Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I see, please explain why germany should have ground troops of 180 Divisions without a war in the east in this given Scenario?
100-120 Division would be enough! That would be ( for 120 Divisionen) 960000 less men to the army.
More then 2,7 millionen were kiled in action at the war in the east.
I suspect I would have to live in another dimension, maybe using the world of imaginary numbers, to do that kind of mathematics. Germany had already mobilized for war, maybe not efficiency, but still did. It fought England without being at war with the USSR and failed and in fact started falling behind in aircraft resources. I don't see this changing. They would have had to subjugate Britain in order to consolidate their conquest, something I think their military leaders fully understood. Starting a second front with an enemy stronghold on your rear was the height of arrogance and stupidity. Britain was the high ground overlooking Europe. With this occupied with a powerful force, Europe would always be at risk. Even without developing a second front, having an enemy that occupied a strong point overlooking your defenses and continually getting stronger and stronger and at a faster rate than you could respond was a doomsday scenario.Feel free to do the mathematic on your self, what this imply to german economics, pilotes in training and abstract please the whole war would be at sea and at air, bevor an invasion would perhaps start. And then think again about your above statement!
Starting a second front with an enemy stronghold on your rear was the height of arrogance and stupidity. Britain was the high ground overlooking Europe. With this occupied with a powerful force, Europe would always be at risk. Even without developing a second front, having an enemy that occupied a strong point overlooking your defenses and continually getting stronger and stronger and at a faster rate than you could respond was a doomsday scenario.
my opinion was that Germany was decisively defeated by a joint force.
Ultimately I think this is indisputable in terms of what happened.
A medium sized country like Germany just can't win the vast world war they embarked upon.
I suspect I would have to live in another dimension, maybe using the world of imaginary numbers, to do that kind of mathematics. Germany had already mobilized for war, maybe not efficiency, but still did. It fought England without being at war with the USSR and failed and in fact started falling behind in aircraft resources. I don't see this changing. They would have had to subjugate Britain in order to consolidate their conquest, something I think their military leaders fully understood. Starting a second front with an enemy stronghold on your rear was the height of arrogance and stupidity. Britain was the high ground overlooking Europe. With this occupied with a powerful force, Europe would always be at risk. Even without developing a second front, having an enemy that occupied a strong point overlooking your defenses and continually getting stronger and stronger and at a faster rate than you could respond was a doomsday scenario.
Big enough to hold most of Europe for 4 years. The Germans did not want the world.. the russians did. What about Neville Chamberlain?.. His role was slightly more then minor in Germanys invasion of Chez republic etc.. Whats funny in this thread is some peoples notion that England or Russia would do just fine w/o LL, American help.. whatever one wants to call it. How many trucks/planes shipped to russia from US? how much food/ammo/fuel shipped to England from US? British in N.Africa would win without Operation Torch? How long could russia hold out w/o US planes/supplies in the Early part of Barbarosa? These are question that I'm curious to know.Germany was too small to fight the world.
John
My belief also. But seem this thread took on a whole new direction! Regardless some very good information anyways =)No clue what you are discussing here, original question was: "Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power", answer is very simple: NO!!!
Big enough to hold most of Europe for 4 years. The Germans did not want the world..
No clue what you are discussing here, original question was: "Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power", answer is very simple: NO!!!
Not exactly. The question was really, using Air Power, to prepare for other forms of warfare, including invasion, could the allies do it. Russia was basically removed from the equation, meaning initially no help for either side....an obviously unrealistic approach, with some pointing out that Russia might continue to provide resources to the Axis, others recognizing that frontiers need to be garrisoned. There was also the vexed question of japan, and involvement (when and how strongly) of the US in a purely European war. We could not reach common ground on a "southern front" alternative.
These are all valid complications, but really they are modifications to the original question.....could the allies defeat Germany without Russia?