Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes that sounds correct. Would that be one of the reasons why Hitler was so fast as to declare war on the US? Hoping to ease the pressure of the Ost Front?Actually, I think Hitler was expecting Japan, as an ally to declare war on Russia. However, being spanked once by Zhukov, Japan was not interested in another go at the soviets
I doesn't help your argument it only shows your agenda and how biassed you are!I know its hard for you Eurocentrics to believe, but it did happen. There were 12+ divs in Australia, plus all that other colonial stuff I mentioned before. Do some elementary research beyond what SS totenkopf didnot do, and you might be surprised
No effect in 1941 and no shortages at the beginning of the war! The lag of produktion from 1940-42 is an whole other story but have realy nothing to do with shortages, you should do some proper research.no, the blockade was from day1, the effects also were immediate. Germany suffereed shortages from the very beginning of the war, which was a big reason her production lagged.
There were shortages in fuel for the italians, the main players, from the very beginning of the war. germany suffered its first fuel crisis in early 1942. Unless you are saying that the Russians would be continuing to supply the germans after the end of 1941....a highly unlikley event, the germans are in supply of raw materials difficulties from the very start.
Sorry but incorrect. the first offensive directed against by the British with the Germans present was Battleaxe, started in June 1941. Not a success, but neither can it be called a failure either. best described as a stalemate
Crusader very nearly cost rommel the entire DAK, and forced him to abandon Cyrenaica, with heavy losses. The battle was hard fought and close, but the retreat cost the Axis heavily. This battle started November 30 and continued through to late December
April 1941 to December 1941. Near constant action all of them defeated by the 9 aus Division plus supporting units. a particualr highlight was the battle of the Red Line 13April to 20 April, saw both regiments of the 5th Light defeated with over 1500 casualties and the loss af more than 20 tanks. This was an all German defeat, no possibility to blame the italians here ( they actually performed better than the germans in their simulataneous battle taking place 20km to the west) The defenders were the 20 Aus Infantry Brigade. 13th April 1941 saw a sustained attack by tanks and infantry of the 5th Light on the eastern flank of the besieged forces of Tobruk. Groups of the Australian infantry left their positions to deal with German infantry at the perimeter wire. Lieutenant Mackell led six men forward, including Corporal John Edmondson. by the time it was allover, there were about 1500 German casualties and 20 tanks, lost for less than 200 australian casualties. It was the beginning of a long list of citations and battle honours for the Australians, and it was fitting thet their opening score had been inflicted on the germans and not the less deserving Italians. From April until the December retreat, the battles in front of Tobruk were the focal point for Rommel, occupying the attentions of more than half his forces, and nearly half his German forces. He was never abale to get anywhere in that time frame. Whilst Tobrul remained under Allied control, Rommel could not move forward. It was THE battle that saved North Africa
if that is not a stunning and decisive victory I will not be able to convince you.......
I know that you do, but the railnet is simply not ther, and the shipping capability is also short. Port capacities are low except for Aloex, and Gib and Suez. The Germans were going nowhere until they captured tobruk, and they couldnt do that, so they were stuck basically . The response to "we will capture suez" is "no, you wont, because you cant. General LW is basically useless at sea denial, and a net liability in terms of supply
How on earth can you claim that france, the Netherlands, Norway were on germanys side. apart from a few crackpots that decided they wanted to put on some jackboots and black uniforms, and masquerade that they were soldiers and not butchers, the majority of the populations were firmly against the germans. ever heard of the resistance???? When Spitsbergen was raided, all but 14 of the norwegaians out of the 1400 there sided with the british. This happened allover Europe. Europeans were NOT on the side of germans. even Germanys allies hated them. you have got to be kidding
I know its hard when long cherished beliefs in German invincibility are exposed as just myth, but the facts are the facts. They are the fact that i have seen. Easy first look for you, have a peek at wiki before saying anything more on this. Then you might want to graduate up to something like Feldgrau something from your own country (shock horror) , and then to someone like Dunnigan or Berg. Maybe you might even learn something
relation to what?but even just counting germans only to british troops, the comparison is weighted in favour of the germans. they put more into the theatre historically than the british ever did, until 1943
The two brigades in existence as at May 1941 were heavily supported by artillery, and whilst the islands offensive capability was severely affected by the incessant and unrelevting LW attacks, its defensive capabilities were unimpaired. This too was reported by Dobbie, but you omitted to report that for some reason.
I see, they are germans to dumb to make their homework and do a proper research!If you have supporters in the modern german army that say its possible, they are wrong to carry out such a mission simultaneoulsy, they are mistaken.
There is no reason to believe that German technology nor productivity would have improved just because there was no war with USSR. Advanced technologies such as the Me-262 and XXI sub would not have appeared any faster or in more volume. There is no reason the Battle of the Atlantic would have differed in any way since no significant naval resources were spent against the Soviets.
With Great Britain, engorged with the full might of USAAF resources of fighters and bombers, being unsinkable and unassailable, and invasion of Europe far more risky, the war could have easily moved more terrible phase, fire bombing of Germany. If so, by the end of 1944, almost all of major German cities would be smoking ruins with millions of dead. Germany may have controlled the land but, with only hollow shell of a homeland left, all would be lost. Perhaps the war would have ended earlier.
The US England alone could not win a unconditional surrender ( NOTE I said unconditional surrender) of Germany without russias help. period.
Sorry you don't get it! But I'm more convinced you don't want to get it!
We are talking about a scenario without war in the east (June 1941)and I have shown, that this would be lead to a whole other Mediterranean campaign starting at January 1941, with the total german military, technologie and logistic strenghts at this campaign to get the arabian oil
If the Germans resolve to direct their total efforts to the south, that means no U-Boat war, no blitz, no threat of invasion, no attempts at tonnage war by the surface fleet, no defences over the Reich, no defences along the Coast. Even allowing for some rationalization of that statement...
".... a popular view today is that the Soviets would probably won the war alone"
Popular view ??? .... where have I been hiding, I have never heard that claim except by Soviets downplaying Lend Lease.