Most decisive European battle of WWII??

There's an argument that it might have been possible for the Germans to have at least saved the Eastern front as late as the summer of 1943. Even after Stalingrad the Germans were not beaten. The retaking of Kharkov in March 1943 saved the entire southern front and was one of the greatest counter attacks in military history. Indeed, the Germans actually held the initiative after this. If they had attacked in the Kursk salient earlier(late April/May 1943 rather than July) it is very possible they would have succeeded. If not for the spring thaw in March 1943 which turned everything to mud the German forces would most probably have pushed onwards after the recapture of Kharkov. They were on a roll and had the Soviets on the run at that point. Only an almost 4 month reprieve saved the Soviets.

 

...which is why I am always arguing for Kursk as the most decisive battle of WW2. It finally erased any chances there may have been for Germany to win the war.

I have some trouble accepting tj's view (welcome to the forum tj). If the US were not involved in the war, then probably the Soviets would be rapidly exhausted and maybe even be forced to make peace with Germany without defeating them. But if the Soviets were not involved, then how would the US and Commonwealth ever hope to win the war against Germany? They could never cram enough manpower into any European beachhead to tip the scales in favor of their armies, because an enormous core of trained and experienced German troops was waiting for them. Without the exhaustive ground fighting in the East, German forces wouldn't have lost their best men and units, and most of all the largest part of the German army wouldn't be engaged in any fighting.

 

With the total allied control of the air, Germany was doomed to defeat even if Russia was out of the war (or never in it). It certainly would have taken more than four years, though, and perhaps a failed invasion or two. As long as Hitler was in charge (and Goring the Luftwaffe), the Western Allies could count on his overall poor decision-making to swing the balance.

 

But perhaps without Gerrmany having to produce tens of thousands of tanks and artillery for the eastern front to fight soviets, they could have produced many more figthers(Jet Figthers), and many more submarines, so I don't think the allies would have won without the russians.

 

I agree with you, since the eastern front was in reality a sinkhole for materiel and manpower, also remeber that before D-day , the russians asked the american to open another front, since the new german offensive could be mounted, so the germans have to move some attention from russia.

 

ww2

With out Russia the war probably come to the A-Bomb. The US and Brits would have had control of the air but with the Me262 who knows. They would have had to push one front at a time probably though Africa Italy. If the US was not involved it probably depend on the how many decisions Hitler made

 

Re: ww2

Yes, pushing through Italy would have been impossible. The terrain was bad enough and that was without even reaching the Alps. They wouldn't have got any further than that. As has been mentioned, every nation contributed but without the Soviet Union/German war between 1941 and 1945 it would never have been possible to have invaded mainland Europe successfully. Not France at any rate, which was the only country to invade where it was viable to push on towards Germany.

I don't see how we could have defeated Germany without the war on the Eastern Front. Also, imagine if Britain had fallen. All of Europe, Africa and the Middle East would then have been all under German control. America would have had to stay well out of it and be isolated.

 

england

If England fell and Russia was not involved there was no hope. i'm not saying that you could take Europe though Italy. It would be like island hopping they would have to take one place at a time.

 

The question is when this would have finally come about without the drain on German air forces that was the Eastern Front. It might have taken several more years of bombing just to get air superiority over Europe, because no German planes were engaged in the East; their skilled pilots were not lost over Stalingrad, their numbers of Stukas not decimated over the Ukranian steppes and so on.

 

Ive always wondered why the Germans did not use the Luftwaffe as much in Russia as they had in France and Poland. Was it because they were all tied up in the battle of Britian, or did the weather make building air bases and supplying them not worht it?

 

More and more Luftwaffe units were being withdrawn to Germany to help defend the nation against the bombers. Thus the Army air force was drained further and further, until, in incessant action against more and more Soviet fighters, they bled dry and disappeared.

 

Yep. A number of fighter units were withdrawn from the Eastern Front to defend against the American daylight bomber raids. This made life a bit easier for the Red Air Force pilots, who had fewer German fighters to deal with.

 

Which, in turn, led to the slaughter of thousands of German tanks both on the move to the front line and on the line itself.

 

Not to mention what was done to their infantry and artillery support, too.

 

Johann wrote:

Almost all of the Luftwaffe was used against the Soviets at the beginning of Barbarossa, almost the same numbers as used against the French. The Battle of Britain was over (October 1940) by the time the eastern front campaign started (1941). The LW played it's role in the early days of Barbarossa, but a more numerous enemy and larger geographical area to deal with soon reduced their effectiveness. It became more and more difficult to move up the aircraft to forward bases, necessary since most German aircraft had a relatively short range, and keep them supplied as the campaign went on. Finally the weather turned bad for flying, fall mud and winter cold.
As the war went on and the Soviet air force recovered, the LW was still able to win local supeeriority as late as the beginning of 1944. During the war LW resources were diverted to the Med, the defense of the Reich, and the western front at key points (Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration) of the Eastern Front campaign.

 

It should be noted, however, that the Luftwaffe soldiered on with planes that were obsolescent at bes, like the Heinkel 111, while the Red Air Force kept introducing new and better types into combat.

 

True, the inability of the LW to introduce any effective new models after the FW-190 didn't help them any.

 

I haven't read all the post yet, however, I believe there wasn't one battle which turned the tide. The first real victory was the Battle of Britain. This caused problems for Hitler, in so far as he didn't have the Atlantic (or at least the east Atlantic to himself). The British landing at Greece caused a delay in the invasion of Russia, which meant it wasn't sewn up before the onset of the really bad weather. This enabled the Russians to hold out long enough to stall the NAZI blitzkrieg. etc. etc.

 

Had Britain been defeated then the technology we had would have fallen in to NAZI hands (not hans, LOL). This could have given Hitler an a bomb first and with the V2 could have proved devastating for all.

:bang: :bang:

 

On this note, there was a program about Hitler's Britain, it was made from documents captured from the Nazi's which showed a taste of how Britain may have been run under the proposed occupation. As soon as a country is occupied then some people will naturally follow the occupiers and they can be used to control the locals. I truly believe the if Britain had fallen then the outcome of the second world war would have been completely different. The plan to rule Britain was as a friendly hand covered by an Iron Glove. With Britain out of the way the arctic convoys (of which the sailors are still honoured in Russia today). would have ceased and the Russians may very well have fallen too.