What would have happened?

[JohnFrusciante]

They came close. There is some evidence to suggest Stalin was considering a peace negotiation in late 1941 if the Germans had taken Moscow. Only a combination of Hitler's meddling and the weather saved the Soviets in 1941 (first the autumn muds then the freezing winter). Remember, it was never Hitler's intention to have taken over the entire Soviet Union just the 'European' Soviet Union, roughly from a line of Arkangelsk in the north to Astrakhan in the south. It is entirely feasible that the Germans could have taken this portion of the Soviet Union with the Soviets settling on a peace treaty and some sort of standoff line.

I think the weather effect is a little lame and simplistic to sum up the defeat of the Wehrmacth. I mean the Russians were no better at winter warfare than the Germans were as events in Finland proved.

[redrum]

By the way, where are all those private firearms that we (USA) sent to England in WW2?

[ledbaby]

It was not a case of wasting resources against a might foe, rather they simply did not nor could have the economic capacity to defeat Britain, USA and the USSR. Even had they defeated the USSR and that is a big IF, the combined resources of both the US and the British would still have made things difficult. But they would never have beaten the Soviet Union .

A smart man. The United Kingdom and America are allies for a very good reason. Just a couple being loose cannon states like North Korea and Iran. It takes resources and good strategic positioning to win major wars.

[wanna be drummer]

I think the weather effect is a little lame and simplistic to sum up the defeat of the Wehrmacth. I mean the Russians were no better at winter warfare than the Germans were as events in Finland proved.

I agree that its a little overstated. That being said, I'll also say that the weather did at least play a pretty helpful role for the Soviets. Hitlers men had only summer clothing (for the most part) and I'm suire that -10F starts to cut through your tee shirts. Also, the German tanks (if memory serves) ran like shit in the freezing weather of Russia. So, the weather was able to demoralize the Germans, slowed down their tanks (winter brought snow which brought mud which stopped many German tanks), and probably froze many SS troops.

So, I wouldn't say it did nothing. It certainly helped

edited to add: Is it just a coincidence that no one who has attacked Russia in winter has won save Ghenghis Khan?

[Mangani]

I think the weather effect is a little lame and simplistic to sum up the defeat of the Wehrmacth.

It's a fact when surmising 1941. The Germans STEAMROLLED the Soviets in good weather for the first 2 years....... both in 1941 and the following year in summer 1942.

The Germans were making good progress in Russia in 1941. After Hitler called a halt to the march on Moscow in late summer '41 and sent his panzer divisions elsewhere, when the march on Moscow then resumed again in autumn the muddy quagmires and conditions slowed their advance down majorly. It wasn't the Red Army that did this. It was General Mud. This gave the Soviets valuable breathing space. Had the Germans reached Moscow in September/October 1941 they likely would have taken it as the Soviets were ill prepared for defence there with almost no reserves to call upon. But Hitler's meddling meant the offensive on Moscow took place later than it should have and as a result the weather became the vital factor.

When the mud began to harden up at the onset on winter and the Germans could finally move forwards at a good pace again it was too late. By the time the Germans reached the outskirts of Moscow in late November/early December '41, large numbers of reserve Soviet forces had been gathered from divisions stationed in the east awaiting a Japanese attack and these then went over to the counter offensive. The Germans were then ill equipped to fight their first winter war and suffered heavily because of it.

It most certainly was the weather which played the vital factor in halting the German advance in Russia in 1941 and gave the Soviets some much needed breathing space in autumn '41. It's no coincidence that as soon as the weather got better again in 1942 the Germans once more forced the Soviets back at a fast pace until they became bogged down in street fighting at Stalingrad and overstretched their supply lines in the Caucasus.

I mean the Russians were no better at winter warfare than the Germans were as events in Finland proved.

That was 1939/40. The Soviets learned their lesson from that debacle against the Finns and were far more prepared the next time they had to fight a winter war. They learned lessons off the Finns and 2 years later in 1941/42 when they next had to fight a winter war they had improved greatly and were quite adept and ready for it. Germany also had a debacle in their first winter war (1941/42 before Moscow) and then then also improved greatly in the following winters.

Also, the Soviets didn't have T34 and KV tanks in 1939/40 against the Finns as they did in '41/'42 against the Germans.

[3hrsoflunacy]

Where's the popcorn eating smiley? Another endless debate.

Germany did not have the resources or manpower to win a war fought on both borders. Hitler was also sick, so even if the war lasted longer, who knows how long he would have lived, and the what the views of his successor would have been.

Hitler fucked up. He had a poor plan, killed millions of innocent people, and they took the cowards way out the situation by killing himself when he knew he was done.

However, if you wish to continue speculating, read this book (I did many years ago):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(novel)

[BIGDAN]

I think your probably (like most Britons do) overstate your role in World War II, if it wasn't for the events on 22 June 1941 and had Germany concentrated attacks on Britain with such velocity as they did in the Soviet Union, then i suspect Britain would have fallen...like the Channel Islands.

Hi John,

Sorry you think that way John, and maybe you are right. I like most "English", don't like to be called "Britons" or "British", just like the "Irish", "Scotts" and "Welsh" we are fiercely nationalistic about our rights to being called by our real nationality. But we put all of our hatred for each other to one side when it come's to war.

I am in no way overstating our role in the Second World War, I know our history far better that most people from abroad, as I have studied it for 45 years.

The English way of war in Europe has always been to side against the aggressor, against Germany in 1939 and 1914, Russia in 1853, Napoleon in 1805, Spain in 1585, and numerous wars with France over the centuries. We do this because although we are to small a country to conqueror Europe, we can make sure that no other country (Like Hitler's Germany) can dominate it for ever.

In all my studies of the Second World War I have come to the conclusion that if Hitler had wanted to conquer England then he would have tried a bit harder. But he knew that if he did he needed total control of the air, which the RAF denied him. And we did that on our own with no help from any of our so called friends, only a small number of Czech and Polish pilots did in fact help.

Hitler also needed to control the English Channel, not only for the landings but to supply any army that he sent over. He knew that the Royal Navy was far to strong a force at that time to contemplate engaging, the Germans only had 4 Battleships and 2 Pocket Battleships left and the English Navy was the biggest in the world at that time.

Remember Hitler did attacked Britain with ferocity, he used two thirds of his airforce to attack us with, it was a close run thing at times, but you only have to talk to those pilots who survived to know that they would fight to the last man to denie him victory. The Channel Islands fell to Hitler because they were indefencable, no other reason, England was defenceable.

I think that Europe, if not the World owes Britain a lot for what we did in WW2. We stood our ground where others caved in, or like the USA stood by and waited untill it was attacked before joining in. But at least the USA did join in and we "British" owe you a big "THANK YOU" for that for without your help Europe may have still been under the Nazi flag and Britain would have been made to accept an uneasy truce with Hitler, which is what he wanted all along.

Regards, Danny

PS, And if the USA hadn't joined in then we wouldn't be talking on here, because there would never have been a "Led Zeppelin" to talk about. We make a good team don't you think? The USA and GB.

[BIGDAN]

Hi All,

18th June 2008. Today.

18th June 1815, Anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.

18th June 1812, United States of America declares War on Great Britain and Ireland.

(You big bully) LOL.

Regards, Danny

[ledbaby]

Hi John,

Sorry you think that way John, and maybe you are right. I like most \"English\", don\'t like to be called \"Britons\" or \"British\", just like the \"Irish\", \"Scotts\" and \"Welsh\" we are fiercely nationalistic about our rights to being called by our real nationality. But we put all of our hatred for each other to one side when it come\'s to war.

I am in no way overstating our role in the Second World War, I know our history far better that most people from abroad, as I have studied it for 45 years.

The English way of war in Europe has always been to side against the aggressor, against Germany in 1939 and 1914, Russia in 1853, Napoleon in 1805, Spain in 1585, and numerous wars with France over the centuries. We do this because although we are to small a country to conqueror Europe, we can make sure that no other country (Like Hitler\'s Germany) can dominate it for ever.

In all my studies of the Second World War I have come to the conclusion that if Hitler had wanted to conquer England then he would have tried a bit harder. But he knew that if he did he needed total control of the air, which the RAF denied him. And we did that on our own with no help from any of our so called friends, only a small number of Czech and Polish pilots did in fact help.

Hitler also needed to control the English Channel, not only for the landings but to supply any army that he sent over. He knew that the Royal Navy was far to strong a force at that time to contemplate engaging, the Germans only had 4 Battleships and 2 Pocket Battleships left and the English Navy was the biggest in the world at that time.

Remember Hitler did attacked Britain with ferocity, he used two thirds of his airforce to attack us with, it was a close run thing at times, but you only have to talk to those pilots who survived to know that they would fight to the last man to denie him victory. The Channel Islands fell to Hitler because they were indefencable, no other reason, England was defenceable.

I think that Europe, if not the World owes Britain a lot for what we did in WW2. We stood our ground where others caved in, or like the USA stood by and waited untill it was attacked before joining in. But at least the USA did join in and we \"British\" owe you a big \"THANK YOU\" for that for without your help Europe may have still been under the Nazi flag and Britain would have been made to accept an uneasy truce with Hitler, which is what he wanted all along.

Regards, Danny

PS, And if the USA hadn\'t joined in then we wouldn\'t be talking on here, because there would never have been a \"Led Zeppelin\" to talk about. We make a good team don\'t you think? The USA and GB.

Jeez,

WWII is way behind us, we need to act like civil humans and pretend we have neighbors. Leave the 7 like they are and move onward

[JohnFrusciante]

It's a fact when surmising 1941. The Germans STEAMROLLED the Soviets in good weather for the first 2 years....... both in 1941 and the following year in summer 1942.

The Germans were making good progress in Russia in 1941. After Hitler called a halt to the march on Moscow in late summer '41 and sent his panzer divisions elsewhere, when the march on Moscow then resumed again in autumn the muddy quagmires and conditions slowed their advance down majorly. It wasn't the Red Army that did this. It was General Mud. This gave the Soviets valuable breathing space. Had the Germans reached Moscow in September/October 1941 they likely would have taken it as the Soviets were ill prepared for defence there with almost no reserves to call upon. But Hitler's meddling meant the offensive on Moscow took place later than it should have and as a result the weather became the vital factor.

It most certainly was the weather which played the vital factor in halting the German advance in Russia in 1941 and gave the Soviets some much needed breathing space in autumn '41. It's no coincidence that as soon as the weather got better again in 1942 the Germans once more forced the Soviets back at a fast pace until they became bogged down in street fighting at Stalingrad and overstretched their supply lines in the Caucasus.

That was 1939/40. The Soviets learned their lesson from that debacle against the Finns and were far more prepared the next time they had to fight a winter war. They learned lessons off the Finns and 2 years later in 1941/42 when they next had to fight a winter war they had improved greatly and were quite adept and ready for it. Germany also had a debacle in their first winter war (1941/42 before Moscow) and then then also improved greatly in the following winters.

Also, the Soviets didn't have T34 and KV tanks in 1939/40 against the Finns as they did in '41/'42 against the Germans.

So your saying that the Germany defeat in the Soviet Union came down to something a lucky as weather? I simply find that too conveniant. What about the logisitic of such a campaign for Germany? The strecthed supply lines? The amazing war economy of the Soviet Union which by the end of 1941 was producing more than Germany in half a year? What of the capable leadership of General Zhukov?

The defeat at Moscow was down to the German infantry already being down to a 1/3 of what was targetted. The long travels from Poland through the Western Soviet republics and then to Moscow took it's tool, the strecthed supply lines stopped valuable fuel supplies reaching the Wehrmacht of Army Group Center, these were vital issues, indeed weather played a role but it would be pretenious to suggest it was the VITAL or DECISIVE factor as you seem to suggest.

This topic has brought up good debates and is rather enjoyable to be involved with...long may it continue.

[JohnFrusciante]

Hi John,

Sorry you think that way John, and maybe you are right. I like most "English", don't like to be called "Britons" or "British", just like the "Irish", "Scotts" and "Welsh" we are fiercely nationalistic about our rights to being called by our real nationality. But we put all of our hatred for each other to one side when it come's to war.

I am in no way overstating our role in the Second World War, I know our history far better that most people from abroad, as I have studied it for 45 years.

The English way of war in Europe has always been to side against the aggressor, against Germany in 1939 and 1914, Russia in 1853, Napoleon in 1805, Spain in 1585, and numerous wars with France over the centuries. We do this because although we are to small a country to conqueror Europe, we can make sure that no other country (Like Hitler's Germany) can dominate it for ever.

In all my studies of the Second World War I have come to the conclusion that if Hitler had wanted to conquer England then he would have tried a bit harder. But he knew that if he did he needed total control of the air, which the RAF denied him. And we did that on our own with no help from any of our so called friends, only a small number of Czech and Polish pilots did in fact help.

Hitler also needed to control the English Channel, not only for the landings but to supply any army that he sent over. He knew that the Royal Navy was far to strong a force at that time to contemplate engaging, the Germans only had 4 Battleships and 2 Pocket Battleships left and the English Navy was the biggest in the world at that time.

Remember Hitler did attacked Britain with ferocity, he used two thirds of his airforce to attack us with, it was a close run thing at times, but you only have to talk to those pilots who survived to know that they would fight to the last man to denie him victory. The Channel Islands fell to Hitler because they were indefencable, no other reason, England was defenceable.

I think that Europe, if not the World owes Britain a lot for what we did in WW2. We stood our ground where others caved in, or like the USA stood by and waited untill it was attacked before joining in. But at least the USA did join in and we "British" owe you a big "THANK YOU" for that for without your help Europe may have still been under the Nazi flag and Britain would have been made to accept an uneasy truce with Hitler, which is what he wanted all along.

Regards, Danny

PS, And if the USA hadn't joined in then we wouldn't be talking on here, because there would never have been a "Led Zeppelin" to talk about. We make a good team don't you think? The USA and GB.

The battle of Britain is arguably the only thing of real significance Britain managed to achieve during the War in Europe. There main importance lay with Ultra and the genius' at Bletchley Park, militarily however i consider their record poor, they along with the French and the rest failed miserably in the early years against the Wehrmacht, any advantage gained such as in Greece when they managed to push back the pathetic Italians, they were quickly retreated back and advantage lost.

Not to be dogmatic, i do appreciate the indispensible worth of the RAF not only in the Battle of Britain but in the various air-raids in Europe throughout the last two years of war (including Dresden). Do the people of Europe owe Britain a thank you? Yes...BUT only because they happend to be on the side of the Americans and the Soviet Union, simple as. Germany didn't need Britain to surrender to control all of mainland Europe.

Regards,

P.S, As for the US-UK special relationship, if that is what you call a good team, i'd hate to know what soccer team you support!

[Mangani]

So your saying that the Germany defeat in the Soviet Union came down to something a lucky as weather?

In 1941 when the Soviet Union was on the backfoot and was clearly being pushed back everywhere...........yes it was largely the weather which nullified the German ground forces. The weather and Hitler himself.

I simply find that too conveniant.

You should maybe study the campaign in the 1941 a bit more thoroughly. This is most certainly true for the 1941 campaign at least, when the Germans had their best ever chance of defeating the Soviets.

What about the logisitic of such a campaign for Germany?

What about them? It was the quick advance initially that was more of a problem with slow moving (largely horse drawn) rear echelon supply units finding it hard to keep up with the fast moving mechanised units. On the whole, they did manage this though. Nobody said it was easy but it was manageable.

The strecthed supply lines?

They were nowhere near as 'stretched' near Moscow as they were the following year in the Caucaus...yet they still advanced almost to Grozny in late '42.

The amazing war economy of the Soviet Union which by the end of 1941 was producing more than Germany in half a year?

The Soviets had far more tanks than the Germans at the start at the summer '42 German offensive (and mostly T34s at that) but where did it get them? The Soviets were still pushed back again and again (despite this 'amazing' war economy) and only when the Germans got bogged down in the street fighting at Stalingrad where Hitler refused to budge an inch leading to his forces being bled white did this begin to change.

What of the capable leadership of General Zhukov?

Capable when having an inordinate numerical disparity in manpower and machinery over the Germans for sure. If not for the weather halting the German advance, they would have reached Moscow before the Soviets had this disparity. This is what I am talking about. If not for Hitler's about turn, then the autumn muds, the Germans would have reached Moscow at a time when the Soviets were very weak with little reserves at hand. Hitler himself and General Mud gave the Soviets a vital two month breathing space. Had the Germans reached Moscow in late summer 1941 (as the German generals wanted) then there would have been little to stop the Germans taking it. Moscow in German hands would have been an extremely important psychological blow to the Soviet Union.

I think you are concluding that I am talking of the winter freeze in late Nov/Dec '41 with regards to the weather but I am not putting all emphasis on that. It was the October/November muds that presented an equal problem in slowing down the German army before Moscow, once the offensive got underway again. Too often this is forgotten.

The defeat at Moscow was down to the German infantry already being down to a 1/3 of what was targetted. The long travels from Poland through the Western Soviet republics and then to Moscow took it's tool, the strecthed supply lines stopped valuable fuel supplies reaching the Wehrmacht of Army Group Center, these were vital issues, indeed weather played a role but it would be pretenious to suggest it was the VITAL or DECISIVE factor as you seem to suggest.

All through summer '41 the Germans were simply not stopped by the Soviets. You cannot argue against this. This would have continued had the advance on Moscow been carried out in good weather. As it was, Hitler's meddling ensured the advance on Moscow was delayed. When it resumed the weather had turned for the worst. The autumn muds came. This was vital. The Germans had to struggle through this awful and unsuitable weather greatly and this had a major effect.

The overwhelming reasons why Germany failed to defeat the Soviet Union in 1941 were a combination of the weather and Hitler's interference. After Smolensk was taken in July 1941, there were only 250 miles left to Moscow. That was a small distance compared to what the German army had already travelled over and prevailed against. Hitler was arrogant and thought Moscow could wait and be taken at anytime. He called a halt on the Moscow advance in summer (against the wishes of most of his generals) and instead directed his forces in 'mopping up' operations to the south and other goals. This was a huge and vital mistake with dire consequences later on.

Simply put, if the summer lasted until December in Russia then Germany would have taken Moscow and Stalin likely would have tried to sue for a peace agreement......so yes the weather WAS a vital factor.

Remember, as I previously said, when the good weather returned in 1942 the Germans were again on the march and pushing the Soviets back......covering vast amounts of territory in weeks and slicing through the Red Army like a hot knife through butter..

[Mangani]

The battle of Britain is arguably the only thing of real significance Britain managed to achieve during the War in Europe. There main importance lay with Ultra and the genius' at Bletchley Park,

I'm sorry but I cannot believe what I am reading here.

The victory in the Battle Of Britain ultimately led to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. Without it, this wouldn't have occured. Victory in the Battle Of Britain meant:

1. Germany did not have air control over the whole of Europe.

2. Germany did not have control of the eastern Atlantic, North Sea, English Channel and the Mediterranean Sea.

3. The Axis (Germany and Italy) did not manage to take North Africa and thereby possibly the oil fields of the middle east.

4. With Britain still a threat to Hitler's western borders, this meant he could not relax his garrisons in the west and there were over ONE MILLION German military personnel stationed in the west in 1941, from Norway down through France, the Med and into North Africa. I wonder what those extra one million troops could have done in operation Barbarossa?

5. No base for an allied landing on continental Europe would have been possible.

6. No strategic bombing of German industry and cities would have been possible.

militarily however i consider their record poor,

they along with the French and the rest failed miserably in the early years against the Wehrmacht,

Yes, and so did the Soviets and so would have the Americans had they faced them early on when they were at their peak. Remember, the Americans didn't even fight the German army until almost 1943 (when half of the war was already fought) and even then the U.S got a pasting at Kasserine in North Africa.

Neither the British nor Americans did brilliantly in Italy against the Germans in 1943 and 1944 and neither the British nor the Americans did brilliantly against the Germans in north west Europe in 1944 and 1945. Whatever finger you would like to wag at the British military record against the Germans, I could just as easily wag back against the Americans if you want to play that game.

Not to be dogmatic, i do appreciate the indispensible worth of the RAF not only in the Battle of Britain but in the various air-raids in Europe throughout the last two years of war (including Dresden).

The British provided the lion's share of the allied air raids against Germany and 55,000 dead from RAF Bomber Command (as opposed to 26,000 dead from the U.S Eight Air Force) will show you that.

Do the people of Europe owe Britain a thank you? Yes...BUT only because they happend to be on the side of the Americans and the Soviet Union, simple as.

Works both ways mate. Britain loses in 1940 and the Soviets would then lose in 1941 and the Americans would have had to stay out of it becuase there would have been little they could have done.

Britain was the ONLY country out of the U.S and the Soviet Union that willingly went to war against Nazi Germany without having itself dragged into the conflict beyond it's control. Remember, neither the Soviets nor the Americans ever declared war on Hitler first.

Germany didn't need Britain to surrender to control all of mainland Europe.

Germany needed Britain to surrender to expand beyond that....which they tried to do. Germany needed Britain to surrender to control the seas around continental Europe. Germany needed Britain to surrender in order to defeat the Soviet Union.

Each (British Commonwealth, Soviet Union U.S.A) was a vital cog in the spinning wheel which eventually defeated Nazi Germany.

P.S, As for the US-UK special relationship, if that is what you call a good team, i'd hate to know what soccer team you support!

It's by far the best damn team going. I'd hate to think who else you'd class as America's closest ally.

[Bonham]

"Jesus told me to give up my worldly possessions and live in poverty, so I shall follow him!!"

[redrum]

"Jesus told me to give up my worldly possessions and live in poverty, so I shall follow him!!"

Don't you mean Obama?

[JohnFrusciante]

Mangami,

You have posted too much for me to comment on at this stage, i shall return to it later, however i must address one pressing matter. Are you under the impression that i'm American? I can assure i'm not rather i belong to folk whom followed neutrality throught the 1939-1945 conflict in Europe!

P.s. I find it surprising a person as well informed as your appear to be on the Eastern Frontier, seem to suggest that the Soviets had a 'lack of reserves' when in fact Stalin had sacrificed parts of Eastern USSR so he could build stronger fortifications further East, which included as you most likely know the relocation of industries. I'm also surprised that you have this ignored the Stalin factor in the initial German success in the Soviet Union.

[wanna be drummer]

So you could be Portugese, Spanish, Swiss, etc.

Which one is it? (seriously, I'm curious )

[Mangani]

Mangami,

You have posted too much for me to comment on at this stage, i shall return to it later, however i must address one pressing matter. Are you under the impression that i'm American?

Yes I was under the impression you are American

I can assure i'm not rather i belong to folk whom followed neutrality throught the 1939-1945 conflict in Europe!

All the more surprising that you have criticized the British military record in WW2 as 'poor', if you belong to a country that didn't even lift a finger to help.

P.s. I find it surprising a person as well informed as your appear to be on the Eastern Frontier, seem to suggest that the Soviets had a 'lack of reserves' when in fact Stalin had sacrificed parts of Eastern USSR so he could build stronger fortifications further East, which included as you most likely know the relocation of industries. I'm also surprised that you have this ignored the Stalin factor in the initial German success in the Soviet Union.

At the time the Germans SHOULD have advanced on Moscow had Hitler listened to his generals, there would have been few reserves and defensive capabilities available in that particular sector after those armies that were later smashed around Vyazma and Briansk were taken care of. The Soviet units that were eventually sent to Moscow for the counter offensive there in December 1941 were largely units from the far east which were expecting a Japanese attack previously. Fresh men, fresh armour etc etc. In the meantime, Stalin's spy network had assured him the Japanese would not attack and so divisions from Siberia were sent to Moscow. Had the Germans reached Moscow in late summer these divisions from Siberia would still have been in the far east expecting an attack from Japan. Add to this the fact that with a late summer assault on Moscow the advancing German army wouldn't have been as exhausted as the German army in autumn/winter advance later proved to be, then it's likely the Germans would have succeeded in taking Moscow, which would have had serious psychological ramifications.

[roblindblad]

.