Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 25th, 2017, 02:13 AM   #31

starman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Connecticut
Posts: 3,602

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
Rudel eventually was shot down
After he had destroyed hundreds of enemy tanks.

Quote:
The Luftwaffe also strafed the D Day beaches..... it does not mean much
It was still a potent force in the East in '43.

Quote:
The problem I have with most of these "what ifs" is that it is always assumed that the germans would and could do things better militarily (other factors are not taken into account , such as the german fuel shortage which limited the possibility of conducting mobile warfare etc...)
The Germans were still able to conduct mobile warfare in December 1944, months after Ploesti had been lost. Had they effectively contained the soviets in mid '43, and ended the eastern war around then, they could've strengthened Ploesti's defenses with more flak and fighters.


Quote:
while the allies would continue doing the same things (as if being led by a computer with a program that was set once and for all)
I don't assume at all they'd do exactly the same things. Without an eastern front, in '44, they might not have landed in France at all. Even historically, Churchill was leery of the possible casualties and suggested invading the balkans...
starman is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 25th, 2017, 04:36 AM   #32

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,619

Quote:
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Nobody says they could've won in the sense of beating the allies just fighting them to a standstill.
Stupid argument. If the war is delayed three months then Berlin gets nuked.

The allies were working on the WW2 Trump card and planned to use it.

Also they launched offensive operations in December with enough fuel only to last for a few days. That was it.

Last edited by zincwarrior; December 25th, 2017 at 04:39 AM.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old December 25th, 2017, 05:16 AM   #33

starman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Connecticut
Posts: 3,602

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
Stupid argument. If the war is delayed three months then Berlin gets nuked.
I meant fighting the western allies to a standstill, with high losses, or making them lose their confidence in winning, by '44 or sometime that year (i.e. well before the a-bomb). If the USSR is out of the war by the end of '43 without significant German losses after stalingrad, so the reich faces the western allies with much stronger defenses, the west would've incurred much worse losses for less gain. Under those conditions, public support for the war might well have evaporated before/by the November '44 elections.


Quote:
The allies were working on the WW2 Trump card and planned to use it.
They certainly didn't plan to just sit and wait for it to be ready. Had there been serious reverses or a bloody stalemate by late '44, that could've had political repercussions, compelling a modification of war aims and a negotiated peace.

Quote:
Also they launched offensive operations in December with enough fuel only to last for a few days. That was it.
They still attacked with considerable forces, and had Russia been out of the war by '44, ploesti probably would've remained in business.
starman is offline  
Old December 26th, 2017, 05:57 AM   #34

Zbigniew's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Poland
Posts: 268

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
What if the USSR backs Poland?
Can you write some more?
Zbigniew is offline  
Old December 26th, 2017, 09:05 AM   #35

starman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Connecticut
Posts: 3,602

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fairfax View Post
Mostly wishful thinking by that point.
I overlooked this post. In fact, Manstein wrote (In Lost Victories) that "in the time in question ( spring '43) it ( fighting the USSR to a standstill) was far from being wishful thinking."

Quote:
Do you believe that the massive German losses in Bagration were due to tactical error?

The losses were due in part to poor tactical deployment, like infantry made to hold the frontlines even if the terrain wasn't well-suited to defense. They also resulted from poor strategic deployment, the result of a Soviet misinformation (the dismissal of Manstein was no doubt another factor). But they also owed much to the decision to keep 10 panzer divisions-including some of the reich's best-in the West where they (and their logistical tether) were bound to be cut up by overwhelming enemy air superiority. Give Manstein those extra divisions and a free hand in the East and the outcome would've been different, perhaps stunningly so.

Last edited by starman; December 26th, 2017 at 09:11 AM.
starman is offline  
Old December 26th, 2017, 09:09 AM   #36

starman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Connecticut
Posts: 3,602

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zbigniew View Post
Can you write some more?
I know this wasn't addressed to me but IMO it doesn't seem realistic since the Poles in '39 were dead against Soviet assistance.They wouldn't have let soviet troops in to defend polish territory and Stalin (who had doubts about the willingness and ability of the western allies to fight) didn't want to fight the reich alone.
starman is offline  
Old December 26th, 2017, 09:12 AM   #37
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 11,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by starman View Post
I overlooked this post. In fact, Manstein wrote (In Lost Victories) that "in the time in question ( spring '43) it ( fighting the USSR to a standstill) was far from being wishful thinking."




The losses were due in part to poor tactical deployment, like infantry made to hold the frontlines even if the terrain wasn't well-suited to defense. They also resulted from poor strategic deployment, the result of a Soviet misinformation (the dismissal of Manstein was no doubt another factor). But they also owed much to the decision to keep 10 panzer divisions-including some of the reich's best-in the West where they (and their logistical tether) were bound to be cut up by overwhelming enemy air superiority.
I think you need to be a little more sceptical of the german story telling.. whether its Rudel or Manstein (or Rommel or others) a lot of it is very good fiction, but quite far from the truth

Re the PZ divisions in the west their role was also to dissuade.... Their mere presence complicated allied planning and could have delayed the attack on France (in fact would have delayed it if Churchill had had his way). There was a huge fight between Rommel and Runstedt re their positionning.. Rommel wanted to park them right on the beaches so they could repeal the expected assault (which I dont think would have worked as they would probably have been pulverized by the allied air/sea bombing) while runstedt argued that since it was not clear where the assault would take place they should be kept back until it was clear where to engage them
tomar is online now  
Old December 26th, 2017, 10:04 AM   #38

Zbigniew's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Poland
Posts: 268

Quote:
Originally Posted by starman View Post
I know this wasn't addressed to me but IMO it doesn't seem realistic since the Poles in '39 were dead against Soviet assistance.They wouldn't have let soviet troops in to defend polish territory and Stalin (who had doubts about the willingness and ability of the western allies to fight) didn't want to fight the reich alone.
Yes, so another point is: "Could Poland survive between Third Reich and USSR?
Zbigniew is offline  
Old December 26th, 2017, 10:22 AM   #39
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 11,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zbigniew View Post
Yes, so another point is: "Could Poland survive between Third Reich and USSR?
I think the point was that IF the US , instead of doing nothing for 2+ years until declared war upon, in summer 39 gave guarantees to Poland and actively helped the allies, the Molotov Ribbentrop pact might not have happened... And certainly France would not have fallen if US troops and air were present there.... If such troops were deployed in summer 39 the allies might even have gone on the offensive against Germany while Germany was attacking Poland

of course that's a lot of assumptions....
tomar is online now  
Old December 26th, 2017, 10:38 AM   #40

Zbigniew's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Poland
Posts: 268

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
If such troops were deployed in summer 39
And if were deployed before the war? Like today? (NATO Military Presence in Poland). Was avoid war possible? Some people say: "Hitler's attack was necessary, because Adolf needed raw material and he had debts."

Last edited by Zbigniew; December 26th, 2017 at 10:55 AM.
Zbigniew is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
1943, control, effort, german, military, summer, takes, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why US military effort saved South Korea but failed in Vietnam ? merdiolu War and Military History 171 November 24th, 2017 05:21 AM
If It Takes All Summer: The Strategy of Ulysses S. Grant in 1864 Viperlord American History 39 October 21st, 2016 05:15 AM
PLO takes control of Jordan in Black September? burgoynewulfe General History 0 January 8th, 2016 11:23 AM
East German Military vs West German Military Menshevik War and Military History 17 March 5th, 2014 01:40 PM
what was german military stratigy during WW2 irishcrusader95 European History 16 November 17th, 2010 07:46 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.