This ought to be good for a nice, long thread...

[thekirk]

I'm just going to leave this here, and watch the catfights begin...

 

 

I'm struck by the confidence with which he makes this assertion, and by the fact that this is what passes for scholarship, in some circles. Amazing.

[BillB]

I'm just going to leave this here, and watch the catfights begin...

 

 

I'm struck by the confidence with which he makes this assertion, and by the fact that this is what passes for scholarship, in some circles. Amazing.

Nearly as amazing as the way you airily cast aspersions on his standard of scholarship from a basis of...what scholarly qualifications, exacty? I listened to the vid and while he is clearly a bit of a Stalin fan in his comparison of him (Stalin) & Hitler, I don't see much of a problem with the rest. Certainly not enough to loftily dismiss it out of hand at any rate.

 

BillB

[thekirk]

Ah, yes... The airy dismissal? Based on his equally airy assertions about many things in that interview. What, precisely, is he basing his statements about what general opinions in the US are, in reference to the war? It's funny, but I can't recall a single class in history I've ever taken at either a high school or college level, where the contribution of the Soviets or the UK were dismissed. It's like he's taken the idiocies of Hollywood, and somehow transposed them onto the entire country. Good scholarship, there... "Oh, I have this general impression based on something I've seen, and never researched, so I'll just make an assertion of a generalization that I don't know a damn thing about, really...".

 

In my equally general experience, I've not run into too many people here in the US with a decent education who would say that the US won the war on it's own. I do have to grant that all too many of the idiots working in the mass media and Hollywood aren't very well-educated, but that's not a good representative population from which to make such an assertion.

 

Additionally, he's given equal thought to his blithe statement that the Soviet Union could have won the war against Germany alone. Precisely how was this victory to be achieved, without the thousands of Studebaker trucks or railway engines provided by the US and the UK? On just that one issue alone, a lone Soviet Union victory becomes almost impossible. What precisely were the Soviets supposed to do, in order to attack the Germans once (and, if...) they were able to counter-attack? Replicate 19th-century horse-drawn logistics, over the scorched earth in between them and the German forces? At what cost in speed and logistics, one might wonder.

 

If you pull lend-lease out of the picture, where does that leave the Soviet Union? Forget about the second front and the bombing, care to explain just how that victory was to be achieved? Logistics alone throw serious doubt into the idea of an eventual Soviet victory. How much tank production would have gone into building trucks? Where were the Soviets to have gotten their tires? I don't seem to recall them demonstrating much prowess in the field of making artificial rubber, until well after the war. Hell, had the US simply put them on a cash-and-carry basis, they'd have been screwed.

 

Were Soviet tactical and operational expertise left alone to creat a victory, then the butcher's bill would have been far higher. As it was, the Russians to this day are still paying the demographic price for Soviet carelessness with human life. Care to picture what they'd look like, with another 27 million or so casualties spread across the population from starvation, and diversions of resources to support the war? The majority of the civilian population were on starvation rations for much of the war as it was. Subtract all the aid, and then what happens? How many casualties does he think the Soviets could soak up, before finally breaking? As it was, it was a pretty narrowly run thing.

 

Oh, sure... The Soviets could have defeated the Germans all on their own. If the stars were right, and the Germans were even more inept than they really were. Brest-Litovsk II would probably have seen a rump Soviet Union consisting of something east of the Urals, and maybe a few of the Islamic SSRs. Fortunately, we're never going to know, because there really were allies who were willing to hold their noses and deal with Stalin. One shudders to contemplate what the Soviet Union would have resorted to, standing alone against the Germans in 1941 and after. I'll grant you that the Germans would have likely had a hell of a hard time hanging on to what they conquered for more than a generation or two, but I can't see the end of that conflict working out in a Soviet victory without it turning decidedly Pyrrhic in the end. I doubt that whatever political structure that survived would consider it much of a victory, either.

 

The other bits of idiocy... Stalin was not genocidal? WTF? How do you classify all the deaths, under Stalin and the other Soviet leaders before him? The mass transportations to Siberia, that resulted in so many deaths amongst the various groups he didn't "trust" during his tenure? Is it somehow not genocidal to work people to death in Siberian camps, or on forced-labor construction projects?

 

This asshole is the worst sort of apologist for the Stalin regime imaginable. You'll note that he doesn't go into precisely where that "27 million" casualty figure he uses came from, either--It's like all the self-inflicted deaths caused by internal Soviet regime policies under the great Stalin somehow count against Hitler and the Nazis, simply because they happened during the war. Christ, towards the end of it, you can clearly hear the "respect" he has for Stalin as a "Great Historical Figure , instead of the disgust he should be expressing. He's damn near reverential about the man.

 

It's always good humor to watch these guys in action. Hitler is apparently a greater criminal, because he killed "intentionally", and personalized his hatred against the Jews, I guess. Never mind that Stalin and the Soviets blithely allied themselves with the Germans in order to gang-rape Poland, or any of the opportunistic killings that took place before, during, and after the war. How many unnecessary military casualties were there, again? And all in the name of securing Soviet internal security and power--Katyn was only the veriest tip of the iceberg. Rarely will you even hear an acknowledgment that there were worse mass-murderers than Hitler from this crowd, either. Subract WWII, and Stalin still killed more people than Hitler, and Mao dwarfs them both.

 

Of course, Stalin and Mao were both good socialists and meant well, so that's OK.

Edited May 16, 2011 by thekirk

[R011]

The problem with a twelve minute video clip is that there is almost no time to show ones sources or how one arrives at a particular position. While I think it unlikely, for the reasons thekirk stated, that the Soviets would have done as well as they did historically, I would like to see in a bit more detail why the presenter had the opinion he did beofe dismissing outright it as bad scholarship.

 

As for Hitler versus Stalin: Stalin was a monster, no argument, but it did take him nearly thirty years to kill as many people as Hitler did in about twelve - and a very disproportionate number of Hitler's murders were in the 1941-45 period. Take Poland as an example. Not including the three million Poles murdered for their Jewish heritage, the Nazis killed at least twice as many Poles in five years as the Communists did in fifty.

 

As for that 27 million figure being largely the result of Stalinist terror, most scholars agree that at least twenty million Soviets died due to German action. Estimates of Stalin's wartime victims range from a few hundred thousand to about eighteen million with about four million, including Axis POW's and refugees, being a consensus figure.

[R011]

Ultimately you have to look at the German Chemical and Biological program, their nuclear and Rocket program.Not to mention the more advanced aircraft projects. Then you have to ask if the Soviets would have been able to have advanced into Germany quickly enough to overun those weapon sites before they were used.

The Soviets had a fairly good NCBW program going as well. I've seen it claimed that they may actually have used bioweapons against the Germans - or at least against German horses. They could have retaliated with mustard and other evolved WWI agents had the Germans used nerves agents against them. The new agents weren't that much more effective that the Germans would have automatically won. I suspect Hitler would be as reluctant to use gas first in this scenario as in real life.

 

The V1 and V2 weapons were not capable of inflicting the kind of damage to the Soviets that Bomber Command and the USAAF inflicted on Germany and were just about useless as tactical weapons. As for nuclear weapons, forget it. The German program was well behind just about everybody else, including the Soviets. The Germans gave up on their program in 1943 thinking it unachievable. As for jets, perhaps deploying Me-262 units in the east would have helped. They were decent interceptors but I have no idea how good they'd be a low-level tactical fighters. I'm reluctant to think that they alone would win the war.

[rmgill]

How well would the USSR have done with Japan and Italy free to peck at her underbelly and her backside while the germans had full weight to throw against Russia un-impeded by British/US Naval, land and air forces acting all around the North, west and south of western Europe?

[thekirk]

Stuart, I'll grant you that Ambrose isn't the most unbiased historian I ever read. But, I'd also point out that he's that most pernicious and dishonest of the breed--A "popular historian". I've read a lot of both US and UK historians, and I've seen about the same level of bias, when you average it all out. For ever US historian writing apologia for Patton, and blaming Montgomery for everything that went wrong in the West, I can point to a UK historian that's done the diametric opposite. Nationalism isn't dead, by any means, in history writing. But, when you start leaving the field of histories written for popular distribution, you begin to see the bias go away, on both sides of the Atlantic. There's a lot of animosity that has become self-perpetuating down the years, but by and large, the average person who knows anything about the subject on both sides of the pond knows full well what their allies accomplished, and willingly acknowledge that fact. Hell, it was made more than apparent, when you go back and look at the details in the period magazines and newspapers--Both were full of praise for our "gallant allies" and their suffering under the Blitz and the hammer of Barbarossa. Were it I, writing those stories of fulsome praise about the mighty Soviets, I'd have been a bit more circumspect with the praise and human interest stories. It's really disturbing to be reading through WWII stories about the wonderful, brave Soviet troopers fighting the Nazis on the brutal Eastern Front, and then segue gradually through the 1950s, to find the same byline describing the brutish, brain-washing thugs of the Soviet Union fighting us in Korea. Sort of sets off the ol' cognitive dissonance thing, ya know?

[Paul G.]

No Lend Lease, no bombing campaign, no Italian/French front. I agree with Kirk, I think things would have turned out VERY different to say the least.

[Colin Williams]

Assuming Britain folds in 1940, there are too many variables to allow us to predict the outcome of a German-Soviet showdown. Perhaps the most important factor would be Stalin's expectations. As long as Britain was in the war he was unlikely to expect the Germans to attack. With Britain out of the war his attitude might have been very different, and I think the work of Glantz and others demonstrates pretty clearly that the Red Army had the potential for a much stronger performance at the beginning of the German attack. This could have enabled the Soviets to win a drawn out conflict.

 

If, on the other hand, we assume historical circumstances without Lend Lease or Anglo-American belligerence, then I think the Soviets would be near certain losers. Lend Lease may not have saved the Soviets in 1941-43 (although some think Britsh tanks helped save Moscow in late 41 when the Soviets were scrapping the bottom of the barrel), but it was critical for Soviet force projection into Central Europe. Add in the crippling Luftwaffe losses against the western allies, the impact of the strategic bombing campaign on war production, and the dozens of additional Axis divisions available in 1943-45, and I don't see how the Soviets win. If by some miracle you can keep the UK and US out of the war but still have them provide Lend Lease (I don't know how) then the Soviets have a fighting chance.

[Ken Estes]

There was no Lend Lease calculated to save the USSR in 1941. The Rus win the Battle of Moscow on their own. The contribution of LL to Stalingrad the next year remains near negligible, despite the serious losses suffered on the Murmansk Run sending some materiel through. Only after that, when the Persian Gulf-Caucasus route begins to operate and the U-boats, surface ships are no longer a serious threat to the Murmansk Run [some materiel flies to or goes to Vladivostok in Russian ships] can LL be said to become a component of the USSR war effort. Without LL, it is hard to see how the logistics could have permitted the USSR to advance to Berlin and Vienna. One should not doubt their willingness to do so, however.

 

Absent the UK in 1941-42, how tougher is the German attack in Barbarossa and 1942: Rommel's corps plus some Italians?? Not a game beater, I'd wager.

 

Japan is not interested in fighting Russia, when European weakness makes it possible to attack south, the object after all to complete the subjugation of China and establish Japanese hegemoney in the F.E.

[Sardaukar]

There were several critical components delivered by LL that Soviets would be sorely missing, e.g.:

 

- locomotives (90%!)

- rail cars (IIRC about similar)

- trucks

- aircraft aluminum (90% again)

- explosives (large percentage too)

- food

 

These would have put quite a crimp on Soviet offensives. How much production would have had to be switched from tanks & artillery to locomotives, rail cars & trucks? Later Soviet Army basically fought on US/Allied canned food. Aircraft production would not been what it was either.

 

I don't think Soviets would have necessarily lost, but it'd have made it very difficult to win either. Massive stalemate and carnage on Eastern Front for both sides maybe?

Edited May 17, 2011 by Sardaukar

[thekirk]

I think the entire premise is essentially incalculable. What sets me off, looking back at my reaction to that video, is the way that this supposed "respected academic" is playing right into the hands of the Stalin-revering elements in modern Russia. This guy gets on TV, makes these reasonable-sounding assertions to the Stalinophiles, and he grants them a level of credibility they'd never gain, otherwise. Imagine someone doing the same thing for any of the other genocidist leaders of the era--Do we allow folks like David Irving to get away with trying to make Hitler look like a decent fellow? Hardly. And, this gentlemen is going to keep right on going, fat and happy in his sinecure position paid for by the UK taxpayer.

 

And academics wonder why the general public has lost so much respect for them, when guys like Ward Churchill and this cretin are out in the open, saying the things they are.

[sunday]

Once I had a student of Russian origin, and talking about WWII, she told me that in school they were told that the gallant Russians won the Eastern Front all by themselves. Told her about logistic supplies, Murmansk run, and all the rest. Not to diminish the Russian war effort, but to put in context the contribution of Western allies.

 

There are some points that have not been mentioned, like the assurance by Richard Sorge about Japanese troops not going to attack Russian Far East, assurance that permitted divert East Siberian troops to Moscow defence in winter '41, and some supplies not yet mentioned, of radios and POL, some of which was high-octane avgas.

[RETAC21]

There were several critical components delivered by LL that Soviets would be sorely missing, e.g.:

 

- locomotives (90%!)

- rail cars (IIRC about similar)

- trucks

- aircraft aluminum (90% again)

- explosives (large percentage too)

- food

 

These would have put quite a crimp on Soviet offensives. How much production would have had to be switched from tanks & artillery to locomotives, rail cars & trucks? Later Soviet Army basically fought on US/Allied canned food. Aircraft production would not been what it was either.

 

I don't think Soviets would have necessarily lost, but it'd have made it very difficult to win either. Massive stalemate and carnage on Eastern Front for both sides maybe?

 

I don't see how the Soviets couldn't win, since they got most of the Lend Lease aid after 1943, when the tables had turned for good. Before Tunis, the forces in the West were a drop in the ocean of those in the East, and most would have remained there to garrison the occupied countries anyway.

 

LL eased their logistical problems but nevertheless they managed their 1943 advances mostly without it and stopped when the rope ran out. Once they had resupplied and rearmed, they re-started the advance, so with no second front the war may drag into 1946, but once the Rumanian oilfields were overran the writing was going to be on the wall for the Germans, and by the time lend lease was fully felt, they were within reach anyway.

[RETAC21]

How well would the USSR have done with Japan and Italy free to peck at her underbelly and her backside while the germans had full weight to throw against Russia un-impeded by British/US Naval, land and air forces acting all around the North, west and south of western Europe?

 

Japan and Italy? Japan was going to be occupied by the US no matter what, and they had their rears handed to them by the Russians in 1939, and Italy?!? you serious? the same country whose better tank was the equivalent of the T-26? Even Messe (CIR commander) recommended against increasing its commitment due to the unpreparedness of the Italian Army.

[Ken Estes]

I don't see how the Soviets couldn't win, since they got most of the Lend Lease aid after 1943, when the tables had turned for good. Before Tunis, the forces in the West were a drop in the ocean of those in the East, and most would have remained there to garrison the occupied countries anyway.

 

LL eased their logistical problems but nevertheless they managed their 1943 advances mostly without it and stopped when the rope ran out. Once they had resupplied and rearmed, they re-started the advance, so with no second front the war may drag into 1946, but once the Rumanian oilfields were overran the writing was going to be on the wall for the Germans, and by the time lend lease was fully felt, they were within reach anyway.

Exactly. Well put, sir.

[Ken Estes]

I think the entire premise is essentially incalculable. What sets me off, looking back at my reaction to that video, is the way that this supposed "respected academic" is playing right into the hands of the Stalin-revering elements in modern Russia. This guy gets on TV, makes these reasonable-sounding assertions to the Stalinophiles, and he grants them a level of credibility they'd never gain, otherwise. Imagine someone doing the same thing for any of the other genocidist leaders of the era--Do we allow folks like David Irving to get away with trying to make Hitler look like a decent fellow? Hardly. And, this gentlemen is going to keep right on going, fat and happy in his sinecure position paid for by the UK taxpayer.

 

And academics wonder why the general public has lost so much respect for them, when guys like Ward Churchill and this cretin are out in the open, saying the things they are.

On the contrary, we have the records on the German side and enough from the Rus to calculate quite well, especially since the German planning for Barbarossa was so flawed and based upon so little accurate knowledge, such as your own abyssmal grasp of things now several generations later. How the Hell do you manage to bring Ward Churchill into this; he has not written in this field. Do try to discern something.

 

Stalin-revering is not a requirement to recognize the serious deficiencies of the German war planning and preparations in 1940-41, even if you remain ideologically convinced that the evil Bolsheviks needed to be toppled.

 

I suspect you may have reveled too much in David Irving's efforts. Those of us who have worked in the field of 'respected academics' you so happily deride may have little interest in what sets you off or causes you to react to a mere video clip.

 

As for your "....fat and happy in his sinecure position paid for by the UK taxpayer" I'll let you fce up to BillB for that, as you simply deserve a good thrashing, UK style. Your unique combination of ignorance-arrogance really tests many of us.

 

Grow up. Most academics have not lost public respect, and if it is only yours, what exactly is the loss?

[Ken Estes]

How were the Soviets going to deliver those weapons? Their strategic air arm compared to what Britain and the US could put in the air was feeble, and would easily have been dealt with by the Luftwaffe if they hadnt had those miscreants to deal with. They COULD have put it in Multiple Rocket launchers. But this makes them a tactical, not strategic weapon.

 

NBC mated to long range rocket weapons fired at Moscow or other strategic targets could have been devastating. We know the Germans had longer range rockets in development, it was only the end of the war that stopped them doing so. Same with the nuclear program, they were far in advance of the Soviets. Just because they didnt beat the allies does not mean that, with the Soviets the only enemies, they could not have done so.

 

As for the jet aircraft, lets not forget it didnt consist of JUST the ME262. There was the Go229, and a number of aircraft created specifically for forward air support (including what I seemed to recall was a dive bomber version of the HE162). Lets not forget, the Germans are claimed to have retained Air Superiority over the Eastern Front till the last days of the war. What happens if they get air supremacy? With no western allies there is no blockade, which means all those awkward materials blocked from around the world are easy to come by. In contrast the Soviets are handicapped by having very limited warm water ports, and most of those could have been blockaded by a Kriegsmarine that didnt have to worry about the RN.

 

Hardly enough to guarantee a German victory. But when you add all that together, it looks a very long way from a certaom Soviet one, at least in the short term. In the longer term you would have had more advanced German weapons projects which as things stood, the Soviets were no better equipped to match.

Uh, NBC payloads for ballistic rockets are problematic even in this century, let alone the last one.

 

Where is the fuel coming from for the LW jets? I think it is unchanged from real life.

 

The LW had lost air superiority in the east by mid-1943, as I recall.

 

There are no warm water ports in the Baltic.

 

The Germans [and Japanese] lost WWII by failing to win by early 1943. Exit stage right.

[EchoFiveMike]

What are the basic assumptions for this Ger/Rus slug fest? If the the Germans didn't have to commit assets/materials to Kriegsmarine, DAK, occupied France/Norway,etc could they commit them to USSR? How much of the problems in the east WRT airpower were due to reallocation to protect the homefront? S/F....Ken M

[cbo]

What are the basic assumptions for this Ger/Rus slug fest? If the the Germans didn't have to commit assets/materials to Kriegsmarine, DAK, occupied France/Norway,etc could they commit them to USSR? How much of the problems in the east WRT airpower were due to reallocation to protect the homefront? S/F....Ken M

 

Exactly - without clearing up the premises for the argument that the USSR could've won the war against Germany on its own, it is impossible to say whether they could or not.

 

If Britain and the US are not assisting the USSR, what were they doing? Had Britain made peace with Germany? Would the Japanese still have attacked the USA? And if so - would Hitler NOT have declared war on the US? Or would the Japanese have left the US alone and attacked the USSR? etc. etc. etc.

 

I think that is the real problem with the professors statements - he should've known better than venturing into counterfactual conclusions in a TV interview where it is impossible to discuss the premises due to time constraints.

[RETAC21]

What are the basic assumptions for this Ger/Rus slug fest? If the the Germans didn't have to commit assets/materials to Kriegsmarine, DAK, occupied France/Norway,etc could they commit them to USSR? How much of the problems in the east WRT airpower were due to reallocation to protect the homefront? S/F....Ken M

 

The premise would need to be 1940 runs as historically until June, when the UK accepts Hitler's offer for peace and allows the Germans to turn East unhindered.

 

Such a course would have meant, IMO:

 

- The Kriegsmarine is able to dominate the Baltic (as historically done), and the Arctic (although there wouldn't be a Murmansk run to interdict),

- Resources devoted to building warships are instead used for air/land forces (12.000 men in the Ubootwaffe add another division to the German OOB, maybe more trucks, down the road...). The Black Sea is going to be dominated by the Soviets no matter what, until the Germans devote enough aircraft.

- No Afrika Korps, assuming the Italians join the peace settlement, by no means a given, since this would be another war in which Italy would have very little to show for their efforts.

- The Afrika Korps, plus its air support add up another motorised corps to the German OOB in 1941, and another Air Corps, which, unless logistically supportable, it only means the Germans either get closer to Moscow before retreating or retain Rostov.

- Since the LW devoted little resources in 1941/42 for home defence, there would be relatively few impacts in the East by the addition of this planes, as the war wears on, sure, they would be wellcome, but the Germans were already behind the curve in aircraft production so they would only delay the eventual result.

[RETAC21]

Fair one. But then again so are Ballistic missiles and Cruise Missles, and clearly the Germans had that covered. We are interpreting what the Germans could do by what they DID have the opportunity to do. I look at what technology programs they had in the wings and suggest that if they wanted a capablity, they developed it and damn the cost, in money and in lives. They proved this time and again. So for that matter did the Soviets, but the difference is their nuclear biological and Chemical AND rocketry program was very largely based on the back of the German one.

 

But the problem here is that atomic energy was an unproven theory whose great potential was hindered by the huge investments needed for it to pay off, in the context of a shortage of resources with which the Germans were fighting the war. This shortage was already biting them in the arse in 1939 and over time it cut back some programs that could have proven "decisive" - the carrier Graf Zeppelin, jet engines, etc.

 

No Western allies means Germany can import fuel from anywhere that will sell it to them. If the Americans were still unaligned, and had a choice between the Soviets and the Nazis can you be sure they would pick the same side they did? Im not, particularly as there was at least one person who owned the rights to the German synthetic fuel program in the US, and refused to hand it over to the US Government till they threatened him with legal action. There was more German sympathy in US industry than there was Pro Soviet. Look at Henry Ford.

 

Yes, but what will they pay it with? Germany was running out of money, so unless they find someone to bankroll them they are not going to import much from abroad. And they were occupying France, killing off a lot of the sympathy that some could have for them.

 

Ive read in some accounts the Germans claimed to have superiority in the air in the east till 1945. If that is BS (and Im no expert on the subject), I would suggest that if there was no Western Bombing campaign, that released a lot of fighters to go east, particularly post 1942. Even Me110s, not required for night fighting work, could have been usful in the East. Imagine all those 88s and 20mm mounts not having to be emplaced on the Western Wall. Even that clearly would have reduced efficacy of Soviet frontal aviation. We are assuming the failure of the Luftwaffe without factoring in the effort the 8th Airforce (and to a lesser extent bomber command) made in destroying it. This I think is hardly fair.

 

That¡s BS since 1943 - they had a last blip over Kursk but from then on, Soviet air power overpowered them, initially with numbers, but increasingly with quality. Certainly, in the last 2.5 years of the war, the combined bomber offensive wore off the LW and forced it to cut back its bomber, transport and training force, but before that, the LW at its height was unable to bring the 1941 campaign to a victorious conclusion or to supply Stalingrad. I don't see how loosing air superiority later rather than sooner is going to turn the tables.

 

The Germans and Japanese lost WW2 by having the entire world against them. Remove Britain (and Commonwealth) and America from that mix, how can anyone be certain the same timeline runs on rails?

 

The timeline would change, but given the disparity in forces and the poor planning displayed by the Germans in the 1941/42 campaigns, the Soviets are going to have time and space enough to eventually defeat Germany and overran Europe.

[thekirk]

On the contrary, we have the records on the German side and enough from the Rus to calculate quite well, especially since the German planning for Barbarossa was so flawed and based upon so little accurate knowledge, such as your own abyssmal grasp of things now several generations later. How the Hell do you manage to bring Ward Churchill into this; he has not written in this field. Do try to discern something.

 

Stalin-revering is not a requirement to recognize the serious deficiencies of the German war planning and preparations in 1940-41, even if you remain ideologically convinced that the evil Bolsheviks needed to be toppled.

 

I suspect you may have reveled too much in David Irving's efforts. Those of us who have worked in the field of 'respected academics' you so happily deride may have little interest in what sets you off or causes you to react to a mere video clip.

 

As for your "....fat and happy in his sinecure position paid for by the UK taxpayer" I'll let you fce up to BillB for that, as you simply deserve a good thrashing, UK style. Your unique combination of ignorance-arrogance really tests many of us.

 

Grow up. Most academics have not lost public respect, and if it is only yours, what exactly is the loss?

 

I've refrained from directly commenting on anything you've said, and I've certainly avoided insulting you personally. You, however, are a nasty little man, and an embarrassment to the commissioned officers of the Marine Corps. Revel in David Irving's efforts, eh? You've just demonstrated the level at which you operate, and indeed, validate what I've said. Apparently, the shoe fits so well you decide to wear it yourself.

[rmgill]

The premise would need to be 1940 runs as historically until June, when the UK accepts Hitler's offer for peace and allows the Germans to turn East unhindered.

 

Such a course would have meant, IMO:

 

- The Kriegsmarine is able to dominate the Baltic (as historically done), and the Arctic (although there wouldn't be a Murmansk run to interdict),

- Resources devoted to building warships are instead used for air/land forces (12.000 men in the Ubootwaffe add another division to the German OOB, maybe more trucks, down the road...). The Black Sea is going to be dominated by the Soviets no matter what, until the Germans devote enough aircraft.

 

Throw in the Reggio Aeronautica AND the Regia Marina. What does that add to the OB? With greece taken sooner because of no British intervention how much faster does the baltic get taken from the USSR?

 

 

- No Afrika Korps, assuming the Italians join the peace settlement, by no means a given, since this would be another war in which Italy would have very little to show for their efforts.

 

More men against a force which has killed off a large quantity of it's better officers wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. More men filling out ranks along side germans would work better than Italians by themselves surely. Rommel free to be sent to the south of the USSR would be a problem. He was good with what he could get. Presume he had more to work with, what then?

 

- The Afrika Korps, plus its air support add up another motorised corps to the German OOB in 1941, and another Air Corps, which, unless logistically supportable, it only means the Germans either get closer to Moscow before retreating or retain Rostov.

 

Plus what didn't make it to North Africa due to British sea interdiction. Also add more fallschirmjager since the Battle of Crete didn't bloody their noses horribly.

 

- Since the LW devoted little resources in 1941/42 for home defence, there would be relatively few impacts in the East by the addition of this planes, as the war wears on, sure, they would be wellcome, but the Germans were already behind the curve in aircraft production so they would only delay the eventual result.

 

But without the attacks on facilities in the west, would French production facilities have been more able to add to the mix as time went on?

[John Dudek]

 

That¡s BS since 1943 - they had a last blip over Kursk but from then on, Soviet air power overpowered them, initially with numbers, but increasingly with quality. Certainly, in the last 2.5 years of the war, the combined bomber offensive wore off the LW and forced it to cut back its bomber, transport and training force, but before that, the LW at its height was unable to bring the 1941 campaign to a victorious conclusion or to supply Stalingrad. I don't see how loosing air superiority later rather than sooner is going to turn the tables.

 

 

 

The timeline would change, but given the disparity in forces and the poor planning displayed by the Germans in the 1941/42 campaigns, the Soviets are going to have time and space enough to eventually defeat Germany and overran Europe.

 

RE: Soviet air power. Keep in mind too the effect of having lend lease supplied 100 octane aircraft gasoline had on the performance of Soviet fighterplanes and bombers. Higher octane fuel greatly boosted the performance levels of their aircraft engines. The US never gave the Russians the recipe for that fuel and it was supplied directly to them from US refineries for the duration of the war. No lend-lease means slower, poorer performing Soviet Aircraft.