World War II Questions.

[Divine Wind]

All Stalingrad was, was a personal duel between Hitler and Stalin and it really did not hold much strategic value to either side. More of a morale booster for the troops and the leaders egos. At this time during the war Germany couldnt replace lost materials or men, so even if they had of won, with Russia being so versitile and huge in resources im sure they would still have achieved victory. Though it may have taken a little longer.

I doubt that even if the germans had won at Stalingrad that Hitler would of sent those extra troops to Leningrad as at the time Army Group North (which was the army laying siege to Leningrad) was considered the weakest and worst led. When twenty fresh divisions arrived from Germany Army group north recieved one division and this was the smallest and had the least number of armoured units. This was all down to Finland as Hitler expected them to join the siege of Leningrad, however they decided not too as they feared the russian reprisals if the tide of the war was to turn. That could of been crucial too, as the Finnish had at the time brilliant infantry who had already crushed a Russian invasion and were armed with some excellent german equipment.

[Tribesman]

and were armed with some excellent german equipment.
The Finns had excellent infantry , but they didn't have much in the way of German equipment at that stage of the war .
The German did supply a lot of mines , towed artillery pieces (mainly captured stocks) and 1000 old machine guns . The most effective weapons the Germans supplied were the 59 StugIIIs and the 75mmPAK-40 .
Panzerfaust/shreks were not supplied until 1944 and the tanks 15 Pz.IV didn,t arrive until just before the Finns changed sides .
Finland effectively ceased offensive actions once it had regained its lost territory from the Winter War .

[Quietus]

The Germans were simply spread too thin. And don't forget the winters. If the Soviet collapsed on the other hand, then that's another story.

Problem is Hitler hates slavs. Ukraine for example saw them as liberators from the Russian empire, but Hitler saw them as inferior. How are they supposed to expect popular support for that? LOL

[TexRoadkill]

In regards to #2

There is no way the Germans ever could have won at Stalingrad. They just didn't have the numbers in men, vehicles and supply. There was no decisive battle to win. It was a long (2 year?) war of attrition and the Russians had more men to lose. Where Hitler screwed up was by not retreating. He allowed the entire eastern army to be surrounded, starved and captured.

If Hitler had pulled back it would probably have delayed the Russian and possibly the Western advances since he would have had more resources to use there but I doubt it would have really changed the final outcome. If he had never broken his treaty with Stalin in the first place then things could have been much different. Hitler would have had that much more strength to use in Africa and Europe.

[Del Arroyo]

Better question might be-- what if Hitler had focused that first year's offensive and taken Moscow, decapitating the Russian state?

Russia was very weak when she was attacked and came very close to collapsing. Her vast resources did not ENSURE her victory, they BARELY saved her from defeat.

..

If the Japanese had either caught our carriers in Pearl or won the battle of Midway, we probably would have sued for peace.

It would have set them up for future victories which could have undermined our will to pursue the war.

One thing's for sure-- we would've had to start from Australia in 1944, instead of already being half-way up Asian Islands. It would have taken alot longer at least, and they possibly could have held us off to a negotiated peace.

DA

[TinCow]

Better question might be-- what if Hitler had focused that first year's offensive and taken Moscow, decapitating the Russian state?

Russia was very weak when she was attacked and came very close to collapsing. Her vast resources did not ENSURE her victory, they BARELY saved her from defeat.

I don't think the capture of Moscow would have changed the result too much. Moscow's significance was as a transport hub and as a symbol. By that point in the war, almost all Soviet industry and production had been evacuated behind the Urals. Capturing Moscow would have done very little to affect production, except to temporarily slow transport of raw materials until new rail lines were built. Assuming Stalin didn't remain in Moscow and die (highly unlikely), his regime would not even have collapsed. His control by that point was too strong and all of the USSR was united behind his leadership against the Germans.

The end result would have been a longer war. The Soviets would have had to recapture Moscow with the eastern divisions instead of diverting them to the northern and southern fronts. Moscow would have been the absolute most critical area because reinforcing the other fronts was vastly more difficult without it. As such the Germans would have had temporary gains in both north and south, probably capturing Leningrad as well. Eventually though, the weight of the Soviet armies would still have ground the Germans down. The delay in the Soviet push west would have had three further effects. First, the US and Britain would have encountered stiffer resistance during the invasion. Second, extension of the war into 1946 would have resulted in the atomic bomb being used against Germany rather than Japan. Third, the American and British forces would have advanced farther into Germany than they did historically. This would have resulted in a smaller Communist Bloc in Eastern Europe after the war and dramatically changed post-war situation. With all German science in Allied hands (rather than evenly divided), the Cold War would have been much shorter and the US would probably have been the first into space.

[English assassin]

(1) The first battle of el Alamein? Not much, fall back to Suez, hold them there. The real crunch would have been if they had got access to the Iraqi oil fields but the logistics would have been impossible for Rommel to do that.

For the second the Germans were on the defensive so, stalemate if they won. The allied landing in Tuniisa was about a month later so the end result would be the same.

(2) Nothing. Maybe the war would have lasted three months more.

(3) Nothing much. USA GDP was ten times Japan's, her industrial capacity rather more. Continental USA was plainly invulnerable from invasion no matter what, and in any case the japanese had no ineterst in invasion. The USA was always going to beat Japan easily, which was no doubt why Roosevelt agreed to "germany first".

You'd have lost Hawaii for a while at worst.