Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [allthingshistory] Re: barbarossa, could have beens

Expand Messages
  • kimnoyes@charter.net
    DJ, I respectfully, disagree with you. For starters, think for a minute about this matter from a broader view. You are not seeing the forest for the trees. Has
    Message 1 of 49 , May 31, 2006
      DJ,
      I respectfully, disagree with you.
      For starters, think for a minute about this matter from a broader view.
      You are not seeing the forest for the trees.
      Has the CW (conventional wisdom) been wrong all these years about the folly of Hitler getting himself into a Two-Front war?
      Two-Front war = bad idea.
      Lots of reasons.
      Division numbers are just one element.
      Entire war effort is split in a Two-Front war.
      That means all elements of the Wehrmacht, not just mainline and secondline divisions of Heer and SS.
      It means all those Kriegsmarine surface ships and submarines not having to deal with stopping Allied convoys across the Atlantic or continually facing the mighty British Navy.
      The Kriegsmarine would have been able to effectively and significantly lesson the amount of goods we were sending Uncle Joe early on in Lend-Lease when the Red Army was in deep trouble I think making the difference in his defeat.
      The British assistance would never get to him as they would be out of the picture now.
      The difference is about American and British bombers not coming in waves day after day and night after night draining away valuable national productivity and war-making efficiency and disrupting the movement of men and material throught Europe and German war-making and economic focus being split in two directions which disrupts efficiency and the Germans were nothing if not efficient.
      It means the Luftwaffe not being squandered in the Battle of Britain and then the British rapidly getting their air force up to snuff to really start sticking it to the Germans as they did as well as our entry into the picture on the aviation front and based in the British Isles no less.
      Therefore, all those additional air assets would be able to be used to stick it to Uncle Joe in a manner he never did experience with the Germans.
      It means a tremendous boost of national confidence to the people of Germany and her allies that they never did get as things soon went badly in real life.

      QED.

      Kim


      ---- DJ <pommefritte2001@...> wrote:
      Even with all that you describe, your talking about 20 to 30
      Divisions. This is a drop in the bucket when it comes to filling up
      space in the vastness of the Soviet Union. Problem is even with all
      the things that you are describing, which are somewhat unlikely to
      achevie even in a perfectly run stratigic campaign, you are still
      going to be taking losses. Hitler is still going to be unwilling to
      allow 'untermensh' into the Army. So the forces that you will be
      drawing on will still only be those that were availale at the time,
      plus a few more from other sources. The forces in France, about
      twenty odd divisions balanced about half and half, between first line
      divisions in the process of resting and refitting and third line (or
      fourth I was never very good at the way the Germans determined the
      order of a units worth, Coopers: German Army is pretty good at it
      though) which were fairly static and out of shape.
      If you were to pull these divisions back from the Atlantic Wall due
      to the situation being secure. Some you would not want to throw back
      into combat right away due to refitting and what not, some wouldn't
      be of much use. Fortress troops and the like. Also you will still
      have to be able to leave some troops in Germany proper or whereever
      it is that you are defending your frontiers. So a total one for one
      translation of units wouldn't be the case.
      And the Afrika Korps at its height was only about four German
      Divisions, not exactly something that is going to tip the scales a
      great deal. In Africa Rommel shone as a brilliant star, in Russia he
      would have been just another Corps Commander in the field. Many of
      whom were as capable as he was.
      Thanks
      DJ
    • DJ
      True enough, the problem is where is your point of decision? At what point could Germany have forced a decision on the British? There is one other thing to
      Message 49 of 49 , Jun 12, 2006
        True enough, the problem is where is your point of decision? At what
        point could Germany have forced a decision on the British? There is
        one other thing to consider. At first US plans for war with Germany
        had counted on the fact that Britain wouldn't be able to support the
        war. The B-29 wasn't a design intended originally to carry an A-Bomb.
        Thanks
        DJ


        --- In allthingshistory@yahoogroups.com, <kimnoyes@...> wrote:
        >
        > DJ,
        > I respectfully, disagree with you.
        > For starters, think for a minute about this matter from a broader view.
        > You are not seeing the forest for the trees.
        > Has the CW (conventional wisdom) been wrong all these years about
        the folly of Hitler getting himself into a Two-Front war?
        > Two-Front war = bad idea.
        > Lots of reasons.
        > Division numbers are just one element.
        > Entire war effort is split in a Two-Front war.
        > That means all elements of the Wehrmacht, not just mainline and
        secondline divisions of Heer and SS.
        > It means all those Kriegsmarine surface ships and submarines not
        having to deal with stopping Allied convoys across the Atlantic or
        continually facing the mighty British Navy.
        > The Kriegsmarine would have been able to effectively and
        significantly lesson the amount of goods we were sending Uncle Joe
        early on in Lend-Lease when the Red Army was in deep trouble I think
        making the difference in his defeat.
        > The British assistance would never get to him as they would be out
        of the picture now.
        > The difference is about American and British bombers not coming in
        waves day after day and night after night draining away valuable
        national productivity and war-making efficiency and disrupting the
        movement of men and material throught Europe and German war-making and
        economic focus being split in two directions which disrupts efficiency
        and the Germans were nothing if not efficient.
        > It means the Luftwaffe not being squandered in the Battle of Britain
        and then the British rapidly getting their air force up to snuff to
        really start sticking it to the Germans as they did as well as our
        entry into the picture on the aviation front and based in the British
        Isles no less.
        > Therefore, all those additional air assets would be able to be used
        to stick it to Uncle Joe in a manner he never did experience with the
        Germans.
        > It means a tremendous boost of national confidence to the people of
        Germany and her allies that they never did get as things soon went
        badly in real life.
        >
        > QED.
        >
        > Kim
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.