[OT] Eastern front

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
> Remove Adolf Hitler from his disastrous meddling in military and
diplomatic
> decision making from about 1940 onward, and the chances of Allied
victory
in
> the European theatre of World War II would have been basically zero.

Whether Hitler alone lost the war is fairly debatable. Obviously, all
those
German generals who wrote up their biografies after the war tended to
look
for a conbvenient scapegoat. And who would make a better scapegoat than
a
dead Hitler ? Most recent historical works I've read see enough problems
in
German strategy even without his meddling.
Virtually all the generals underestimated Russian capabilites, as is
evident
from all their early-war assessments.
German weapons development and industry was chaotically organized.
German population and material ressources were inferior to the allies,
even
taking into account occupied territories.

The following is dealing with what'ifs, so there is a lot of opinion
involved, not facts.

> 1.  German priorities in the air campaign over Britain in 1940
would've
> remained on military targets instead of switching to civilian ones at
> Hitler's insistence just as the Royal Air Force was on the edge of
total
> collapse in effectiveness.  This could have either brought Britain to
its
> knees by itself or cleared the way for later invasion of the British
Isles
> with German air supremacy keeping the British Navy from being an
effective
> barrier.

Quite a number of studies and serious wargames of operation Sealion I
have
seen ended in a German failure. The Germans just did not have the
amphibious
experience and ressources the allied had in June 1944.

> 2.  Germany would not have unilaterally declared war on the United
States
> after Pearl Harbor, thus leaving us to fight the Japanese and likely
leave
> the European theatre to the Europeans, without even giving them
anywhere
> near as much supply to help them out, because we would've been keeping
it
to
> fight our own war instead.

At Moscow the Russians had stopped the German initial onslaught before
the
US joined the war. From then on, they outproduced Germany in tanks an
weapons. Allied lend-lease for them was a useful contribution,
especially in
trucks, but it was a minor part of Russian material.

On the Eastern front, I can recommend a spate of recent work by
historian
David Glantz, who has had excellent access to Russian archives and thus
can
balance the mostly German records available earlier.

> 3.  One of two things would have happened differently on the Russian
front.
>
> 3b.  Germany would not have squandered its best fighting force in the
most
> important part of the Russian front:	Stalingrad.  The German armies,
under
> the direction of the German generals instead of Hitler himself, would
have
> turned around and fought their way back out of Stalingrad immediately
upon
> their initial encirclement, which the Soviets would no more have been
able
> to stop than they had been able to stop their taking of Stalingrad in
the
> first place.

Still, this defence of Stalingrad would have been a major success for
the
Soviets. And a German retreat would have freed a lot of Russian forces
for
operations elsewhere . probably to cut off and eliminate the thrust into
the
Caucasus.

> Then, after waiting out the horrible 1942 Russian winter on
> their _own_ side of the supply lines instead of surrounded and cut off
> inside Stalingrad, they would've turned around and renewed their
offensive
> in the spring of 1943, and severed the main supply artery from the
Allies
to
> the Soviet Union through the nearby Caucasus Mountains.... which, by
itself,
> would have largely disabled the Soviet Union as an effective
combatant.

The Russians would equally have an opportunity to rebuild and redeploy.
The
battle of Kursk might just have happened west of Stalingrad.

The main Russian supply lines ran East-West from their industrial center
beyond the Ural. Main supply from the Kaukasus was Oil from the Baku oil
fieldds.

> Take American help out of that war and basically nobody was going to
stop
the
> Germans on their own.

This is debatable

> I am in no way agreeing with all of Mr. Atkinson's somewhat jingoistic
> viewpoints in making these statements.  But it's a simple statement of
fact
> that Allied victory in either World War with no American help in both
supply
> and industrial power was far from a foregone conclusion

Agree here.

Greetings
Karl Heinz