World War II Questions.

[TinCow]

Wouldn't there have been ANY loss of political infrastructure with the capture of Moscow?

The Soviet government was evacuated to Kuybyshev (Samara) in October 1941, well before the Germans could ever have hoped to have captured it. Stalin remained there only as a symbol, the entire Soviet government operated from Kuybyshev until 1943. As such, there most certainly would not have been a loss of political infrastructure.

And I can say with certainty that Soviet numbers advantage was NOT a guarantee of victory-- it obviously wasn't in 1941, and still wasn't in 1942. Considering that in the end it was a 20 to 1 numbers advantage and few critical cracks that finally got the Germans running, and that the Russians STILL lost two or three men for every hopelessly outnumbered German they killed all the way back to Berlin, and in the siege of Berlin lost FIVE to one...

It wasn't so much the Soviet population that gave them the advantage as it was the lack of willingness on the part of Germany to fight in a similar manner. Germany relied entirely on superior training and equipment to deal with the larger Soviet manpower. Yet the Soviet T-34 was far superior 1 on 1 to any German tank up until the Panther. Even against the Panther and Tiger, it was a superior vehicle because it could be produced in vastly larger numbers. The Soviets produced, in 1942 alone, almost DOUBLE the production of Panthers, Jagdpanthers, Tiger Is, Tiger IIs, and Jagdtigers combined for the entire war.

It wasn't so much the manpower superiority as the vast equipment superiority. By 1942-43, the Germans were not only heavily outnumbered, but often had poorer equipment. Their superior training and leadership (in general) certainly had a great impact, but the idea that they were technologically superior by that time was largely a myth.

As for the casualty ratio... the number of casualties inflicted has nothing to do with victory. The key is the number of casualties each side is capable of sustaining. Despite the horrendous losses the Soviets suffered during WW2, they could have taken double that number and still kept fighting. The Soviets simply had a willingness to sacrifice soldiers that the Germans did not have.

You have to remember-- the Germans had no problem defeating Russian armies that were only, say, 5 times as large as theirs, and it was (according to many historians) largely the incredible strategic overreach and needless diffusion of offensive energy which cost the Germans the war. If they'd stayed out of Kursk, if they'd kept their forces together, if they'd concentrated their offensives and kept ample reserves for defense, they could have kept the Russians tied up for years and possibly have held them off all together.

Remember that the Germans were STILL advancing, on MULTIPLE fronts until the end of 1942.

The Soviet Army at the start of Barbarossa in 1941 was not the same force that the Germans faced by the end of 1942. There was a VAST restructuring of both the Army and the Air Force, resulting in an incredibly improved command and control structure. The Soviet Armies learned from their mistakes very, very well and this is what enabled the turnaround in 1942.

Even if Moscow had been captured, none of these things would have changed. The Soviet production superiority would still have existed. The Soviet restructuring of the armed forces would still have occurred. The highly skilled Eastern divisions would still have arrived to reinforce the front. As for morale... not really an issue. By late 1941 the Soviets understood it was a fight for their very survival. Morale doesn't play much of a factor when you have no choice but fight or die (by German or Soviet guns).

[Del Arroyo]

You are correct in that the Soviets were motivated to fight, but consider this: morale is not all one quantity. There is a difference between fighting for fear and fighting for pride. Fear can push you through the motions, but to fight for pride is to fight with confidence.

No matter how much of the former the Russians had, continuing German victories would have prevented them from gaining the latter. This alone would have affected their fighting ability. And I will continue to assert that different circumstances could have tipped the strategic balance toward the Germans-- just look at how much havoc they were STILL able to wreak in the winter of '44!

At the very least, if Hitler had allowed for an early withdrawal and the creation of a strong defensive line closer to Europe, I believe the Russians could have been held off. While you are right that losses do not determine victory, they are an indication of tactical advantage. Look at the losses the Russians took, even with all of Hitler's idiotic strategic decisions!

It is my opinion that while the invasion of Russia was certainly not advisable, the situation was at the very least salvageable.

..

But whatever. We do at least agree that the Germans would probably have won if they had not invaded Russia, Yes or No?

DA

[DemonArchangel]

No, the germans wouldn't have won if they didn't invade russia, because the Americans would just a-bomb the nazis to death. I think if my scenarios came true, Europeans would still be suffering from the effects of radiation today.

The Nazis could simply advance into the oil rich areas of the caucaus region of russia, and also, quickly capture moscow, and set up airfields to bomb the rail links between the urals and russia. It's mighty hard to haul tons of weapons and supplies by truck and horse. And considering German airplanes were much better than soviet ones, they could achieve air superiority quickly and use Stukas to take out rail links and supply lines to the factories, while exposing the urals to massive bombardment.

[Del Arroyo]

But that is the question-- would we have used the Bomb in Europe?

We didn't have too much problem using it on those half-ape yellow Japs, but would we have nuked the Germans if the alternative were negotiated peace? Maybe. I think it is an interesting question.

DA

[TinCow]

But that is the question-- would we have used the Bomb in Europe?

We didn't have too much problem using it on those half-ape yellow Japs, but would we have nuked the Germans if the alternative were negotiated peace? Maybe. I think it is an interesting question.

DA

It is beyond dispute that the A-bomb was originally developed for use against Germany. A draft target list was even drawn up at one point, though some people dispute its authenticity.

[edit] Oops, missed a few posts.

Assuming Germany does not attack Russia, I doubt the US would have used the A-bomb in Europe. This would be mainly because (as I stated above) they would have lacked Britain as an advanced base. While the US could certainly have developed a transatlantic bomber force, without close European bases from which to receive fighter support, they would have been massacred. You can't drop a nuke in WW2 unless you have air superiority. There is no way for the US to achieve this without Britain. Thus I would have to say, no nuke in Europe.

[DemonArchangel]

Well, the americans could just wipe the german navy out after the war in the pacific was complete, then of course, they could achieve air superiority with their carriers.

[Tribesman]

then of course, they could achieve air superiority with their carriers.
Would you like to compare the performance of land based fighters with those of carrier based fighters ?
You can't drop a nuke in WW2 unless you have air superiority.
Or an advanced missile program

[TinCow]

You are correct in that the Soviets were motivated to fight, but consider this: morale is not all one quantity. There is a difference between fighting for fear and fighting for pride. Fear can push you through the motions, but to fight for pride is to fight with confidence.

No matter how much of the former the Russians had, continuing German victories would have prevented them from gaining the latter. This alone would have affected their fighting ability. And I will continue to assert that different circumstances could have tipped the strategic balance toward the Germans-- just look at how much havoc they were STILL able to wreak in the winter of '44!

At the very least, if Hitler had allowed for an early withdrawal and the creation of a strong defensive line closer to Europe, I believe the Russians could have been held off. While you are right that losses do not determine victory, they are an indication of tactical advantage. Look at the losses the Russians took, even with all of Hitler's idiotic strategic decisions!

It is my opinion that while the invasion of Russia was certainly not advisable, the situation was at the very least salvageable.

..

But whatever. We do at least agree that the Germans would probably have won if they had not invaded Russia, Yes or No?

DA

I'll agree with most of that. Despite my claims, taking Moscow would have certainly been a shock to the Soviets. From a political/morale aspect (which is where I think it would have had the greatest effect), they could have survived its loss in 1942, but there is a possibility this would not have been true in 1941. Perhaps its fall within 6 months of the invasion would have been one loss too many and Stalin would have been assassinated/overthrown.

If Germany had not invaded Russia, they certainly could have defeated Britain and the United States eventually. A heavy concentration on naval development would have starved Britain into surrender, no invasion would ever have been necessary. Without Britain as an advanced base, the US would not have been able to supply the forces necessary to challenge Germany in Europe. At the same time, the question must then be asked... would the Soviets have taken the initiative and attacked Germany? Many people think so, and I have no answer to that one.