Hellas: did we change the course of WWII??

[hellenes]

Due to the recently revealed discussion of Hitler and his statement that he had to split forces to clear up the Italian mess...I come to thinking did we the Hellenes change the route of global history (once again )?
And the most ironic is that the regime that said no to Mussolini was the nationalsocialist regime of the 4th August:



Britain had always a firm grip over Greece and still has...

[Kralizec]

So many things went wrong with the way that Germany and especially Italy handled the war that it's probably wrong to say that this or that instance really sealed their coffin. I imagine it helped, though.

[Vorian]

Nope didn't change it. We made it a little easier for the Russians though.

[Boyar Son]

Well if that changed the course...

might as well ad:

D-Day

Midway

Battle of Britain

Allied invasion into Africa.... you know what, everone get to change something in the war

[Hepcat]

You've all got it wrong, it was New Zealand who won the war and sealed Germany's fate. It was the New Zealander Keith Park who won the Battle of Britain. It was Kiwis who held the pass of Thermopylae against the German armour while the British made preparations for the evacuation. It was the New Zealand troops that inflicted the heavy casualties on the German paratroops at Crete causing Hitler to call an end to paratroop operations. It was New Zealand troops who won the battle of El Alamain and it was Kiwis who led the charge once the big breakthrough was made on the Italian front in 1945.



Just kidding. New Zealanders didn't win the war. We played an important part, just like everyone else. Yes Greece did affect the outcome of the war but so did everyone else too, even New Zealand.

[Mikeus Caesar]

With such a huge conflict like WW2, you can't really pinpoint any specific thing that is responsible for changing the course of the war - there are too many of them. I guess we could suggest the Battle of Britain as being one of the few major turning points - one little island fending back the might of the Reich. And then obviously there was another person who helped change it all - Hitler himself with his foolish invasion of Russia.

[Conradus]

Perhaps Greece helped in the same way that Belgium has. The Belgians managed to withstand the German Army for 18 days, longer than the Germans thought apparently, which gave the BEF some more time to retreat at Dunkirk.

[sapi]

You've all got it wrong, it was New Zealand who won the war and sealed Germany's fate. It was the New Zealander Keith Park who won the Battle of Britain. It was Kiwis who held the pass of Thermopylae against the German armour while the British made preparations for the evacuation. It was the New Zealand troops that inflicted the heavy casualties on the German paratroops at Crete causing Hitler to call an end to paratroop operations. It was New Zealand troops who won the battle of El Alamain and it was Kiwis who led the charge once the big breakthrough was made on the Italian front in 1945.



Just kidding. New Zealanders didn't win the war. We played an important part, just like everyone else. Yes Greece did affect the outcome of the war but so did everyone else too, even New Zealand.

Just kidding, indeed ... you obviously meant to say 'Australians'

[Sarmatian]

Just kidding, indeed ... you obviously meant to say 'Australians'

No, you got it all wrong it. It was Serbs who won the war. Although propaganda teaches you that lot of countries were involved, it truth it was Serbia vs Axis Powers. We won the war single-handedly...

[The Wizard]

The war was won when we held the Germans on the Afsluitdijk. It is known

[Husar]

Actually the war was won when we elected an austrian private as supreme leader.

[Brenus]

“we elected an austrian private as supreme leader”: Corporal. Because He was Austrian, or because he was a Corporal? Tricky isn’t it?

[Boyar Son]

Actually the war was won when we elected an austrian private as supreme leader.

Those Austrians are known for their smooth talkin'

[PanzerJaeger]

As to the original question, it really depends on whether you believe Russia would have fallen with Moscow. There has been some discussion here recently on that topic.

It is well known that the Italian screw up cost the Germans valuable warm-weather months, and we all know what happened at the gates of Moscow.

[Papewaio]

Just kidding, indeed ... you obviously meant to say 'Australians'

Australians aka 'West Islanders'...

[Sarmatian]

Well, to the original question - it is utter nonsense picking one event and saying this changed the course of ww2. That could be said also for Germany's attack on Yugoslavia, which also delayed the attack on USSR. I mean, there are numerous occassions where smaller nations did their part, whether in providing information, sabotage, rescuing pilots, disrupting german lines of communication or the actual fighting. Just keeping order in the Balkans took up 32 divisions of Germany and her allies. Those divisions were badly needed elsewhere.

Did all that stuff had an effect on the course of the war? It sure did! But choosing one and claiming that it was THE event that changed the course of the war is plain stupid.

[hellenes]

As to the original question, it really depends on whether you believe Russia would have fallen with Moscow. There has been some discussion here recently on that topic.

It is well known that the Italian screw up cost the Germans valuable warm-weather months, and we all know what happened at the gates of Moscow.

Thats the key point...and if you consider the reports and opinion of the Germans about the hellenic soldiers it revives memories of Thermopylae...thats a point that we didnt change that much from our heroic ancestors...
:
"Nothing is impossible for the German soldier. Historical justice, however, obliges me to say that of the opponents that have taken up arms against us, MOST PARTICULARLY THE GREEK SOLDIERS, HAVE FOUGHT WITH THE GREATEST BRAVERY AND CONTEMPT OF DEATH. They only capitulated when further resistance became impossible and therefore useless."
http://www.hitler.org/speeches/05-04-41.html
I rest my case...

[seireikhaan]

WWII was lost back in 1914 when the Germans failed to execute the Schlieffen plan properly, thus bringing about their eventual loss to the Entente, which led to the Treaty of Versailles, which led to huge inflation of the German Mark, which brought about widespread destitution in Germany, which enabled Hitler and the Nazi party to rise to power and start WWII, which enabled Hitler to eventually make several rather mind boggling decisions which brought about the end of the Reich.

[Brenus]

“It is well known that the Italian screw up cost the Germans valuable warm-weather months, and we all know what happened at the gates of Moscow.”
Agree. Napoleon slept in the bed of the Tsar, and Russia didn’t fall…
What was important for Russia’s survival has been done. The Germans didn’t succeed in their initial plan (total destruction of the entire Red Army) on the borders.
The Russian factories were now in the Ural Mountains, stating to produce in mass was will become the German Nemesis…
The Siberian divisions arrived from the potential Japanese Front, thanks to Sorge and the excellent Russian Secret Services which informed very accurately Stalin and the STAVSKA.
Now, would more weeks have changed the balance? Probably, for the Siberians divisions… However, I doubt it would have changed the outcome. In fact, in his Memories, Rokosovsky complains about the weather, saying that it saved the German Army from total annihilation due to too much snow which immobilised even the T34, giving the better trained German crew the upper hand, and the fog which prevented the IL-2 Stormovick to attack the Germans in retreat…

[Fisherking]

If you want to change the course of WWII in Europe then you need to make it the Russo German War.

The Germans could have beaten Russia alone if Hitler didn’t get even crazier. If The West didn’t bother about Poland and let the Germans and Russians bleed each other white, Germany may have come out on top. Turkey likely would have wanted in on it more if the rest of the world weren’t going to be against them and Japan might have wanted in too. But once the UK and France were their enemies it was just a matter of time. It was only a matter of time until the US got involved and just about everyone else took a side.

The few weeks taken in the south and the wear and tare on the equipment as well as the drain on the force pool made some difference, but not enough to take Russia out of the war. If Moscow had fallen it was still not the end and Germany was still going to be tied down there for a long long time.

[Justiciar]

What was the name of that guy.. you know.. who shot the other guy, and then got shot in turn? Yeah. Him.

[Hound of Ulster]

The Balkan campaign was a useless distraction for the Wehrmacht, but the most important role Greece had was in the resistance to the Nazi rule of Europe. Like the resistance movements (as fractious as most of them were) in France, Poland, and Norway, the Greek resistance groups tied down German and Italian units, disrupted supplies, and scored huge propaganda victories for Allies when the Nazis resorted to vicious cycle of reprisals in response to the actions of the resistance.

Everybody played thier role in the defeat of Hitler.

[Kraxis]

Well, to the original question - it is utter nonsense picking one event and saying this changed the course of ww2. That could be said also for Germany's attack on Yugoslavia, which also delayed the attack on USSR. I mean, there are numerous occassions where smaller nations did their part, whether in providing information, sabotage, rescuing pilots, disrupting german lines of communication or the actual fighting. Just keeping order in the Balkans took up 32 divisions of Germany and her allies. Those divisions were badly needed elsewhere.

Did all that stuff had an effect on the course of the war? It sure did! But choosing one and claiming that it was THE event that changed the course of the war is plain stupid.

Please don't go about calling discussions stupid. This is not a place for nutkicking and small personal attacks.

You disagree, good, make your points. But it isn't as if this was presented as some kind of truth, it was put up for discussion rather than "yeah we are so cool because we won the war for you without knowing it."

You focus too much on the premiss of the discussion rather than the actual discussion, and that is as bad as doing the opposite. No need to come out fighting like that.

[CountArach]

WWII was lost back in 1914 when the Germans failed to execute the Schlieffen plan properly, thus bringing about their eventual loss to the Entente, which led to the Treaty of Versailles, which led to huge inflation of the German Mark, which brought about widespread destitution in Germany, which enabled Hitler and the Nazi party to rise to power and start WWII, which enabled Hitler to eventually make several rather mind boggling decisions which brought about the end of the Reich.

I actually think it started with the rise to power of Bismarck

[Husar]

I actually think it started with the rise to power of Bismarck

You will take that back!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Oh great Bismarck please forgive him, he doesn't know what he's saying.

[Sarmatian]

Please don't go about calling discussions stupid. This is not a place for nutkicking and small personal attacks.

You disagree, good, make your points. But it isn't as if this was presented as some kind of truth, it was put up for discussion rather than "yeah we are so cool because we won the war for you without knowing it."

You focus too much on the premiss of the discussion rather than the actual discussion, and that is as bad as doing the opposite. No need to come out fighting like that.

Sory Kraxis, but I do feel that it is nosense. It's like when a nation wins the world cup, and you pick one player and say: "he cut out one pass, the opponent could have scored if he didn't, we could have lost that game" and declare him the guy who won the world cup. It could have been important, it may in fact saved the goal, but what about other ten players, and other matches? They all worked as a team, one was organizing attack, another one kept opposition at bay, another scored goals etc...

So for me it's the same type of nonsense saying that the player who intercepted one pass be recognized as the guy who won the world cup and choosing one minor event and saying that that event changed the course of the war...

Sorry about this football analogy, but I think you get the picture...

[Hound of Ulster]

Don't mind the footy analogy at all, especially as it spot on in this case. Like I said before, every country that fought against the Axis played its part in Hitler's defeat, and lets not forget the Pacific, where the Chinese political factions, the Australians, the Dutch, the Indians, and the New Zealanders all played thier part in the victory over the Axis.

[Furious Mental]

Don't forget the Fuzzy Wuzzies.

It is ironic but not really surprising that Ionis Metaxas opposed Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Fascists view history and human existence as a Darwinian struggle for survival between collective groups, e.g. nation, race, or religion. Even though nationalist fascists from different countries were united by their common ideology (especially hatred of communists) they never trusted each other because their goals were contradictory; they all wanted their own country to be supreme at the expense of others. This is why with a few exceptions Germany and Italy didn't put genuine fascists in charge of conquered and co-opted countries; they preferred malleable figures from the Old Right- generals, bureaucrats, aristocrats, etc. But, in any case, I don't think Metaxas was a fascist anyway. It seems to me that he was put in charge by the monarchy and then imitated genuinely fascist regimes (which were on the ascendancy at that stage), in particular to try to generate mass support for his regime. The regimes of Salazar and Franco were in the same vein. At that time Japan and Nationalist China also experimented with some of the trappings of fascism. It was certainly not national socialist, because that term refers specifically to the variation of fascism developed by Adolph Hitler and the NSDAP.

[Beefy187]

If there is anyone to blame for loss of Axis then it would be Napoleon...

If he didnt exist then Hitler wouldnt have messed up with general winter

[Furious Mental]

One thing which is rarely mentioned in discussions about the reasons for the victory of the Allies is the fact that until the Battle of Stalingrad and the appointment of Speer as Armaments Minister, Germany was actually underspending on the war. People find this unbelievable- that ultra-militaristic Nazi Germany, the expansionist aggressor, could actually have failed to dedicate its national resources to the war until it was half over, but it did. By the end of the war, Germany was probably spending 60% of its GDP on the war, the same as Britain, although probably less than the Soviet Union, but both Britain and the USSR had a head start of several years on Germany. Partly this is because the success of the first Blitzkrieg offensives convinced Hitler that the war would be over quickly and there was no need to put the economy on a total war footing. Research by a historian called Woolf also concluded that it was partly because industrial workers still largely resented Hitler and his war years after he had taken power, and simply weren't enthusiastic about working for either. It did not help that the Nazi state was an extremely dysfunctional polyarchy.