LogFAQs > #972439956

Vampire_Chicken posted...

Especially seeing as how roughly 80% of the Wehrmacht's strength was committed to the Eastern Front; imagine if it had all been thrown against the West. I very much doubt the Allied democracies would have been able to soak up losses on the colossal scale sustained by the USSR.

As I said:

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

Not really.

They'd failed to take the UK so the US was on the way and supplies were still coming in. Germany was losing a battle of attrition and desperately struggling to get supplies.

Russia also was absolutely going to invade Germany when they were weak. Which is why Germany had to strike first.

This "if only they didn't invade Russia" thing is a myth. They would have lost either way. Attacking first was just marginaly a better option.

Germany and Russia were never ever ever ever ever allies during the conflict. They had a non aggression pact because it benefited both partieis to do so and the second it didn't benefit, they would fight.

If Germany and sent their entire armed forces and all resources to the west

1. It would take ages and be a massive undertaking/waste of resources at a time where resources were etremely limited with no means of replenishment.
2. Wouldn't mean squat since they didn't take the UK
3. Russia would see Germany wide open and just roll in.

You can't just teleport 80% of your forces into London. The logisitics of getting that force across all of Europe during a time of severely limited resources is insane and would take an extended period of perperation and exeuction

And then once they got there, they wouldn't have made a major difference. They still can't invade the UK. D-Day still happens, Americans roll in. Resources are now tighter than ever

And their buttocks are now exposed to Russia.

The amateurs discuss tactics: the professionals discuss logistics. ~ Napoleon

buddhamonster posted...

If we assume Russia was always a necessary victory condition, and Barbarossa had to happen, then the Battle for Moscow was a huge defeat. The Battle of Stalingrad (somewhat) shortly after that was disastrous. Either one of those could be looked at as the the point of no return.

What I like to go with, though, is the Battle of Kursk. It was a post Stalingrad offensive planned by the Germans, with the idea being that a big offensive in the area would lead to the Germans cutting off large portions of the Red Army and allow the Germans to prevent any future Soviet offensives for that year, allowing the Germans some space and time to setup for a potential 44 campaign.

What actually happened was the Germans hit a brick wall, for the first time in the war their offensive plans failed, and they were driven back. Its the last offensive operation conducted by the Germans in the war on the Eastern front, and would mark the start of the passing of the buck to the Soviets, who from this point on, would slowly advance on Berlin without stopping. In a nutshell, the Germans spent what energy they had left on this one big offensive, and once that energy was spent, there was no recovering.

Ive seen a lot of alt-history explanations for how Germany could still win after so-and-so battle or event very, very few of them ever suggest victory was possible after Kursk. It was clear to just about everyone involved by this point that the war was effectively over, and now it was just a matter of how much longer will it take to bring Germany down for good.

TBH I don't understand why people now and German Generals at the time (Hitler didn't for the record) seem to think that taking Moscow would mean Russia is defeated.

Taking Paris took out France because at that point they had control over the government, most natural resources, most raillines and had bypassed most French defenses

In Russia taking Moscow would be a nice PR move but the Russian army and government would still be there and Germany would still be bleeding losses. Russia is a big place. There isn't just a central hub where you can take and dominate the country. This is still true today and was even more true back then.

Stalin also did a good job of moving as much industry as possible to the other side of the country and still had access to natural resources. So Germany wasn't really gaining anything productive when they gained ground in Russia, just a longer walk and a longer supply line.

I don't see any realistic alternate history scenario where Germany conquers Russia. It would take a string of ridiclous miracles and happenstance.