This has no doubt be brought up before, but I'm interested to hear other peoples thoughts once more, if thats alright with everyone.
I'd say that after Kursk--the Germans had no chance to beat the USSR--they might still have produced a stalemate though--had the Generals been allowed to lead--instead of Hitler calling the shots.
Well, this is again a question of taste very much. Anyway, when I started on the Forums I was thinking Kursk probably was the turning-point, later on as I understood the Russian army´s huge reserves I went for Stalingrad, and now that I undrstand that Germany´s production was not meant for long lasting wars I go for Moscow 1941. Actually the Germans were sending men to reserves and lowering arms production numbers in autumn 1941 as they thought the war was over. So in terms of production and putting men in arms, in a long war Germany would lose.As the blitzkrieg in 1941 didn´t collapse the system, the Russians had time to gather troops and make tanks as Germans would find it hard to replace what was lost. The "total war" by Goebbels started after Stalingrad but then it was too late.
I'd say Kursk, assuming they hadn't attacked at the last minute the russians would of wasted ALOT of time building defenses then having to get rid of it all. Tigers would of been better defensivly, and panthers along with Waffen SS soldiers could be used to plug gaps in the whole advance line. You could also divert troops up and take Leningard. Whats interested is that a couple of decided that the war was over for the germans after they failed to capture 300,000 british soldiers, which was barely 8% of the Axis invasion force for Russian.
The Germans really couldn't have attacked sooner because the Tigers and Panthers would not have been finished. As it was the Tigers and Panthers left the factories and went straight to the battlefield. During the battle the Russians learned that both tanks while superb had defects because their production was rushed. The Tiger was unable to rotate it's turret while on the move, and the Panther was prone to mechanical breakdowns. So wether the Germans waited until the last minute or launched a surprise attack they still had a chance to win, but they would be fighting a uphill battle either way. The choice was fighting a battle with inferior tanks against unprepared defenses or fighting a battle with superior tanks against prepared defenses. Sort of a catch-22.
I said Dunkirk because if Hitler had destroyed the BEF he probably would not have had to fight a 2 front war. As long as he was doing that he had no chance in winning.
Assuming the tanks could of won at Dunkirk, (I believe I also made a post on this), what difference will 300,000 men make to the British defense forces, very few of the soldiers at Dunkirk were pilots, Anti-air gun crewmen and naval staff, but infantry. Infantrys role for the Battle of Britain was taking enemy pilots prisoners when they hit the ground. American's reverses were more then able to fill up for the british soldiers when the time comes. Then again, British troops in Africa would of been more depleted, but this could of causes Hitler, if he was paying attention, to tranfer troops in the afrika korp to other fronts, as he would see the 8th army as less of a threat.
Zealot - the difference is not just in the 300000 men but also the psychological blow to the british. if we had lost that many men i believe that there would have been attempts at peace. most of those 300000 saved were eventually re-equipped and sent to other parts of the world e.g. north africa where they made an important contribution to the winning of the war. if they had not existed who knows. many did stay in britain for example the 3rd infantry division, who went on to make a very important contribution to the winning of the campaign in nw europe.
Yes, losing BEF would have meant quite alot. As well I think one mustn´t forget Churchill. With someone else as PM there might have been peace with Hitler...I think..?!
300,000 trapped men are slaughtered, would anyone want peace with a nation who had just commited that? And was North Africa so vital to the survival of Britain itself?
I always kind of thought the, or I suppose maybe I should say "a" turning point in the war was when the Poles / British cracked Enigma. As I understand it, alot of other things in the west, like the Battle of Britain and British success in North Africa, were heavily influenced by this, as well as the battle for the Atlantic and even things much later in the war.
Definitely Doc, the Enigma solved was more than a dream come true for the allied!!!And the Germans kept on saying it couldn´t be cracked...
Ah yesssss---I forgot that you guys in Europe get real winters Here all we get is just a change in wind direction and sometimes with a slightly cooler hint in the breeze.
During the cold war a swedish decrypter cracked a soviet code; it hade been sent identically two times. The soviet codes was considered to be unbreakable, but they was just unbelievable hard. This fact is unofficial.
