Who had the best strategy in WW II?

[LiamMcDonald]

Getting back to the History of Europe I would like opinions on who do you feel had the best strategy for victory. I don't think anyone will disagree that when Germany invaded Russia (hence taking all of Ukraine) was the worst idea of the war and spread the Germans out to thinly. Or was it? If Stas is correct in his assumption that within weeks the Russians would have attacked then wouldn't it have been in Germany's best interest to attack in uniform organization then try to defend while out numbered almost 3-1? As it was the Germans may have pushed too far and they were quickly surrounded where they were then decimated.
They also had to contend with Russia dropping thousands of men and equipment behind their lines to disrupt their communication. This worked quite well and certainly helped the partisans to defend and sabotage with more precision. Russia had huge reserves of men and there strategy seems to have been to simply overwhelm the enemy. The British built up their air squadrons and acheived air superiority while the Americans had a huge industry just pushing out men and equipment like nobodies business. They were certainly the best equiped. And they still are. Though the Americans almost got caught with their pants down when they fought at Midway. They lost almost all of their ships and a squadron of torpedo bombers just happened to stumble on the entire Japanese Fleet undefended and took them out. This was luck as they were just about to turn around and fly back to the carrier. You could argue that just because of them they won the Pacific. Plus Russia had gathered through intelligence that Japan was not going to attack so they pulled their men from Siberia and threw them against Germany.
So what do you say? Who had the best strategy?

Liam

[Phillip]

Hey what about us. The Japaneese tried to invade Australia. They made a massive push through Asia and captured 100,000 Australians in Bornio (where the Aussies went to meet them). They built a railway through dense tropical jungle using these men and whoever they could get hold of and worked them to death. The men looked like the jews in photo's from concentration camps. The railway was built and they had a great supply route. They kept pushing and at this time nobody had yet beet Japan in any fight.

To cut a long story short. Australia had planned (in a worse case senario) to defend only Sydney and Melbourne. US troops were everywhere. Japan and Germany had agreed to share Australia, the Germans taking Tasmania. Most of our own troops at this time were fighting in France and in Turkey to help England.

I don't know how it happened but the diggers (Aus soldiers) beet the Japaneese conclusively in ensuing fights in Asia. We destroyed the railway time and again but they repaired it just as fast. In Timor and New Guinnea we slaughtered them usually with far less men. We were aided by the locals who hated the Japanese because they were brutal. If you captured them they killed themselves and they felt that their captives were sub-human for not feeling the same shame. Our men tried to stay happy at all times which is the total opposite!

I don't know if the Japanese were in position to effectively take Australia, thus the whole of Asia because they gave in after the USA hit them with two Atom bombs. For me that was the turning point in the war.

[B_Ungaro]

Hey Guys,
If you like to read war stories, look for
stories of the battle of Voronez on the Don.
Stalingrad was grusome. Voronez is where the Germans were truly defeated. Entire armies
were eliminated in this battle. Example:
of the 20,000 soldiers of the Second Hungarian Army only 2500 soldiers survived.
Several German Armies had few if any survivors.
Good Luck.

[LiamMcDonald]

Phillip,

I always thought that MacArthur took control of the Austrailian troops stationed in Austrailia and when he took the fight to New Guinea cut them off an island at a time. We're the Austrailians a separate detachment from the British forces like the Canadians while still taking orders from British Command?

Liam

Ps. I'll look up Veronez. Thanks.

[johnstruthers]

"Stretched too thin" is a relative statement. While Russia prevailed in the end, it took enormous force of will (Stalin's) motivated by fear (of Stalin) tied to a lot of Allied support over a lengthy period of time to chase off the Germans. Until they were turned back, it certainly didn't appear to anyone that they were "stretched too thin." They were formidable, not to say monstrously ambitious.

Bill is right about Voronov. It probably cinched the outcomes.

[Alkas]

I think that there can be no one-sided opinion of the best strategy in WWII. Each country had its own strategy but though some strategies were almost the same, the results were different. Example: France and Finland. Both had special defence lines (Maginot and Mannerheim lines). The strategies of these countries were directed to protect territories defending the boundaries. In the 20ies and 30ies both countries tried to invest as more as possible into their defence programs. In 1940 Maginot line was exposed to a German attack. The Wehrmacht could not strike the line in a short time and that▓s why the Germans went round (across Belgium and the Netherlands). There the French did not have any fortifications. In many respects this fact decided the outcome of the war beforehand. In Finland the Soviets could not ⌠go round■ because of natural conditions. The left flank of the attack pressed against the Baltic Sea and the right was hindered from the Ladoga lake. North of this territory it was impossible to wage war. That▓s why Finnish defence particulary succeded. But it doesn▓t justify the Germans as good strategists and the Soviets as weak ones.
If we speak about the tactics, the Germans used the presented conditions very clever and reached the most possible results. But exactly their strategic position was catastrophic. Situated in the centre of Europe, Germany was not able to wage war at 2 fronts. The lack of oil and other products told on German plans very badly.

[LiamMcDonald]

Good point Alkas. But was there anyway this war could not have been a 2 front war? Were they doomed from the start? Should they have attacked Russia first? I think they could have done it if only they took Moscow. It had very little in the way of strategic value but it would have had a devastating effect psychologically. Or at least finished off Leningrad as they almost had it and they pulled the forces out to attack Moscow and Stalingrad. They could have concentrated their forces better. But since Hitler did not allow retreat they were doomed to fail. Stalin had the same thing about falling back. It was almost his undoing.