From Stalingrad to the River Elbe

[Cypress]

Well that’s because D-Day was a death blow. The combination of the US and British winning air superiority and the Soviets with a shit load of material aid destroyed the German ground forces.

It is very unlikely that Either America or the Soviets or the British Empire could have defeated Germany by themselves. The Americans would not have had a secure base of operations and Britain by itself could only equal Germany with Germany having all the resources of most of continental Europe at its disposal. The same was true for the Soviets.

At best, by themselves the Soviets May have ejected Germany from its territories and Britain with its great empire and naval and air superiority could have defeated a German invasion and America, by itself would have been pretty much impotent.

In fact, I would argue that once the British and Americans established air superiority, an unproven theory at that time, which the Soviets contributed little to, the Americans and Brits would still have defeated Germany and without the Soviets massive casualties. Certainly their casualties would have been far greater but they would have won.

In fact it is now pretty much universal doctrine that air superiority must be established and communications and transportation infrastructure destroyed for a land invasion to succeed.

I would also point out that most historians agree that both El Alemein and Stalingrad were the major pivotal turning points of the war in Europe and though Stalingrad was an unmitigated disaster for Germany keep in mind that the main strategic mission of the southern German Force was to capture the Caucasuses oil fields. The victory at El Alemein was strategically as important as it denied Germany access to Middle Eastern oil. Those combined victories at approximately the same time starved Germany of petroleum which was catastrophic to the German war effort. Had Germany won at El Alemein the loss at Stalingrad would have been mitigated by opening up Middle Eastern oil to the Germans and they would have gained control of the Suez canal. That would have been devestating to Allied war efforts so you can’t understate the importance of the victory at El Alemein in addition to Stalingrad.

I agree with about 90 percent of what you said.

I think to some extent we are talking past each other.

The question I was exploring were:

What was that status of the war when the D Day landings occurred? (German armies in disarray, headed for defeat, and in headlong retreat in the face of the Red Army).

What was the event that can credibly said to have ended the prospect of German victory in WW2? (The Soviet defeat of the German Army at Stalingrad...though you could say the Battle of Kursk is really what ended any ability of the Germans to conduct offensive operations. )


Of course it cannot be denied that other campaigns across Europe, North Africa, the Strategic bombing campaign, and the North Atlantic had both strategic and tactical important. So if the question we are asking is is:

Did it take a concerted effort by the Anglo-America-Soviet alliance to defeat Nazi Germany? Yes, undoubtedly

Sidebar: I always thought it was a fantasy that the German North Africa Korps would have marched onto the Saudi and Iranian oil fields. If the Nazis could control the Romanian and Caucuses oil fields, I don't know why they would need to march on Arabia and Iran. Seems a little far fetched. I always thought North Africa was more of an Italian interest, and the Germans' got involved by proxy with their Italian allies.

 

[Cypress]

Tangential note:

The Battle of Britain was a watershed moment of WW2, and I can't believe I have not mentioned it!
RAF Spitfire is probably in my top three favorite aircraft....and I have always made the argument that the Spitfire may have saved liberal western democracy from the Nazi threat!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I agree with about 90 percent of what you said.

I think to some extent we are talking past each other.

The question I was exploring were:

What was that status of the war when the D Day landings occurred? (German armies in disarray, headed for defeat, and in headlong retreat in the face of the Red Army).

What was the event that can credibly said to have ended the prospect of German victory in WW2? (The Soviet defeat of the German Army at Stalingrad...though you could say the Battle of Kursk is really what ended any ability of the Germans to conduct offensive operations. )


Of course it cannot be denied that other campaigns across Europe, North Africa, the Strategic bombing campaign, and the North Atlantic had both strategic and tactical important. So if the question we are asking is is:

Did it take a concerted effort by the Anglo-America-Soviet alliance to defeat Nazi Germany? Yes, undoubtedly

Sidebar: I always thought it was a fantasy that the German North Africa Korps would have marched onto the Saudi and Iranian oil fields. If the Nazis could control the Romanian and Caucuses oil fields, I don't know why they would need to march on Arabia and Iran. Seems a little far fetched. I always thought North Africa was more of an Italian interest, and the Germans' got involved by proxy with their Italian allies.

In part it was Italian military incompetence that brought Germany into North Africa. The Germans proceeded to defeat the British in battle after battle marching into Egypt thus threatening the Suez Canal and the Allies oil supply chain. The Allies believed that losing Suez would cost them the war. Winning El Alemein also left Italy open to invasion which forced the Germans to spread themselves thin making the D-Day invasion possible otherwise the western Allies would have faced the full force of Germany’s Western forces.

Now I’m not trying to talk past you or diminish Soviet successes but emphasizing just how important the victory at El Alemein was.

Had Germany won El Alemein the Western Allies would have been neatly bottled up by being denied Middle East oil allowing Germany access to oil and to concentrate more resources on the Eastern front. Had the Allies lost either of those two battles German odds of winning were greatly enhanced. By losing both Germany was permanently on the defensive and lost every major battle afterward. So my point is that strategically El Alemein was just as important to Allied victory as Stalingrad was and was far more than a contribution.

So my point is that winning Stalingrad and losing El Alemein, or vice versa, the Germans were still very much on the offensive and capable of winning the war. Losing both put Germany on the defensive permanently. There are numerous examples where Germany lost battles because they ran out of petroleum. Kursk and the Ardennes offensive being the most well known.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Tangential note:

The Battle of Britain was a watershed moment of WW2, and I can't believe I have not mentioned it!
RAF Spitfire is probably in my top three favorite aircraft....and I have always made the argument that the Spitfire may have saved liberal western democracy from the Nazi threat!

That and the Mustang which was the first long range fighter. The Luftwaffe ceased to exist as an effective fighting force when it was introduced and the Allies could bomb Germany at will.

 

[iolo]

I don't think many people gave a twopenny about North Africa or Italy. The Soviet Union, at great, heroic and bloody cost, smashed the Nazis at Stalingrad, and it was over bar the shouting as far as Europe was concerned.

 

[Truth Detector]

Trump is pathetically transparent and has a decades-long well-documented malleable persona easily researched by the Kremlin/KGB. They are well aware of his egomaniac narcissistic personality, overwhelming desire to be seen as the bestest ever, and predilection for sexual exploits to brag about. They scoped out the imbecility of the American right and rightfully figured that Trump, running as an (R), could easily manipulate them into voting for him. But just in case, they tinkered around with propaganda as well, to ensure that this easily-manipulated and fairly stupid "man" could be put into exactly the place they wanted him.

Trump plays Candy Land; Putin is a chess master.

TDS:

WARNING…….Trump Derangement Syndrome.…….WARNING!

 

[Truth Detector]

I think it is almost taken as established fact in the nations of the former Soviet Union that the Anglo-American side of the alliance delayed invading Europe as long as possible so as to let the Russians take most of the punishment, and to let the Red Army grind down the Wermacht to a manageable threat.

The invasion of Italy seems to have been a half-assed attempt to placate Stalin, but I will never understand the tactical wisdom to trying to fight your way up the boot of Italy, through hundreds of miles of mountainous, geographically constricted, and easily defended terrain. Tactically, it makes no sense, although trying to get Mussolini out of the war probably was a strategic and political decision.

You really are a mega Marxist moron.

 

[Truth Detector]

The main point I was making was that by the time of D-Day - as important as it is to American history - the war in Europe was basically won already.... Before English or American boots even touched the shores of France. The writing was on the wall. And the German Army was collapsing and in full retreat back to Berlin.

Another mega Marxist moron post. They don't get much dumber than this.

 

[Truth Detector]

I don't think many people gave a twopenny about North Africa or Italy. The Soviet Union, at great, heroic and bloody cost, smashed the Nazis at Stalingrad, and it was over bar the shouting as far as Europe was concerned.

Marxist mega moron loves himself some Russians.

 

[Cypress]

In part it was Italian military incompetence that brought Germany into North Africa. The Germans proceeded to defeat the British in battle after battle marching into Egypt thus threatening the Suez Canal and the Allies oil supply chain. The Allies believed that losing Suez would cost them the war. Winning El Alemein also left Italy open to invasion which forced the Germans to spread themselves thin making the D-Day invasion possible otherwise the western Allies would have faced the full force of Germany’s Western forces.

Now I’m not trying to talk past you or diminish Soviet successes but emphasizing just how important the victory at El Alemein was.

Had Germany won El Alemein the Western Allies would have been neatly bottled up by being denied Middle East oil allowing Germany access to oil and to concentrate more resources on the Eastern front. Had the Allies lost either of those two battles German odds of winning were greatly enhanced. By losing both Germany was permanently on the defensive and lost every major battle afterward. So my point is that strategically El Alemein was just as important to Allied victory as Stalingrad was and was far more than a contribution.

So my point is that winning Stalingrad and losing El Alemein, or vice versa, the Germans were still very much on the offensive and capable of winning the war. Losing both put Germany on the defensive permanently. There are numerous examples where Germany lost battles because they ran out of petroleum. Kursk and the Ardennes offensive being the most well known.

I do not doubt that El Alemein was a strategic victory for the UK in North Africa. As a world war 2 geek, I have more than a passing interest in the North African campaign, partly because of General Rommel, aka the Desert Fox, and partly because I saw the movie Patton as a kid and it made a lasting impression on me. You make a good point on the North African campaign.

That said, if you took a poll of military historians about what the single most pivotal and consequential event of World War 2 was - the watershed moment, the turning point in the war - I am almost positive 90 percent of them would point to Stalingrad.

With regard to aircraft, and am in 100 percent agreement with you that the P-51 mustang it not only one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built, it was arguably the greatest fighter plane of WW2. Although to me, the P-38 is a sentimental favorite.

Not, here is an impressive aircraft from the WW2 era that blows my mind every time I see a pic. The Soviet Kalinin K-7 bomber, which was an experimental design, but never made it to active service. Freakin' unbelievable.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Make it into service? Did it make it off the ground?

 

[Cypress]

Make it into service? Did it make it off the ground?

No, never made it to active service. According to sources I have read, the Kalinin K-7 was test-flown and made it into the air, but it was determined to be structurally unstable and barely air-worthy.

The mega-bombers are an interesting facet of history for aviation geeks. Hitler tried to build a mega-bomber capable of flying to North America and bombing New York City. The "Amerika Bomber", I think the colloquial name was. The Soviets went way out on a limb, and had some radical design concepts. One involved a sea plane that could serve as both a bomber and as a submarine.

The RAF Supermarine Spitfire is one of the most elegant aircraft ever built, IMO, and this is a photo I took of one at the Canadian national aviation museum.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, never made it to active service. According to sources I have read, the Kalinin K-7 was test-flown and made it into the air, but it was determined to be structurally unstable and barely air-worthy.

The mega-bombers are an interesting facet of history for aviation geeks. Hitler tried to build a mega-bomber capable of flying to North America and bombing New York City. The "Amerika Bomber", I think the colloquial name was. The Soviets went way out on a limb, and had some radical design concepts. One involved a sea plane that could serve as both a bomber and as a submarine.

The RAF Supermarine Spitfire is one of the most elegant aircraft ever built, IMO, and this is a photo I took of one at the Canadian national aviation museum.

Yet is was the United States that came up with the first true Super Bomber in the B-29 Super Fortress. Did you know that more money was spent developing the B-29 than on the Manhattan project?

What's ironic despite it's huge technological advances the B-29 was already obsolete when it went into active service and we didn't even know it. This is why military spending drives legislators crazy. Spend billions of dollars on a program to make it a reality just to have some technological innovation make the program obsolete. That also happened with the vast sums we spent on the US Battleship program in the 1930's. When war came they were made obsolete by Aircraft carriers.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, never made it to active service. According to sources I have read, the Kalinin K-7 was test-flown and made it into the air, but it was determined to be structurally unstable and barely air-worthy.

The mega-bombers are an interesting facet of history for aviation geeks. Hitler tried to build a mega-bomber capable of flying to North America and bombing New York City. The "Amerika Bomber", I think the colloquial name was. The Soviets went way out on a limb, and had some radical design concepts. One involved a sea plane that could serve as both a bomber and as a submarine.

The RAF Supermarine Spitfire is one of the most elegant aircraft ever built, IMO, and this is a photo I took of one at the Canadian national aviation museum.

What photo?

 

[Cypress]

Yet is was the United States that came up with the first true Super Bomber in the B-29 Super Fortress. Did you know that more money was spent developing the B-29 than on the Manhattan project?

What's ironic despite it's huge technological advances the B-29 was already obsolete when it went into active service and we didn't even know it. This is why military spending drives legislators crazy. Spend billions of dollars on a program to make it a reality just to have some technological innovation make the program obsolete. That also happened with the vast sums we spent on the US Battleship program in the 1930's. When war came they were made obsolete by Aircraft carriers.

That is good intel, I did not know that about the B29.
It seems with military spending, we are always trying to fight the last war.

I always thought being an RAF or USAAF bomber pilots flying deep into Germany must have been one of the most harrowing jobs in the entire war, particularly before they had adequate fighter escort. Just sitting ducks for the Luftwaffe, really. I always think of George McGovern when I think of the terrifying bomber missions into Germany.

Purely from an aviation standpoint, I always admired the B-17 super fortress. British Lancaster a close second.