Overlord didnt happen.

Churchill never wanted to invade France untill Germany was on the brink of capitulation. If by some miraculous event Overloard had been canceled in favor of an ANglo-American invation of Greece or some other Med target, what would have happened to Europe.

IMO Russia would have continued to fight into Germany. Once Hitler Realized that the Brit-Amer invasion would come in the Med he would divert the forces in France to the east. Once Greece and Yugoslavia fell the Brits and Americans would still end up in Austria and perhaps Northern Italy. Would Germany have surrendered after the fall of Berlin? Would Russia have been given all of Europe? Would a war between Russia and the West been more probable with the lack of support from the Americans and British?

 

The proposed landing and the opening of the second front was discussed at Yalta.

Chruchill actually favored the Allied landings from Yugoslavia? Roosevelt immediately saw that Stalin was more then just uncomfortable with such a notion and France was given the final ok.

As for the Eastern Front. Operation Bagration was to coincide with the D-day landings as to put as much pressure on Germany as possible. After a slight delay the assault for the complete destruction of Army Groupe Centre coincidentally started on June 22, 1944 exactly 3 years after Barbarossa.

I believe that the Soviet plan for execution would not have changed?

 

yup, like I keep saying, Hitler should have never gone into Russia until he had all of his i's dotted and his t's crossed.

 

Agreed

 

According to Glantz, if Hitler had waited a until 42'-43' or attacked earlier in 38 the result would have been much more unpleasant for the Germans as they would have come up against a prepared and a much more capable adversary. Hitler, attacked the Soviet Union at her most vulnerable state, which ironically spelled the end of the 1000 year Reich in less then 13.

 

he should have waited until England had been annexed, however long that would take.

 

England would of never been annexed. Neither would Wales, Scotland or N.Ireland

 

even if they leveled London?

 

The British expected London to be levelled; that's why they evacuated most women and children, and all but essential personnel, in 1939. In the 1930s it was believed that the bombers would always get through, and would totally destroy cities.

 

If we had lost England, at least as a staging point for overlord, then the landings definately would've occured in the Med, if at all. I don't know if the US could go it alone on the Western front and against Japan. It needed another stable, large military by it's side, and the USSR couldn't help. IF! England was knocked out of the runnings like france, they would supply any troops they had left to help the resistance in England and the rest would probably helpa the US where they could, but it would just be the US and Canada and USSR left.

 

The US represents the only modern nation that is both a sea power and a land power. No other nation can make such a claim since Rome in antiquity. China might have been able to in ancient times and may again at some point in the future but not today.

Anyway, the US had the where-with-all to produce an army of at least 200 and possibly as large as 300 divisions on the scale of equipage they historically had. If you look at building programs the US was planning and had ordered nearly 1000 anti-submarine ships of which almost half actually got built. The US also provided equipment to their allies that amounted to the rough equivalent of that necessary to equip about 40 divisions of their own.

Add in nuclear weapons to the mix and Germany is finished. The US could have just finished off Japan and then invaded Europe (or Britain) from the US using an amphibious assault. The width of the Atlantic was little obstacle to this as evidenced by US assaults in the Pacific. The Luftwaffe was not going to be able to obtain air superiority over a carrier force that could theoretically put well over 2,000 aircraft up and had those aircraft and skilled pilots to man them.

 

USSR was so close to being defeated too, but the Germans had to divide their forces to France in the case of an Allied invasion and Africa, Stalin pressured England and the USA to make another front.

 

This is simply and utterly false!

The Germans divided nothing. In fact they stripped Europe of all which can be used at the front and sent 80% of the German war machine to the East, leaving Europe with only a skeleton force.

The Germans also invaded with an additional 1 million of their allie.

I challenge you to prove me wrong backed up by actual facts and NOT personal opinions.

 

allie ? whats that?

In November, 1943, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt met together in Teheran, Iran, to discuss military strategy and post-war Europe. Ever since the Soviet Union had entered the war, Stalin had been demanding that the Allies open-up a second front in Europe. Churchill and Roosevelt argued that any attempt to land troops in Western Europe would result in heavy casualties. Until the Soviet's victory at Stalingrad in January, 1943, Stalin had feared that without a second front, Germany would defeat them. Its common knowledge my friend.

Second Front

 

I am quite familiar with this information Pact, notice how after Stalingrad the second front was no longer a priority to Stalin as it has been in the opening 6 moths of Barbarossa. As Stavka knew by now that they could defeat the Axis's without a second front.

But lets not forget that the Allies too needed Stalin's help and asked for it in 44'.

I was for you backing this statement up........

Also not sure what you mean by this.

 

Wasn't the decisive battle Kursk, not Stalingrad?

 

Stalingrad marked the turning point of the war in the East. By this time even Manstein stated that the war in Russian could not be won.

Kursk marked the end of German offensive capabilities in the East. From that point on they were strictly on the defensive. By this time the Soviet offensives started to resemble the German Blitzkrieg in the opening months of Barbarossa........

 

A couple of points: I don't think "80%" of the German war machine went to the East. Note that the US and Britain bagged about the same number of PoWs in North Africa (Tunisa) as the Soviets did at Stalingrad. I would estimate that the ground force distribution was closer to 60 - 40 East - West. The bulk of the Luftwaffe remained in the West as well with the East Front being secondary for them for much of the war.
I also think that Stalin and Stavka recognized that the US and Britain did open a second front in their invasion of Vichy North Africa and then into Italy but, Stalin still agitiated for a larger ground committment on the continent and for good reason. It would take some pressure off the Soviets.
And, I would agree that Kursk was the truly decisive battle in the East. Germany's attack failed and the Soviet counter offensive was the first truly massive and successful one. Its scale makes the previous offensive against AGS and 6th Army at Stalingrad look pitifully small by comparison. It is also an indication of just how massively the Red Army had grown since its initial defeats in 1941.

 

I will try to find an article which ( our very own ZA posted here a while back ) it was written by David Glantz and had a break down of the German war machine in the East.

In there he states that the Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union with 80% of its strength.....


I will try to find this article.

 

I don't think it was 80% either.