Officer of Engineers

The air battle was one thing but Operation Sealion was a disaster waiting to happen.

Who were short of fuel and spare parts.

__________________
Chimo

Recon_sgt

undeniable that they were short on fuel but that still didnt stop them causing some severe damage. however had it been Russia alone they would not have been so short on fuel as it was the other allies which were causing this problem (and hitlers major tactical blunders). However the all encompassing statement of "who knows" fits nicely as im sure you will agree.

__________________
they have us surrounded, the poor bastards.

Ziska

The more I look at the Eastern Front, the more I believe it was a coin toss that decided the whole thing. Stalin was considering approaching the germans to make a treaty, moscow was *that* close to collapsing, it wasn't funny.

I really don't know about Britian. I would like to think they could have held out, but with an invading german army, and a hostile Ireland, it is pretty hard to see them holding onto all of england. Scotland and wales, and most of the north of england might have held out indefenitely, but london...

If hitler had been less interventionist with his leadership style, if stalin had continued to attempt to control everything, who knows?

__________________
SWANSEA 'TILL I DIE! - CARN THE CROWS!

Rule Britannia, No Surrender

Staff Cadet in the Australian Army Reserve.

Soli Deo Gloria

grizzad

impossible question to answer

Giuseppe VERDI

Yes, I blame the Russian winter on the German loss. Hitler worried too much or might have thought the army could have gotten through Russia. They should have withdrawn. I cannot stand how many people in my country(USA) say we kicked Germany's arse when Germany was down to it's last knee. It had a freshly equiped army just start attacking in 41'. Also, you had another powerful force such as the British. So the German army was not some little puny army that was not to be taken lightly.

Officer of Engineers

Stalin let it be known at Yalta that he was considering a seperate peace with Hitler if the Western Allies did not openned a second front. This was way after Moscow was out of danger.

However, ironically, it was the Russian people who gave courage to Stalin to stand up and fight. He was nowhere to be seen in the first weeks of the war. The steadfast stocism and refusual to yield despite the collosal losses allowed Stalin to stand firm, knowing that he could survive such losses. Moscow might have been lost but not the war (Napolean did take Moscow to no avail).

Operation Sealion, the Wehrmacht's plan to invade England would have failed miserably. The German General Staff thought the invasion as one big river crossing instead of the momunmental tasking that it was. Sealion was nowhere near Overloard in preparation nor scope.

2DREZQ

"How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: The Fatal Errors That Lead to Nazi Defeat" by Bevin Alexander


$10.50 at Amazon. It will turn you into an expert on the subject.

Short story: Hitler had LOST the war before Dec. 7th, 1941. He could have taken and held Europe and the Middle East, stared down Stalin, and forced Great Britain to accept peace on his terms. America could never have invaded and defeated a Nazi war machine with massive resources to match it's own.

__________________
USS North Dakota

nzkiwi

Hitler and the other Nazi rank and file were their own worst enemies, if they had listened to the Generals more often Germany would have gained dominance in Europe. Most of the major blunders were decisions made by Hitler and Goering against the advice of the General staff. Hitler insisted that they invade the USSR, Goering insisted that the airforce could pound England into surrendering without the need for invasion, and Hitler again insisted in holding back reinforcements at Calais even when Rommel of all people said that the real invation was at Normandy ( though even if Rommel had won the argument it would have been doubtfull that Germany could have still won the war at that stage )

Ironduke

I believe Germany would have finished off the Soviet Union by 1942, or at least have pushed them to the edge then finished them off in 1943 if the United States had not entered the war, perhaps taking major population centers such as Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow in 1943.

One of the German's major weaknesses was the lack of standardized military vehicles. Germany commandered alot of civilian vehicles to be used in Barbarossa, and I don't remember the exact number, but there were at least a couple thousand different types of vehicles employed. This created a logistical nightmare, Army Group Center alone had to carry one million spare parts. Other contributing factors would be the nature of German engineering, and probably a lack of qualified mechanics in the numbers needed, with the experience required to work with such a wide variety of vehicles.

Another major failing of the Germans was the failure to develop four-engined bombers with range sufficient to hit Soviet industry in the Urals. Much Soviet industry had been based in the Ukraine and parts of Russia overrun by the Germans. The Soviets had the strategic foresight to literally dismantle entire factories, and sending the machinery and workers east. By the time the trains reached their destination, there was even housing erected for the workers, albeit rather shoddy. They got the job accomplished though.

As I have quoted elsewhere, the United States massively supplied the Soviet Union with war material and other desperately needed goods, keeping it in the war. The US was responsible for mechanizing the entire Soviet military, supplying it with 78,000 Jeeps, 151,000 light trucks, and 200,000 Studebaker army trucks. Without these the Soviets would have had great difficulty transporting men and supplies to areas where they were needed to counterattack the Germans.

Other goods provided to the Soviets by the US include 956,000 miles of telephone cables, 35,000 radio stations, 40,000 field radios, 380,000 field telephones, enough food to feed the entire Soviet military one meal a day for the duration of a war, some 90% of its high-octane fuel for fighters and bombers, 32,000 motorcycles, 13,000 locomotives, 135,000 submachine guns, 300,000 tons of explosives, 400 radar systems, and 400,000 metal cutting tools for use in heavy industry.

Also, 12,000 tanks, while rarely used in combat, freed Soviet tanks from reserves to fight on the front lines. 18% of Soviet fighter aircraft were supplied by the US, and. Russia's #2 ace of WWII, A.I. Pokryshkin, scored 48 of 59 victories in an American Airacobra, and the #3 ace G.A. Rechkalov scored all 50.

In addition, the United States supplied the Soviet Union with millions of tons of commodities, probably too exhaustive to list here, exact numbers may not be available.

I can't pinpoint what years exactly this aid was given, but I do know that after the summer of 1944 the US began to seriously scale back aid because it was realized that the Soviets were beginning were going to use the aid for post-war efforts.

That all being said, I think the Soviets would have been truly lost without US aid, but there is a strong probability that the Germans would have encountered a massive insurgency if they had defeated the Soviet Union. They may have won the war but never the peace. Many initially welcomed the Germans as liberators, but the Nazis had these ideas about Slavs being "our Negroes", to quote Hitler, and pursuing their policies of lebensraum. If they had not been so abusive to vanquished populations, they would have met with far better success. Even in Germanic so-called "brother countries" such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway, the Germans looked down their noses at the populations, inciting feelings of alienation. Seeing as how they outright butchered, mass-murdered, and plundered in the Slavic countries, they had absolutely no chance of rallying the locals to their side, something vital in any war.

Fury

I don't know if this makes big difference, but Germany should have used its valuable army resources more wisely, as for land warfare they should have kept producing tanks like panzer III and IV also the panther series and some number of tigers but not mess around with the superheavy tanks like kingtiger not mention jagdtiger which if I remember correctly was a 70 ton monster with extremely limited cross country capability. The crazy brains of the third reich always wanted the biggest and best regardless of price.

Recon_sgt

Cant be denied they overdid it on tank variety. The vehicles that worked best were Panzers 4, 5 and 6. The 3 was outclassed in the latter half of the war but the others were excellent machines and fairly reliable. Also another brilliant piece of work was the Jagdpanther, Capable of matching the Sherman in speed and with frontal and side armour that the Shermans 76mm gun hadnt a hope of penetrating it was a mighty weapon of war carrying a deadly long barreled 88mm gun.

lemontree

Agree with you sir. I would add one more point, that Hitler never heeded the advice of his generals.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

PFCBroccoli

In my opinion, Germany shouldve attacked Russia earlier or retreated when winter set in. If they had attacked earlier, they wouldve had more time to get to moscow and capture it.

__________________
~The only time evil men succed is if good men do nothing

'I made an airplane out of stone. I always did like stayin home'-Shel Silverstein, Falling Up

Why are you here?! Because of you my country is in ruins! -Man, Bejing, Famous picure of him standing in front of a line of tanks.

PROUD MEMBER OF THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRICY!

Officer of Engineers

The Whermacht would have been stopped at the Urals regardless of the timing of the attacks.

2DREZQ

Without a doubt.

Unless I missed it sir, have you an opinion on whether of not Hitler should have attacked the USSR at all?