[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

I really don't know why anyone gave a crap about the Russians.

Not to detract by our own sacrifices and accomplishments, but to answer your question,the unfortunate truth is that we couldn't have won without the Soviets.
75% of German casualties in WW2 were at the hands of the commie hordes.

Mmmm I'm thinking the West could have won without the Soviets.

[Hyack]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Mmmm I'm thinking the West could have won without the Soviets.

Think about this for a minute, if Germany wasn't at war with Russia in 1944 I don't think there could have been an invasion of Europe, or if there had been it would have probably failed as would all other operations on the European mainland. I don't have the figures, but without having to fight Russia the Nazis would have had hundreds of thousands of troops and material to use in it's European operations.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Hyack wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Mmmm I'm thinking the West could have won without the Soviets.

Think about this for a minute, if Germany wasn't at war with Russia in 1944 I don't think there could have been an invasion of Europe, or if there had been it would have probably failed as would all other operations on the European mainland. I don't have the figures, but without having to fight Russia the Nazis would have have hundreds of thousands of troops and material to use in it's European operations.

There wouldn't need to be an invasion of Europe once the nuke was developed. Those bad boys were game changers.

[BeaverFever]

Yes. We should have watied Hitler out until 1945 and then dropped nukes across Europe. Bravo.

[Hyack]

And you think Germany would be just twiddling their thumbs between June 1941 and July 1945, waiting for the Allies to do something? Without the Russian campaign the whole outcome of the war would have been different. The Battle of Britain, the Battle of the North Atlantic would all have had different outcomes. Without having to fight Russia the Nazis would have had a Hell of a good chance of winning the war before the first A bomb was ever developed.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever wrote:

Yes. We should have watied Hitler out until 1944 and then dropped nukes across Europe. Bravo.

Worked pretty good in Japan. Not one ally soldier had to set foot on Japan's Home Islands soil.
Of course, the ol' firebombing raids were a vast improvement weren't they. A single firebombing raid followed up by a daylight bombing killed more people than either of the nukes dropped on Japan, and that's including the radiation casualties that followed.

And who said anything about dropping nukes all across Europe. 1 or 2 in Germany would have sufficed I'm sure. I'd be willing to bet the psychological impact of seeing a city wiped out in a flash would have been just as shocking to Germans as it was to the Japanese.

Of course, this isn't to say that's what we should have done. I'm just saying the West could have won without the Soviets.

[BeaverFever]

Japan is not Germany and the west Pacific is not Europe and the North Atlantic.

And to say "without Russia" I can only assume you mean if Germany had not invaded Russia and had no Eastern front. in which case all those combat divisions and aircract squandrons would have been in the field in western Europe and North Africa. Which begs the questions:

a)could a US bomber have even penetreated German airspance?
b) what impact would destroying cities in Germany have, if the majority of the German army is deployed outside of germany?

Also, can one reasonably assume that German society would react to the bombings thesame way as japanese society, given that they are very different cultures and religions?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Hyack wrote:

And you think Germany would be just twiddling their thumbs between June 1941 and July 1945, waiting for the Allies to do something? Without the Russian campaign the whole outcome of the war would have been different. The Battle of Britain, the Battle of the North Atlantic would all have had different outcomes. Without having to fight Russia the Nazis would have had a Hell of a good chance of winning the war before the first A bomb was ever developed.

Well, the Battle of Britain's outcome would have been no different since it was well before the Russian invasion.
The Battle of the North Atlantic would still have been a battle of atrition that Germany would not have won. The US alone was building 5 supply ships for every U-boat built.
Germany also started the war off with 3.75 million in its army. Problem is, even though they pretty much invented mobile warfare, they weren't really set up for mass production of tanks and other armoured vehicles. The bulk of the German army still relied on horses, oxen and their own 2 feet. Germany never sought to rectify this problem even while total war was being waged, so it's doubtful they would have worried too much about it if they weren't dealing with the Russians.
Germany would have had maybe 6-7 million men in it's army, most of whom would probably be on coastal defence. But that's a LOT of coast line to guard with only so much manpower and barely a tenth of it mobile.
And finally, as long as Hitler kept playing tactician and not letting his Generals fight the battles, Germany was doomed to lose regardless.
Despite the German soldier being one of the best of the time, despite the technological superiority of several of their machines of war, despite the brilliance of some of Germany's generals, the German military had two major weak points; Hitler and to a lesser but more buffoonish extent, Goering.

But, to put an end to this derailing I'll go so far as to say, Russia didn't really help anyway. Russia wasn't on our side. Russia was on Russia's side.
All we really did was make it easier for an even more evil bastard to take control of half of Europe.
Europe, or at least the "communist" parts, would have been better off in the long term if Germany hadn't attacked Russia at all.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever wrote:

Japan is not Germany and the west Pacific is not Europe and the North Atlantic.

And to say "without Russia" I can only assume you mean if Germany had not invaded Russia and had no Eastern front. in which case all those combat divisions and aircract squandrons would have been in the field in western Europe and North Africa. Which begs the questions:

a)could a US bomber have even penetreated German airspance?
b) what impact would destroying cities in Germany have, if the majority of the German army is deployed outside of germany?

Also, can one reasonably assume that German society would react to the bombings thesame way as japanese society, given that they are very different cultures and religions?

A)Yep. The service ceiling of a B-29 is over 40,000 ft. The highest service ceiling in a German a/c was the Bf-109 at 38,000 ft.
B)The intended impact wasn't to kill soldiers, it was to "displace" the workers that worked in the industries supplying Germany's war machine. This strategy was adopted when it was realized just how quickly they could get a bombed factory up and running again unless it was wiped out, so they'd carpet bomb at night and then try and nail specific industrial targets during the day.
However, this type of bombing proved that whether you were the average British, German or Japanese civilian, all it did was piss you off and strengthen your resolve to do your part to get back at whoever bombed you.
But, considering in 1945 the average person had ZERO idea of the horror that awaited just around the corner, unlike we've had for the last 66 years, I'd say even if it happened to the US, Americans would have been shitting bricks seeing a city, or a large portion of it, get vaporized in an instant. If you put yourself into the mind of the leader of a country in 1945, no matter where you were from, if someone did that to one or two of your cities, putting on clean underwear would have been a waste of time that day. Especially if you had nothing of the kind to retaliate with.

[PENATRATOR]

Hyack wrote:

And you think Germany would be just twiddling their thumbs between June 1941 and July 1945, waiting for the Allies to do something? Without the Russian campaign the whole outcome of the war would have been different. The Battle of Britain, the Battle of the North Atlantic would all have had different outcomes. Without having to fight Russia the Nazis would have had a Hell of a good chance of winning the war before the first A bomb was ever developed.

Actually Hyack, the battle of Britain was fought and won in Summer/Fall of 1940, while Stalin and Hitler were still licking each others asses.

Hitler did not attack the Russians until June 1941

[BeaverFever]

PA 9- Not saying I'm convinced, but well argued. Kudos! I would counter that without an Eastern Front to contend with, the Germans could have had the resources to develop the military technology that would have countered such a threat or possibly could have developed their own nuke.

Alternatively, one could argue that a lack of an eastern front could have resulted in a German military build-up in the western front that would have been robust enough to repel an allied invasion even if most of the cities in the "fatherland" destroyed in 1945 (i.e. by that time they could have already mobilized factories in France, Belgium, etc. and impressed the locals into war production and military service). But I acknowledge that we now risk entering a realm of unsubtantiated speculation.

PEN- The question is: if there had been no Eastern Front, would the Germans have had the resources to bolster their forces and successfully wage a second Battle of Britain in '42-'44?

[PENATRATOR]

The Luftwaffe was pretty much shot to shit by then, and the USAF was now in the fight. Doubtful

[GreenTiger]

BartSimpson wrote:

I really don't know why anyone gave a crap about the Russians.

I agree, I'd rather have the Russians getting shot up than Canadians.

I also agree that the big "lesson" we learned from Dieppe was not to have the British Generals (or Mountbatten) plan it.

[CanadianODST]

The Eastern Front could have been a victory for the Wehrmacht, the reason they failed in my opinion was the fact that Hitler constantly overruled his Generals plans and didn't listen to them. The fact that he started the operation in June was a major tactical blunder.