WWII Buffs--Some Questions...

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's not true.

I am a veteran of the Army of the Potomac.

[AENeuman]

Do you consider the people killed in the bombings Germany and Japan civilians?

Listening to hardcore history podcast (which is amazing) on the atomic bomb and this question just kept nagging me.

[Bobble]

In what context? Not enrolled in the military = civilians for me. Do you mean "innocent"?

[Peregrine]

Definitely civilians, if they're not in the military, but seems like that's not your question. Do you mean are they legitimate targets?

[Chief Rum]

Bumping this gave me the opportunity to re-read this thread, which I had forgotten about. Very interesting read.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Definitely civilians, if they're not in the military, but seems like that's not your question. Do you mean are they legitimate targets?

Knowing the total war effort in us in ww2, I imagine it must have been truly all consuming in Germany and Japan. Thus, why are the people who eat, reproduce, live and work towards the common goal of victory (and ally destruction) considered civilians?

I don't see how the targeted casualties in the fire bombings in Japan can be described as civilians the same way as the targeted civilians on, for example, 911.

[Peregrine]

Well that's a pretty grim view of it. I mean sure if you're working in an arms factory it's pretty obvious you're part of the war effort, but what if you're a police officer, teacher, or just a mother at home? Calling them all not civilians seems pretty harsh.

You can criticize or support how the war was waged or certain tactics, but not sure that removing civilian status is the way to do it. I mean turn it around and say that the British civilians who were killed during the blitz weren't civilians and it was a totally acceptable tactic? Pretty sure few would agree with that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Knowing the total war effort in us in ww2, I imagine it must have been truly all consuming in Germany and Japan. Thus, why are the people who eat, reproduce, live and work towards the common goal of victory (and ally destruction) considered civilians?

I don't see how the targeted casualties in the fire bombings in Japan can be described as civilians the same way as the targeted civilians on, for example, 911.

I don't see how you can make that separation. AQ, and basically every other terrorist/insurgent group, has argued repeatedly that civilians are legitimate targets because they are complicit in the actions of the government. How is that argument any different from the one you make about Germany/Japan?

The line between civilian and combatant is also going to be blurry around the edges, but defining it as in uniform/out of uniform is a pretty good starting point.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't see how you can make that separation. AQ, and basically every other terrorist/insurgent group, has argued repeatedly that civilians are legitimate targets because they are complicit in the actions of the government. How is that argument any different from the one you make about Germany/Japan?

The line between civilian and combatant is also going to be blurry around the edges, but defining it as in uniform/out of uniform is a pretty good starting point.

Maybe it's just semantics. I just don't see how the destruction of a community that is enthusiastically participating (both logistically and existentially) to a war effort can be called civilian.

Ww2 seems to be the battle of the war machines. A person was just one part of the greater machine. thus, it was the goal for the other side to destroy the machine, in all it's incarnations.

[JPhillips]

Do you consider the people of London civilians?

[Buccaneer]

I had to think back to 2008 and recalled that I had not read much ww2 up to that point. I've since read much more including watching the fantastic and long World at War documentary. I think the OP were excellent.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Knowing the total war effort in us in ww2, I imagine it must have been truly all consuming in Germany and Japan. Thus, why are the people who eat, reproduce, live and work towards the common goal of victory (and ally destruction) considered civilians?

Considered by whom? International law?
I am sure there is specific rules on this, I would check the UN.

[lungs]

I had a chance to visit Dresden, Germany last October. You could still see the burn marks on the foundations of some of the buildings. Wish I would have had more time there but spending a few hours in downtown Dresden was well worth it.

[Dutch]

German History Museum in Munich has a sobering tribute if you ever get the chance to go.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Best series on WW2 ever made is A&Es World at War narrated by Laurence Olivier.

I agree this is the best WWII documentary I've seen. I bought the bluray version from Amazon for $56.99, I see it's $65 now. Well worth it. DVD version is $42 but the bluray has enhanced sound along with video.

It is not an A&E produced show but was licensed to them. Originally produced by Thames Television Ltd in the early 70's. I first saw it on PBS ~1975 or '76 when I was in high school. Loved it then and wasn't disappointed when I bought the series in 2012. Thought maybe I remembered it with rose colored glasses but it was just as good as it was when I saw it almost 40 years ago.

[tarcone]

Just saw this. I will throw some things out.

Roosevelt was racist. But I think that was part of the times. And to add to it, a lot of the military hated the British, calling them "limeys'. I think in the isolationist view of the United States at the time, foreigners were not thought highly of.

In WW2, there were way too many civilians killed. Yes, I believe that the Japanese and Germans had civilians killed. but the war was horrific. And that was the only way the Allies felt they had a chance to win. And it was a lot less politically correct back then. Imagine if the US bombed a city to the ground in Iraq today and kileed thousands of civilians. What would the backlash be? Back then, they were just Japs and Krauts. People from very far away. Not like today, in a global society.

Fascism and communism are about as far apart on the political spectrum as they can be. Hitler made a huge mistake going into the Soviet Union when he did. But Hitler thought his superior race would take a short time dealing with them. look at the war to that point. No one had stopped Hitler. He had run roughshod over Europe. What could the Soviets do? In fact, The German soldiers had no Winter gear for the invasion. Hitler didnt think it would be needed. Then he got stopped outside Moscow, but the big blow was Stalingrad. Losing an army. Losing a huge propaganda war.

Another reason the Pacific war took as long as it did was because the US had a Europe first doctrine. Not as many resources were put into the Pacific war. Had Roosevelt concentrated on Japan and let the UK and the Soviets deal with Germany, the Pacific war would have been much shorter.

But there was also the race for German scientists. One reason the US got to the moon first. We got the better German scientists.

Why didnt Japan surrender? Cultural beliefs. Japan was in no way going to surrender. Thats one of the reasons the US dropped atomics. Japan was in all the way. Japanese would rather commit suicide then surrender, I believe.
After the bloody battles on the island hopping excursion by the US. Attacking Japan would have taken a long time to defeat and cost a lot of American lives.

Great stuff. I could discuss WW2 all day.

Im reading The Burma Campaign right now. This is a theater that isnt very well known. But it is considered the Stalingrad of the Pacific war. 3 years in the country. And brutal fighting. Interesting to learn about the Chinese leader taking the lend lease and ferreting it away to deal with the communists after the war was over. And not using it to help the Allies defeat the Japanese.

Another outstanding book to read is Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor. If you want to read a great book about the turning point of the European theater. This is it. Amazing stories. Germans and Russians in the same building seperated by a wall and fighting it out or a Russian unit on the ground floor, a German unit on the 2nd floor and another Russian unit on the 3rd floor, fighting it out. And the conditions were brutal. And how the civilians survived. Awesome book.

[CraigSca]

Another reason for the atomic bomb was the fear that the Russians, not having to deal with the Germans anymore, after invading Manchuria would not stop there and eventually sweep through Japan itself.

Hitler was essentially right when it came to his world view of the Bolshevik "horde" - had the allies not invaded from the west in Europe and finished off Japan as quickly as it had, all of Europe and Asia might have been under Soviet control.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Best series on WW2 ever made is A&Es World at War narrated by Laurence Olivier. All these questions are answered in depth.

The answer to 10. yes

This was actually a BBC series that was released in the early 70s.


Wow, how'd I miss this thread? I love analyzing WWII, playing WWII games, and the like. Most of my college backpacking tour of Europe was spent going to various WWII memorials, museums, and sites. Nothing is quite as haunting as the picture of a bombed out Koln with only the cathedral left standing.

Keyser had some great answers to the original 10 questions. My 2 cents on them:

1) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor when they did? What possible good does it do them to bring the U.S. into the war at this point? I would have thought it better to wait until the UK fell to Germany (assuming that would have eventually happened) and get an even stronger stronghold on China before tackling that monster (and hopefully with unhindered German aid).

Japan was indeed strapped for access to resources. It was difficult for them to expand much farther without getting the US involved in the war directly. Therefore, the thought was to knock the main US fleet out and give Japan control of the Pacific to expand.


2) Why Poland? I guess I don't get why Poland was the breaking point. England and France let Germany re-arm, let them annex Austria and then the Sudetenland. Why was Poland the straw?

Everyone has made several points. A combination of political climate change in Britain and Hitler's belief that Poland would be another place that the Allies wouldn't stand up for.

3) Why does Hitler encourage his U-boats to attack U.S. shipping? Is it just because Roosevelt was supplying Britain with arms and supplies and what not? Germany had England in a bad spot, even with the failed (if brutal) air war. Hitler could have waited them out or even kept bombing (or waited for his V-rockets to develop). Kinda like Japan--why on Earth would Hitler want to bring the U.S. into the war (especially before finishing off England)?

Hitler actually had to be encouraged to expand the U-boat war, but did so to try to cripple Britain. England was indeed on the ropes after the Battle of Britain, but the Luftwaffe's change in tactics from military targets to civilian ones actually helped the British. A true invasion of Britain was probably unlikely at best, so a combination of bombing and economically starvation was the German plan for British capitulation.

4) I understand early on, ravaged by the just finished civil war, but why didn't the Nazi and Mussolini-supported fascist regime under Franco in Spain enter the war on the side of the Axis at some point? They were probably too torn apart to help with France in 1940, but might they not have had a big impact in North Africa in 1943, and in slowing down the Allied invasion in 1944?

I've actually read a lot of reasons behind this one. Spain was pretty weak after the civil war, and I've read that Franco had no interest in getting involved in the war. Franco was concerned the Allies would use Spain as a launching point into Europe and had stationed the army around Gibraltar early in the war to prevent that from happening. Interestingly enough, Portugal would have join the Allies but was dissuaded by the British because it might provoke the Spanish from joint the Axis.

5) Am I wrong in thinking France and the Low Countries are more or less flatlands? Why would Germany choose to make stands against invasion in these areas, instead of relying on the waterways like the Rhine as a defense point, or the Alps in the south?

German command believed an Atlantic Wall would be able to protect France, but by D-Day it wasn't finished and was undermanned. They did what you said after the invasion, but by then the end was in sight.

6) Was it really just ego that led to Hitler invading the Soviet Union? I mean, how does someone who had done so well to that point make such a phenomenally stupid error?

Yep. He states this in Mein Kampf, that the Germans should look east. Russia had land and resources he believed should be available for the German people to use.

7) Is it true that Roosevelt and the high commanders of the Navy were racist against Japanese to the point they actually legitamitely thought Japanese pilots would be too "near-sighted" to be effective pilots?

Haven't read as much on this, but considering out internment camp policies, especially against the Japanese, this doesn't surprise me.

8) After the Allies took Sicily, didn't they pretty much control the Mediterranean seaways? Why did it take so long for the Allies to get through to the trapped beachhead at Anzio (and from land)? Hell, land more troops and break through that!
The Allies moved slow and although Eisenhower loved him, Clark was not one of our greatest generals. Anzio did help the Allies learn from mistakes to make D-Day more successful. I'm sure part of it was also strategic. The Italian Campaign was only going so far before you got to the Alps. Invading Germany's underbelly wasn't practical so you had to prepare another front.

9) The U.S. had several strong victories in the sea against Japan around Coral Sea and Midway and were controlling most of the ocean war zone west of the Marianas and around Hawaii and Australia. So why weren't supplies able to get to American troops on Guadalcanal, such that they had to live off of local foliage for a while?
Some of this came from logistical issues from the US, which actually improved because of this battle.

10) Why did the Allies massively bomb Dresden, which apparently had no strategic value whatsoever? The bombing campaigns against both Germany and Japan near the end of the war seemed particularly over-kill. Was it an "Eye for an Eye" attitude from the bombings of England and Pearl Harbor?

That's probably a part of it, but also included the same reasons the Germans bombed London. It was psychological warfare in the hopes of crushing opposition will to fight.

11) And speaking of bombings, did the canals in Tokyo really boil when the U.S. pretty much massively destroyed the city with a firebomb attack in 1945? And what on Earth were the Japanese thinking to not surrender right then and there (and instead put the U.S. in the position to choose to use the atomic bomb)?

Not sure about part A of the question. As for part B, I think part of it was a fanatical belief in the Emperor and a willingness to lay their lives down for Japan. The US were aware of these feelings based off how hard it was to take various islands in the war. I think i read that the US estimated up to a million could die in an invasion of Japan.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I agree this is the best WWII documentary I've seen. I bought the bluray version from Amazon for $56.99, I see it's $65 now. Well worth it. DVD version is $42 but the bluray has enhanced sound along with video.

It is not an A&E produced show but was licensed to them. Originally produced by Thames Television Ltd in the early 70's. I first saw it on PBS ~1975 or '76 when I was in high school. Loved it then and wasn't disappointed when I bought the series in 2012. Thought maybe I remembered it with rose colored glasses but it was just as good as it was when I saw it almost 40 years ago.

I agree, having watched the whole thing about 4 years ago. Great to see Stephen Ambrose looking hippie-ish. I got the 10-volumn DVD set and the last two DVDs are full of bonus documentaries (not part of the original programming?).

[ColtCrazy]

Several of the World at War videos can be found on Youtube as well. A few years back the Daily Mail was putting a DVD a day in their paper of the series. My aunt picked them all up so my dad could have a set of them. Just a great series.

[Warhammer]

According to the eyewitness accounts I read, the canals actually did boil. The effects of the fire bombings of Japan were horrific. Unfortunately, my post was 7 years ago, so I do not remember where I read about them.

Regarding Anzio, the point of the landing was to outflank the German defenses of the Gothic (?) Line. The original commander at Anzio did not exploit his surprise which allowed the Germans to prepare defenses and seal the beachhead. It took replacing him and then reinforcing the beachhead to achieve our aims.

[EagleFan]

Amazing to think how just a couple small events could have seriously changed the course of that war.

- Hitler not sending an invasion force into England and instead believing that bombing would be enough to beat them. They were teetering on the edge and I think a full scale invasion could have been a decisive blow.

- Hitler directing his army to take Stalingrad instead of going straight into Moscow. If they go direct they most likely take Moscow before winter. Stalingrad was not an important strategic city to take.

- The German army being paralyzed during D-day as they couldn't move their armor until Hitler approved. They waited until he woke up to tell him what was going on instead of waking him up.

- The German army's belief that the invasion would be during high tide and not low tide. They relaxed to where their leader wasn't even in the area during that particular tide cycle. This added to the above confusion.

- The mass confusion on the allies side during the eve of D-day paratrooper drop. Almost all missed their actual landing zones and they were so spread out across the area that when reports came in the German army couldn't pinpoint exactly where the target really was. They thought it was a diversion from what they believed to be the real target.

[Warhammer]

An invasion of England was not feasible for the Germans. The heck of it though is Germany could have essentially sat there and reaped the benefits of occupied Europe and England could do very little by herself. But instead, Hitler decided to go into Russia.

[ColtCrazy]

Amazing to think how just a couple small events could have seriously changed the course of that war.

- Hitler not sending an invasion force into England and instead believing that bombing would be enough to beat them. They were teetering on the edge and I think a full scale invasion could have been a decisive blow.

I'm with Warhammer that an invasion of England is unlikely. The English navy was still superior to the German, the British still had some strength in the RAF and those people would have fought the Germans for every inch. Haven't you seen Dad's Army?

- Hitler directing his army to take Stalingrad instead of going straight into Moscow. If they go direct they most likely take Moscow before winter. Stalingrad was not an important strategic city to take.

That's the thing. The Germans had the change to knock Russia out before their mobilization and manpower turned the tide, but Hitler's indecisiveness of targets (or sheer stupidity blinded by hubris - your choice) kept them from taking Moscow or finishing off the Caucuses.

- The German army being paralyzed during D-day as they couldn't move their armor until Hitler approved. They waited until he woke up to tell him what was going on instead of waking him up.

Hitler was extremely paranoid by then which didn't help.

- The German army's belief that the invasion would be during high tide and not low tide. They relaxed to where their leader wasn't even in the area during that particular tide cycle. This added to the above confusion.

Their intelligence definitely blew that one. The Allies were great as disinformation.

[Coffee Warlord]

Yeah, Operation Sealion (German plan for invasion of England) was pretty much a pipe dream. Germany would have needed:

1) Barbarossa to not happen.
2) A couple years consolidating their western conquests.
3) During those couple years, a massive naval construction.
4) More oil.

They neither had the time nor the resources to support construction of a fleet on that scale.

[ColtCrazy]

Interestingly, this played out in Columbia Games' new Victory in Europe board game. We were learning the game so I was trying various tactics just to see what would happen. I started out brilliantly. I had managed to defeat Poland, the Low Countries, and France by the end of 1939. I was rolling. I stopped to use 1940 as a build up to invade Britain. I was not successful. I had to send troops to Africa to help my pathetic Italian allies. Although I had weakened Britain's air force, I never did anything to seriously damage their navy. I had spent so much in resources that by the time 1941 came around I was not built up enough to defeat the Russians.

[Buccaneer]

Which was why it made most sense for the nazis to hit the Balkans and ME first.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Yeah, Operation Sealion (German plan for invasion of England) was pretty much a pipe dream.

I think Germany would have had a decent chance if It had won the Battle of Britain.
(Assuming Hitler let his generals do their job and not screw it up.)

The Royal Navy would have been effectively neutralized. Bringing it into the Channel without air cover would be suicide.

The British Army was relatively small and had just lost (been forced to leave behind) most of their modern equipment at Dunkirk. Watching France get seem rolled could not have been good for morale, either. And face it England was not Japan, they were not going to fight to the last man.

I think it would have come down would the weather hold and could Germany get enough supplies across the Channel.

[tarcone]

While Stalingrad was not a strategic need, Hitler felt it would be a huge win in the propaganda war. Thus, making Russia weaker. Then that army was to steam roll to all that oil in the south.

England would have been a tough get. The RAFs victory really upped the spirits of the Brits. And had England been invaded, The US would have jumped in the war at that point.

The Germans did not want the US in the war.

[Peregrine]

One "what-if" I haven't seen discussed here was why Hitler declared war on the US at all after Pearl Harbor. He was under no written agreement to do so (and since when had those mattered to him.) Imagine if he hadn't, and had scaled back some of the u-boat attacks, to try to keep America busy with the Japanese. Probably the US would have come into the European war at some point, but until then the British weren't in much of a shape to mount an attack on Europe themselves. Could have bought him some time at the very least.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

One "what-if" I haven't seen discussed here was why Hitler declared war on the US at all after Pearl Harbor. He was under no written agreement to do so (and since when had those mattered to him.) Imagine if he hadn't, and had scaled back some of the u-boat attacks, to try to keep America busy with the Japanese. Probably the US would have come into the European war at some point, but until then the British weren't in much of a shape to mount an attack on Europe themselves. Could have bought him some time at the very least.

Chances were good the US would have declared war fairly soon anyway. Hitler overestimated his own power as well as Japan's, not to mention underestimating the American industrial might. If he didn't declare, it might have bought him some time. Still, he dug his own grave with his indecisiveness (or stubbornness in the case of Stalingrad) in Russia.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

One "what-if" I haven't seen discussed here was why Hitler declared war on the US at all after Pearl Harbor. He was under no written agreement to do so (and since when had those mattered to him.) Imagine if he hadn't, and had scaled back some of the u-boat attacks, to try to keep America busy with the Japanese. Probably the US would have come into the European war at some point, but until then the British weren't in much of a shape to mount an attack on Europe themselves. Could have bought him some time at the very least.

I believe that he also wanted Japan to harass Russia in the east. Japan may not have been as willing if it looked like Germany was not "on their side".

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

The US would have jumped in the war at that point.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. It took a direct attack on the country to get involved. The attitude in the country was to stay out of foreign wars after WW1.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

Chances were good the US would have declared war fairly soon anyway.

Not so sure about that. England was quick to declare war on Japan because they weren't sure that the US would also declare war on Germany and wanted to show their support for the US. They were hoping to put enough pressure on the US to declare war on Germany.

Granted Hitler's ego (and insanity) wrote a check that his army couldn't cash when he jumped to declare was on the US. It seems he and his merry band of psychopaths seemed to be the only ones that felt they could win at that point.

[Warhammer]

Let's not forget, Dec. 8 Japan invaded The Malay Peninsula and bombed Singapore. Attacking England was part of Japan's strategy whether England declared war or not. That said, Churchill recognized that he needed the U.S. focused on Europe and not the Pacific so he pulled out all the stops.

[NobodyHere]

I think it is important to note that if Roosevelt had brought the US into the war without a Pearl Harbor attack, he would've brought a divided country. There were still a lot of isolationists who didn't want to be dragged into a war to defend Chinese mud huts or the British Empire.

Instead with the Japanese attack he brought a united country.

[JPhillips]

I know that's conventional wisdom, but I was looking at some polling data a while ago that showed the country was moving rapidly towards intervention before Pearl Harbor. In the Spring of 1940 less than 40% favored helping England over staying out of the war, but by Spring of 1941 that number was around 70%. There are obvious issues with what exactly "helping England" meant, but it does suggest that Roosevelt could have entered the war without Germany declaring first.

Whether he could have declared on Japan first is a different story, and I don't have any data for that.

edit: I went back to the paper I saw the data in and the data for "every able-bodied man should serve in the armed forces" is very interesting. In Dec 1939 that number was under 40%, but by Dec of 1940 it was around 70%.

[tarcone]

I think if Germany would have invaded, the US joins. If the US was unable to help a successful occupation of England, I think Russia declares on Germany.

I think Stalin knew what was coming. I dont think he was prepared for the start date.

If Japan had hit Russia in the East, it would have been an interesting war for Russia. But that wasnt going to happen. Japan needed the resources in SE Asia. So they were willing to stick to the peace treaty they signed woih Russia after their war.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Not so sure about that. England was quick to declare war on Japan because they weren't sure that the US would also declare war on Germany and wanted to show their support for the US. They were hoping to put enough pressure on the US to declare war on Germany.

Granted Hitler's ego (and insanity) wrote a check that his army couldn't cash when he jumped to declare was on the US. It seems he and his merry band of psychopaths seemed to be the only ones that felt they could win at that point.

There would have been a lot of pressure to not jump into a 2 front war.
Go all out to defeat Japan (they are the one who attacked us) and let Europe take care of itself.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Surtt

There would have been a lot of pressure to not jump into a 2 front war.
Go all out to defeat Japan (they are the one who attacked us) and let Europe take care of itself.

Well I'm sure we would have kept up our navy support with convoys and all, maybe stepped up our anti-submarine warfare efforts in the Atlantic, but otherwise yeah.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

One "what-if" I haven't seen discussed here was why Hitler declared war on the US at all after Pearl Harbor. He was under no written agreement to do so (and since when had those mattered to him.) Imagine if he hadn't, and had scaled back some of the u-boat attacks, to try to keep America busy with the Japanese. Probably the US would have come into the European war at some point, but until then the British weren't in much of a shape to mount an attack on Europe themselves. Could have bought him some time at the very least.

The decision was made prior to Pearl Harbor that when the US went into war, the first goal would have been Fortress Europe, mostly to legitimize the war goals...since most people despised the Nazi's by that point and probably couldn't find Japan on a globe, even despite Pearl Harbor, I think taking on the Germans was the safe first move...plus, the true threat to the US were concerns about the Nazi's trying to get nuclear power first (and so the first nuke arms race was between the US and Germany).

The Germans on the other hand, probably were keenly aware of this inevitability and declared war on the US in a show of support to the Japanese in hopes the Japanese would expand their war further to re-include the Russians...but that was a pipe dream, as suggested earlier.

[OldGiants]

Always interested in WWII. A few comments based on my recent (past year) readings.

7) Is it true that Roosevelt and the high commanders of the Navy were racist against Japanese to the point they actually legitimately thought Japanese pilots would be too "near-sighted" to be effective pilots?

Historians always cast Europeans and the US as being racist, but the Japanese have always been--and remain--the most viciously racist people on the planet. The Rape of Nanking is far more disgusting than anything Hitler did. Read up on it. The history of Japanese atrocities against other Asian people should be far more well known. As to the too near-sighted comment, the reverse of this is the Japanese racist belief that that possessed far superior night vision to White people. Thus they didn't even bother with RADAR the invention that put their navy on the bottom of the Pacific. There's a recent book about the Battle of Leyte Gulf that describes this, as well as several recent articles.

On Hitler going for Stalingrad, there's a lot of evidence that the very name 'Stalingrad' could drive him into a frenzy and taking out Uncle Joe's eponymous city meant a lot to him. One of the more interesting bits I've been reading about is recent analysis about the 'Blitzkrieg Myth" Much of this is economic data and TO&E counting of how the German army depended on horses far more than on tanks or other motorized equipment. It may be a reach, but one author asserts that a shortage of veterinarians caused large scale deterioration of the army's horses --and they had at least 20 times the number of horses as vehicles--in Russia and that was the prime cause of the failure in 1941. He mentions one kind of mange native to Russia as particularly devastating. Horses towed the artillery and brought supplies forward. Not having them crippled mobility far more than tank shortages. Not as compelling as battle narratives, but interesting stuff.

[Warhammer]

The only two truly mechanized armies during WWII was Great Britain and US. The Italian, German, and Russian armies relied upon horses to a very large extent.

[NobodyHere]