Keep the feet on the ground: by even suggesting such a thing you are likewise suggesting it is the Soviet Union and Great Britain defeating Germany. This constitutes a drama far beyond rubbish; the utmost tragedy in the anals of reason.
So anybody that has an opinion different than your is "Rubbish"?
No, not like that. I respect and value opinions that are at variance with my own, but one enters the realm of Rubbish when resisting evidence that is as sound as 1 ton of solid concrete falling on top of your head.
You havn't presented any "evidence" only opinions.
No I dont forget how crucial it is. Germany was not going to defeat Russia. They had a chance in 1942 and they lost it. After that it was just a long march back to Berlin.
This is my opinion too. The Germans were on the offensive until Stalingrad, after that it is only defending, it had reached a point where the Russians out-produce Germany, it is no longer possible to win.
My argument is that there would be
no reduction in the level of help the Soviets get before Stalingrad {*see below*} (both material by occuping German forces in the west), by 1943 the level of help to the Soviets will fall off, but by that time it is too late for Germany to win, by then the Soviets are producing enough tanks, aircraft, guns divisions to defeat Germany. The critical aid (IMO) is that that arrives in USSR by Sept 1942, which would be in time to be used in the November counter attack. (assumes that 6 weeks is required to unload supplies, train, assemble, do maintainance, ship by rail to the front.
*note* As I have written in a previous post, this assumes that the British completes the rail link to Egypt early 1941 to the Soviet Union through Persia in early fall 1941. Prior to Sept 1942 the Soviets would not get approximately 550 US tanks (Lee's!!) and about 300 aircraft. The British would be able to supply
at least this many British built ones because:
1.) The supplies would be shipped to Nigeria, then by rail to Russia, avoiding the "Murmansk" route where 80 - 90% of the shipping losses occured. While the Soviet got those (approx) 550 US tanks 300 US aircraft prior to Sept 1942, the total # of supplies to Russia lost by sinking in 1941 1942 was 1,226 tanks 656 aircraft. At LEAST half of those would not have been lost if they had not been sent on the Murmansk route.
{Supplies to Russia figures quoted from Churchill's "Hinge of Fate" p. 241}
2.) Canadian production would be much higher, because they would not have been scaled back because of the US entry into the war - In early 1942
"Plans for a large increase in production at Canadian facilities was dropped because it was realized that US production of Sherman tanks would be more than sufficient for Allied needs" {Tanks of the World 1915-1945 - C.Ellis Galahad books}
It seems hard for some people to realize just how much manpower material was used to defend the reich from aerial bombing, that and about 20% of the entire Wehrmacht was by 44 fighting the Western Allies. Just another 20% more manpower in the east and a million more men at home to help supply the troops and Stalingrad would've fallen quickly.
Soren, the 1 million men defending Germany in 1942 were defending Germany against BRITISH bombers, not American. Remember that the German high command was shocked at the destruction of the 1,000 bomber raid which destroyed most of Cologne in May 1942. This was a BRITISH operation. The US air force did not begin operations over Germany until Aug 1942, and they only had 24 aircrews. The US effort did not make a big impact until 1943.
On 4 July 1942, Independence Day, six American crews from the 15th Bombardment Group (Light) together with six RAF crews were despatched from RAF Swanton Morley, Norfolk, on a daylight sweep against four German airfields in the Netherlands. It was the first time American airmen had flown in American-built bombers against a German target, but although it was important historically, the raid was not an unqualified success.
In August 1942, the 92nd and 301st Bomb Groups arrived to join Brigadier General Ira C. Eaker's rapidly increasing air force.
It took time to get the new groups ready for combat and training was lacking in many areas. Colonel Frank A. Armstrong, had mid-August 24 crews ready for combat. Meanwhile, as arguments went on behind the scenes about whether bombing in daylight was possible over heavily defended targets in Europe or even that the B-17 Flying Fortress and B-24 Liberators' bomb-carrying capacity and their armament would be enough, the first Fortresses strike of the war was scheduled for August 17, 1942.
One thing to ponder on about the US contribution to the war in Europe..... it wasn't untill summer of 1943 that there were enough troops and amphib ships for the US and Brits to be a factor in Italy.
The Germans essentially lost the war in Russia at Stalingrad long before the US's power was felt.
Exactly my point Syscom
After having read so many books and articles about the eastern front, i find it amazing to realize there are countless historians which see "Barbarossa" doomed virtually from its inception. I am bewildered.
You are correct, there are many that say "Barbarossa" was a big blunder by Hitler, but I don't agree. Hitler had to attack the USSR, or they would have built up and attacked Germany. The Germans had a good chance to win, but only until 1942, after that it is too late.
With all mistakes and unwise decisions made they were still so damn close to beat the Soviets i can not believe there are people who truly believe things could not have happened differently if some pieces on the chessboard would have been placed correctly.
Agreed, I think Hitler's biggest mistake was delaying for 3 months in the Balkans. I think he would have been better off sending only 8 - 12 divisions to help the Italians, and launching Barbarossa in April. He would have had 12 - 20 less divisions, but the Russians would have been even less prepared. Hitler could probably have taken an extra 10 - 15 divisions from France, he vastly over-estimated the danger from a British invasion of France in 1941
Acknowledged is the fact Germany had already scattered its forces throughout Europe prior to June 22, 1941. The day Barbarossa was launched the Heer had ~50 divisions still stationed in the West.
*** It is relevant to notice that by such time, the USA was not still in the war though.***
Yes indeed. So the fact that the US was not in the war would not have helped. Actually 58 German divisions if you count the Balkans, 39 in Western Europe, 12 in Norway, 7 in the Balkans.
But, let´s move to a period of time when the USA was now a combatant: 1943; by this year the contribution of the USA to the allied war effort had become more than significant. Torch had already taken place, and the allied presence in the West/Mediterranean seemed more threatening than ever. Throughout the entire 1943, the Heer maintained an average of ~50 divisions stationed in the West only...think of any % of such divisions sent to the East, say, for Kursk.
As Syscom had pointed out, the US troop strength in Europe was not a factor in 1942, so it does not affect the strength of German troopss in the West. Assume that in 1943 with only the UK in the war, US neutral, suppose the Germans could take 15 dvisions from France and send to Russia, for Kursk (leaving say 10 in Norway, 7 in the Balkans and 25 in France, Benelux, Denmark facing about 25 - 30 British divisions in the UK) {Remember also that some of these divisions in the west are needed to defend against partisans.}
Of those 15 divisions sent to Russia, only perhaps 2 or 3 would be armoured, and with Panzer III IV. The problem at Kursk was that the Russian anti-tank Guns were too powerful too many. The Panzer IV's wereheavily hit at Kursk, The Tigers could stand up better to the Russian guns, but there were not enough of them and they could not neutralize the Russian strongpoints to allow the German infantry to follow. I don't think the Germans could succeed at Kursk, even with an extra 3 panzer divisions a half dozen inf infantry div. (remember some of your "extra" infantry div's would be needed in other parts of the Russian front) Look how fast the front collapsed after Kursk, not just there but also Kharkov, Orel, Smolensk, and pushing back to Crimea the Dnieper
Udet said:
The dimension of the Reich´s air defence system was astounding, and as i put it, that was mainly courtesy of the massive 8th, 9th and 15th Air Forces; without such fleets involved the size and effort invested in such venture would of been way less significant, releasing a huge number of men and material that goes to the east.
No, because in 1942 the US did not play a big role. Even without the USA the Germans would STILL have to have almost all of those (Flak Air defence) troops in the west because of the increasingly devastating British bombing. (ever heard of the Lancaster?)
The Nazi's had to do the maximum to defend against the British bombing, for psychological political reasons. After Hamburg was hit by Bomber Command, Adolf Galland remarked
"In every large town people said - {What happened at Hamburg yesterday could happen to us tomorrow} Berlin was evacuated with signs of panic The Terror of Hamburg spread to ever town of the Reich"
