology. They did not put sufficient resources into it, and it may well have been Heisenberg's desire to retard development in this area that stifled German efforts.

 

I contend that this assessment is not necessarily true. Had it not been for cold weather, and the delay partly due to deliberate British efforts, the Germans had a very good chance of bringing a substantial portion of Russia under their control. Not only that, but if you consider the additional effects of substantial amounts of Allied aid, and the Nazis having to fight a war on two fronts, one could very well conclude that it was the Russians who would have lost.

 

Hitler did have historical precedent to guide him. Napoleon's army entered Russia on June 24th. On June 27 the Russian army pulled back and let the French take Vilna with scarcely a fight. That night a thunderstorm killed many French troops and horses with lightning, hail, and freezing rain. From then on the Russians kept retreating, and burning anything they couldn't carry or pull including bridges. The peasants hated any outsiders and burned their own crops and homes ahead of the French advance.

Disease was taking a heavy toll on the French as the Russians simply retreated and did not begin to truly fight until September, when at Borodino each side lost around 35,000. The Russians then retreated and let the French have Moscow, but only to watch it burn. The Muscovites took their food, gear, and guns with them, but left the vodka and the French naturally went on a drunk with their victory of occupying the capital. But on October 19th Napoleon realized he was in weather trouble, and that no surrender was ever forthcoming. He began a retreat.

The Russians then advanced and forced the French, already down 100,000 men, to take the same route out, with nothing there left for the French to sustain a march. They lost many thousands of men and horses each night from exposure, weakness, and starvation, leaving the walking wounded behind to die. There wasn't much left of their 650,000 man army when the French crossed out of Russia.

Hitler had to have known of the weather factor and the grit of the civilians in Russia, yet he decided that this time it's different.

 

As I mentioned a little earlier, (Post #375) I believe it's more accurate to say that Germany was fighting most of WW2 on 3 Fronts with N. Africa & Italy comprising the Southern Front.
While different people have debated the effectiveness & innovative qualities of WW2 weaponry, it is generally conceded by objective historians that the average German soldier was a better fighter even when the end was inevitable.

 

I think you'd be surprised at the popularity of Germany's National Socialist movement during the 1930s throughout the U.S. & Britain with King Edward Vlll, the Cliveden Set and other elements within the British aristocracy enthusiastically expressing open support for Hitler and eagerly aiding his rearmament.
The world was justifiably impressed at the speed with which Germany had recovered from a starving, destitute state infested with communism & racked by anarchy to one of the richest countries in the world.
Hitler was equally fond of the British(1), expressed his strong aversion to a 2 Front War in "Mein Kampf" and, I think, was fully supportive of establishing a form of peace or state of neutrality with the British via Hess's peace mission in 1941 (2).

Churchill, unlike his predecessor, Chamberlain, was strongly pro War, eager to expand the British Empire(3) & busy luring an equally pro War Roosevelt into the conflict.

Because National Socialist Germany had enjoyed so much pre- War popularity, I think that Hitler was, on some level, surprised to find Germany in a full scale war with Britain & the U.S.



"Nazi Summer Camps In 1930s America?"
https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-hi.../402679062/nazi-summer-camps-in-1930s-america
EXCERPT "The Bund, "which came to include more than 70 local chapters," according to a 2014 National Archives blog post, "was founded in 1936 to promote Germany and the Nazi party in America. The most well-known of the organization's activities was the 1939 pro-Nazi rally held at Madison Square Garden that drew a reported 20,000 attendees."CONTINUED


How British High Society Fell in Love With the Nazis - The Daily Beast
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-british-high-society-fell-in-love-with-the- nazis
‎
EXCERPT "And while there is little doubt that the Queen is absolutely not a Nazisympathizer, it is equally true that there was widespread sympathy for Nazis and Nazism in the early and mid-1930s in the very heart of the British establishment."CONTINUED


(1) "The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to shed," Hitler said. "Our two people belong together racially and traditionally. That is and always has been my aim, even if our generals can't grasp it." (Kilzer, p.213)


(2) "Hess, Hitler & Churchill"
https://www.amazon.com/Hess-Hitler-Churchill-Turning-History/dp/184831602X
EXCERPT "Peter Padfield presents striking new evidence that demands the wholesale reappraisal of the episode. For, allied to a powerful argument that Hess must have had both Hitler's backing and considerable encouragement from Britain, Padfield demonstrates that he also brought with him a draft peace treaty committing Hitler to the evacuation of occupied European countries. Made public, this would have destroyed Churchill's campaign to bring the United States into the war."CONTINUED


(3) "Winston Churchill: the Imperial Monster"
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/28/winston-churchill-the-imperial-monster/

 

No, I wouldn't. We're always going to have a certain amount of degenerates who support the nazi ideals of racism in open societies like the US and the UK. Like I said, there's still a contingent alive and well today. They all voted for trump.

 

Of course Hitler and others like Churchill knew about the risks posed by winter weather in Russia. However, there are probably several factors that led Hitler to believe he could defeat Russia before the onset of the winter weather.

1. The German army had been performing rather well in Europe and had gone so far as to defeat France.
2. The Soviet army had performed poorly in war against Finland.
3. There had been a major purge of Soviet officers which left the Soviet army in a relatively inexperienced state.
4. Hitler did not anticipate the Soviet capability to massively produce tanks.

These things likely led to over confidence and as a consequence the Nazis thought the war would be over quickly.

 

I think its fair to say that Germany lost that war, not because of its technology, rather the primary cause was that their capability was over stretched.

 

When I said a war on two fronts I should have said by two nations.
I should have mentioned this earlier. When Britain went to war the British empire was still intact in the 1940s so it meant taking on troops etc from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India the Caribbean and parts of Africa. Its only right that all these countries should be recognized for their part they played in WW2.

The flat farm lands of the counties in East Anglia were commandeered in1940 for the building of airfields for the bombing of occupied Europe by Bombing Command (British) and later in 1943 by the American 8th Air Force. The loss of life for both British and Americans was horrendous. The British tour of duty was 30 missions which there was a 1 in 6 chance of completing. American’s were advised by the British not to operate over Europe in daylight without fighter escort but the they were confident that their heavily armed bombers could take care of themselves, a huge mistake. The American loses were so bad that operations had to be suspended until the development of long range fighter cover was made available.

In a little village church in the county of Suffolk there is a small corner in remembrance for an American crew killed in trying to land their crippled B17. It has their photographs together with the American flag and a vase of fresh flowers. A small tribute not made by any official organization but by the village people themselves. Touching don't you think?

 

they did have some smart scientists, why we stole Einstein and others after it was over

I would say they were German rather then Nazis's though, I doubt most scientists supported the Nazis views

 

Well I am certainly shedding no tears that Hitler was defeated. That was one war that I view as necessary. Sometimes its like that.

 

That is an important distinction. From what I can understand from reading about Heisenberg was that he appeared to be conflicted between his love for Germany, but at the same time supporting Hitler. I guess that would be somewhat difficult to resolve.

 

I question the view that WW2 was either a "Good War" or, like all wars, even necessary.

Hitler had 2 primary goals:
1. To abrogate the draconian, counter-productive Treaty of Versailles.
2. To confront the Bolshevik Communists that had already made deep inroads into consuming Germany which included colonizing Russia in the same manner in which the British colonized & occupied 1/4 of the globe.

I know that its a heresy to suggest that Germany's racists were no more murderous or strident in their beliefs than those who ruled the British Empire(1) but Britain's extermination of millions of Australia's Aborigines, Bengalese, Kenyans etc differs little from German exterminations which may have been avoided if Churchill had accepted Hess's peace proposal (2) in 1941.
The fact remains that if Churchill had established peace or a state of neutrality with Germany, it would have destroyed Churchill's campaign to lure the US into another European War, destroy Germany & expand the racist British Empire.




(1) "Winston Churchill: the Imperial Monster"
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/28/winston-churchill-the-imperial-monster/
EXCERPT "“On the subject of India,” said the British Secretary of State to India: “Winston is not quite sane… I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s.”

In 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused by the imperial policies of the British. In reply to the Secretary of State for India’s telegram requesting food stock to relieve the famine, Churchill wittily replied:

“If food is scarce, why isn’t Gandhi dead yet?”

Up to 3 million people starved to death. Asked in 1944 to explain his refusal to send food aid, Churchill jeered:

“Relief would do no good. Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply.”

Churchill’s brutality and brutishness have been ignored, but he never reckoned on the invention of the internet, or its power to allow authors to question his view of history and expose the cruelty and racism of the man."CONTINUED


(2) "Nazis ‘offered to leave western Europe in exchange for free hand to attack USSR"

http://www.historyextra.com/news/se...estern-europe-exchange-free-hand-attack-ussr’

EXCERPT ""A new book claims to have solved the riddle of the flight to Britain in 1941 of Rudolph Hess, Adolf Hitler’s deputy. Historian Peter Padfield has uncovered evidence he says shows Hess, the deputy Fuhrer, brought with him from Hitler a detailed peace treaty, under which the Nazis would withdraw from western Europe in exchange for British neutrality over the imminent attack on Russia. The episode remains, more than 70 years on, shrouded in mystery."CONTINUED

 

I don't think it was a good war, however in my opinion, the defeat of Hitler was necessary. Part of the problem is that the work of Friedrich Nietzsche had the effect of giving impetus to a number of pseudo philosophies such as existentialism and post modernism, as well as Nazi ideology. Here's something of interest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Baeumler

I think it is also of interest that the Nazi denial of the state as a moral organism is somewhat similar to that of modern so called "conservatives" who deny the organic nature of society, but rather place emphasis on atomic individualism. Very interesting indeed.