Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 19th, 2010, 08:30 AM   #41

Corbulo's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Belfast
Posts: 353
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


To be honest Rizz i dont think there would have been much chance of the USSR pulling out of the war. Due to Hitler and Nazi ideaology, the only way the Soviets would have dropped out is after they had been conquered and subjugated!! Had this been the case i think both the UK and USA would have had little hope of gaining a foothold in Western Europe.

Here is a hypothetical situation.
1) USSR is defeated in 1942-43.
Of course there will be an ongoing Anti-insurgency war that will preoccupy the Germans, for many years if not indefinatley, however they would be free to transfer the bulk of the Wermacht and Waffen SS best troops and formations to the West, Bearing in mind they will be able to enrol plenty of Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Romanians, Finns etc to help deal with their dirty work in the conquered USSR. Likewise many Luftwaffe squadrons can also be transferred West to take the weight of the Home defence squadrons and have plenty spare to deploy for tactical and ground support missions.

2) Blockade WWI style by the Royal Navy and US Navy would be virtually futile as Germany is self sufficient in food already and now it has the Ukranian bread basket to call upon.

3) The USA's unrivalled economic advantage, coupled with that of the British Empire, is offset by the fact that Germany now controls virtually all the Industrial capabilities of Western Europe and now has the immense resources of conquered USSR to call upon. So when Germany gears up for Total War as she did in 1943, she is now in a very strong position indeed.

4)The Allied bomber offensives against German industrial targets historically made little impact upon Total German war production esp once Albert Speer took over. The Successes the Allies had historically later in the war reducing Germanies capacity to produce Synthetic materials would be again made immaterial as the Reich now controls the Caucausian oil wells, along with those of Ploesti in Romania. The Nazi's would no doubt have utilised the vast amount of Soviet prisoners to work as slave labour not to mention the civilian populace too. Besides the Lufwaffe would now be strong enough to resist in force many of the Allied attacks.

5) As to where the Allies would land in Western Europe ?? France?? it was a close call historically during the early critical phases of D-Day 1944. In this situation with the Luftwaffe actively contesting the skies above the beaches in force, With the mostly green and unbloodied Allied formations (Histrically most Anglo-American troops at D-Day were rookies with the exception of a few choice veteran units transferred from Italy) Facing the full might of the Wermacht and Waffen SS's Eastern veterans, complete with Tigers and Panthers, I think we would have been lucky to get off the landing craft!! Any war of attrition would have been decidedly one sided on the beaches.

6) A disaster on the beaches would have probably brought down the Churchill government the greatest stalwart against Nazism, and severly shaken that of Roosevelts. A second disaster with the casualties that would have involved would have no doubt been catastropic to American resolve and perhaps brought down the latters regime, bearing in mind USA are still fighting Japan.

7) By 1945 the US may have threatened Atomic destruction upon Germany, however by this time Germany would have quite probably broken the back of the Allied bomber campaign, with her new generation jet aircraft and be already pummelling UK cities with V weapons. Quite possibly as Robert Harris has theoried in his book "Fatherland" Already had an Amerika missile amongst the stock pile, I think this pursuaded by the heavy casualties already inflicted upon the US during the futile invasions would have been enough to turn American popular opinion against the war and they would have sued for peace!

Just a theory, but thankfully Russia held fast or it would be a very dark world indeed!!
Corbulo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 19th, 2010, 08:59 AM   #42

Americanfighter's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 130
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Corbulo View Post
To be honest Rizz i dont think there would have been much chance of the USSR pulling out of the war. Due to Hitler and Nazi ideaology, the only way the Soviets would have dropped out is after they had been conquered and subjugated!! Had this been the case i think both the UK and USA would have had little hope of gaining a foothold in Western Europe.

Here is a hypothetical situation.
1) USSR is defeated in 1942-43.
Of course there will be an ongoing Anti-insurgency war that will preoccupy the Germans, for many years if not indefinatley, however they would be free to transfer the bulk of the Wermacht and Waffen SS best troops and formations to the West, Bearing in mind they will be able to enrol plenty of Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Romanians, Finns etc to help deal with their dirty work in the conquered USSR. Likewise many Luftwaffe squadrons can also be transferred West to take the weight of the Home defence squadrons and have plenty spare to deploy for tactical and ground support missions.

2) Blockade WWI style by the Royal Navy and US Navy would be virtually futile as Germany is self sufficient in food already and now it has the Ukranian bread basket to call upon.

3) The USA's unrivalled economic advantage, coupled with that of the British Empire, is offset by the fact that Germany now controls virtually all the Industrial capabilities of Western Europe and now has the immense resources of conquered USSR to call upon. So when Germany gears up for Total War as she did in 1943, she is now in a very strong position indeed.

4)The Allied bomber offensives against German industrial targets historically made little impact upon Total German war production esp once Albert Speer took over. The Successes the Allies had historically later in the war reducing Germanies capacity to produce Synthetic materials would be again made immaterial as the Reich now controls the Caucausian oil wells, along with those of Ploesti in Romania. The Nazi's would no doubt have utilised the vast amount of Soviet prisoners to work as slave labour not to mention the civilian populace too. Besides the Lufwaffe would now be strong enough to resist in force many of the Allied attacks.

5) As to where the Allies would land in Western Europe ?? France?? it was a close call historically during the early critical phases of D-Day 1944. In this situation with the Luftwaffe actively contesting the skies above the beaches in force, With the mostly green and unbloodied Allied formations (Histrically most Anglo-American troops at D-Day were rookies with the exception of a few choice veteran units transferred from Italy) Facing the full might of the Wermacht and Waffen SS's Eastern veterans, complete with Tigers and Panthers, I think we would have been lucky to get off the landing craft!! Any war of attrition would have been decidedly one sided on the beaches.

6) A disaster on the beaches would have probably brought down the Churchill government the greatest stalwart against Nazism, and severly shaken that of Roosevelts. A second disaster with the casualties that would have involved would have no doubt been catastropic to American resolve and perhaps brought down the latters regime, bearing in mind USA are still fighting Japan.

7) By 1945 the US may have threatened Atomic destruction upon Germany, however by this time Germany would have quite probably broken the back of the Allied bomber campaign, with her new generation jet aircraft and be already pummelling UK cities with V weapons. Quite possibly as Robert Harris has theoried in his book "Fatherland" Already had an Amerika missile amongst the stock pile, I think this pursuaded by the heavy casualties already inflicted upon the US during the futile invasions would have been enough to turn American popular opinion against the war and they would have sued for peace!

Just a theory, but thankfully Russia held fast or it would be a very dark world indeed!!
if either the USA or the USSR had pulled out then it would have been a a verry hard war and Germany may well have won. However never underestimate Hitlers stupidity. For instance they may have been able to win the battle of stalingrad if he would have let his troops punch out.

so even if the war continued he may have made many more stupid mistakes.

its a toss up to what would have happened. we will never know.
Americanfighter is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 09:01 AM   #43

grizzly's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 327
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogdan Stefanovic View Post
Me and my friend got into a fight recently over what was more important for the course of WW2... So what better place to ask than here... D-Day or Stalingrad???
I put it this way.
stalingrad was akick to the nuts
d-Day was left elbow to the teeth.
both sucked for the germans, and both did damage, but nut shots are worse
grizzly is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 10:37 AM   #44

Corbulo's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Belfast
Posts: 353
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Lol could not have put it better Grizzly !!
Totally agree AMF !!
I Think the Big 3 were just that, they were all essential cogs in the big machine!!
1) If Britain had got knocked out early !! There would have been nowhere for American troops to launch a realistic invasion of Europe with a chance of success. Plus USA would have to try n safeguard India and other British possesions on their own and would be pretty overstretched.

2) If USSR had been knocked out then both USA and Britain would be on sticky wicket.

3) If USA had decided to withdraw Britain alone would have found it impossible to launch a siginifcant second front within Europe. probaby somewhere like being the best bet?

With regards to yon Austrian Charlie Chaplain look a like he was the genius behind the early German victories and often behind the later defeats!! Its difficult to say how far gone Herr H would have been by 45 !! It concievable that if Russia was stillin the war and D-Day had failed then the German military may have succeeded in bumping him off and attempted to sue for peace with the West, whilst still fighting the Russians....Now There is a what If??
Corbulo is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 10:40 AM   #45

Corbulo's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Belfast
Posts: 353
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Somwhere like Norway that is meant to be!!! Sorry aboot the atrocious English grammar an aw that am Scottish!!
Corbulo is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 07:59 PM   #46

Awesomated88's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 144
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Stalingrad...no question about it...

Up until stalingrad the german war machine had never suffered a defeat...
Lets just say it changed things....

Thanks
Awesomated88 is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 10:08 PM   #47

Charles Albert's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2008
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 139
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Between those two ofcourse Stalingrad but Kursk was the turning point. After Kursk the Germans where on the defence to never win the initiative back. While Stalingrad showed that the Germans could be beaten, the Germans still had the initiative. After Kursk, they got steamrolled.
Charles Albert is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 11:01 PM   #48

vans's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 1,678
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Albert View Post
Between those two ofcourse Stalingrad but Kursk was the turning point. After Kursk the Germans where on the defence to never win the initiative back. While Stalingrad showed that the Germans could be beaten, the Germans still had the initiative. After Kursk, they got steamrolled.

I agree

However, D-Day was very important especially for it's effect on the political shape of Europe after the war, but if it never happened Germany would still have lost
vans is offline  
Old October 20th, 2010, 12:44 AM   #49

Spartacuss's Avatar
mmmmph! mmmMMMMmmph!!
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,575
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Albert View Post
Between those two ofcourse Stalingrad but Kursk was the turning point. After Kursk the Germans where on the defence to never win the initiative back. While Stalingrad showed that the Germans could be beaten, the Germans still had the initiative. After Kursk, they got steamrolled.
I will agree with you, Charles Albert. For all the blood and massive efforts of both sides at Stalingrad, that battle served mostly to show the Germans could be beaten. The Russian did have the initiative in that area afterward, but the Germans still had enough effective forces to make any further Russian advances a slow and very costly process.

But if ever there was a shrine to the gods of war, Kursk is it. I doubt there will ever be another battle like it. Many think Stalingrad was where Hitler and Stalin made their ultimate throw down. Nope. Kursk was where all the marbles were played for. It was almost like the two leaders stepped back in time and agreed to designate a date and a place to do battle. Both sides took months to prepare. The Russian defence in depth and manpower and equipment were like nothing ever seen. The German units waiting to jump off were perfect for piercing those defenses. Three elite SS panzer divisions possessing the largest concentration of Tiger tanks to date, supported by those fabulous grenadier battlions. The best available Wermacht armor and infantry. The last great offensive concentration of Luftwaffe units. And those legendary 88's using "shoot and scoot" tactics to help keep the flanks safe. All lead by the best available offensive commanders who had the confidence of the troops.

Stalingrad was a battle in the rubble. Fighting went underground, Rattenkrieg the germans called it. Kursk was wide open. Massive tank battles. Air support on both sides wreaking havoc amoung the armor and troops. Even hand-to-hand combat in the Russian trench lines. Accounts by survivors on both sides say a general feeling that they were going to die, no matter what, elevated the savagery to a level unmatched on the already savage Eastern Front.

Facing overwhelming numbers of men, tanks, aircraft and artillery, the Germans still almost pulled it off. Though definitely far behind their timetable, the Germans were making slow progress to their objectives. Hoth ran into the stiffest resistance on the German right. He was lagging so far behind, he was ordered to break off direct assault towards Kursk and move over to the left and protect the flank of Liebstandarten, the center attacking force. I believe the Germans made it to the next to last defensive ring of the Russians when the real game changer happened.

It's impact on the battle was not realized by most historians until after the war, and it's occurance is rather ironic to the subject of this thread. It was the landings of the allies in southern Europe. Still believing he could cripple the Russians at Kursk, yet worried over the prospects of the allies knocking Italy out of the war, Hitler gave his commanders two or three days to complete the Kursk offensive. Given the even more concentrated defenses of the Russians close to Kursk, this could not be done. Upon that realization, the Germans broke off the battle, quickly pulling back and consolidating to withdraw in good order while Liebstandarten was pulled out, refitted on the fly, so to speak, and deployed south to join Von Manstein in Italy.

Stalingrad had more impact than D-Day in that it is where an entire German army was destroyed, and showed that the Germans were not invulnerable. Kursk was the true turning point. Losses that the Germans could not make good on largely due to a new front opening in southern Europe, and the quality of their losses at Kursk started the real bleeding that the Germans could slow but not stop.
Spartacuss is offline  
Old October 20th, 2010, 01:28 AM   #50

Charles Albert's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2008
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 139
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


That was a good and most importantly an accurate piece of writing, Spartacuss
Charles Albert is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
dday, stalingrad



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stalingrad or Moscow, which was more decisive for the German defeat? neofelis War and Military History 71 December 22nd, 2010 05:24 PM
David M. Glantz Fights for the Truth About Stalingrad Belloc War and Military History 1 April 3rd, 2010 03:47 PM
Stalingrad Scourge Speculative History 60 August 12th, 2009 02:33 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.