Hortlund
Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by victorhauser:
Speer states pretty convincingly that when the Soviets cut Germany's rail link with Turkey in August 1944, the lack of chromium reserves was going to shut down the German war industry in a matter of months no matter what else happened.
The starting point of this argument was that the Allies were thrown back from Normandy. This would let the Germans reinforce the eastern front with 11 Pz Divisions, and say 20 Infantry divisions ( this would still leave something like 40 divisions to garrison France). I think these reinforcemnets would have been alble to slow down or stop the soviet summer offensive of 1944 along some natural defence line. The Vistula river in Poland nad the Carpathian mountains in the Balkans perhaps. My point being, the rail road from Turkey would probably have been safe.
quote:
It's easy to sit cozy and warm by our fireplaces with full holiday bellies (and the distance of 55 years) and say that "Being nuked isn't so bad, we are (or they were) tough enough to take it". But I don't believe it, not even for a second.
When Hitler realized Germany was loosing the war, he wanted to destroy the entire German infrastructure. He wanted to turn Germany into some barren wasteland. When someone pointed out that this would put the surviving German population in severe hardships and practically put the country back to the level of civilisation of the 15th century, he simply replied "So what, the good are already dead". Do you *really* think he would have surrendered if 2 A-bombs were dropped on German cities?
quote:
No nation on earth besides the USA had the economic and industrial resources to build an A-bomb during WW2, even if they had the scientific and technical data to do so. And the Germans, Soviets, and Japanese didn't have the scientific and technical data (and weren't really close to having it in 1945).
I agree. There would have been no German A-bomb no matter how long the war progressed. She had other weapons of mass destruction though. The largest supply of Sarin Nerve Gas. And the means to carry that weapon to any place in Europe, with the V2 rockets.
I dont think it would be too far fetched to see Germany reply to the A-Bombs with V2's armed with chemical warheads against London.
The allies knew this, and I think that would perhaps have made them think twice about nuking Germany.
quote:
And even if a nation (and its government) could withstand a few A-bombs without collapsing, I don't think ANY nation (especially one like late-war Germany, which is smaller than the state of Texas) could've absorbed several dozen A-bombs within the span of a few months and still existed as a viable, or even recognizable, nation at all.
But a failed Normandy would not give a Texas sized Germany. She would still have France, half of Italy, the Benelux, Norway, most of the Balkans, and (probably) most of Poland and eastern Europe.
quote:
The "skies darkened by Me 262s" is also a myth. The Germans actually built over 1200 Me 262s (most people don't know that). But they could never keep more than a handful operational at any given time due to a variety of reasons (unreliable engines and a lack of qualified pilots being the two biggest reasons).
But these were not built all in one month. The Germans did not have 30 flying Me 262's and 1170 just standing around waiting for spare parts or pilots.
quote:
And even if they had more of them, the chances of them being able to successfully intercept a night A-bombing raid by B-29s were remote (the Me 262 was not a successful night fighter).
Perhaps correct, but Germany had other night fighters. And those B-29's would have to fly all the way across occupied France to reach Germany.
quote:
No, by the summer of 1944 the Me 262 was not going to win Germany the war any more than Tigers and Panthers and Elefants were able win the battle of Kursk.
Not win. But perhaps achieve a conditional surrender.
quote:
I've never heard a convincing argument to make me believe that the Germans would not have surrendered before the end of 1945 whether the Normandy invasion had succeeded or not. (Also remember that most Germans thought that Normandy was merely a diversion, and so great masses of German troops would not necessarily have been sent to face the Soviets.)
Problem is when we are speaking hypotheticals it is very hard to convince anyone, since people tend to have their minds set from the beginning. I think there are some interesting points that speaks clearly for a Germany being able to hold some defensive lines in the east if the allies failed. And albeit German intelligence were not as good as the allied one. The surely would have realised that Normandy was the big one after the allies had lost 5-7 divisons. And the allies themselves believed that Normandy was the only chance to win an unconditional surrender.
quote:
The good news is that the invasion succeeded, thereby saving the lives of millions of more people who would've died (not even counting those in concentration camps) had the war dragged on 6 months longer than it actually did.
I agree completely.
Steve
------------------
Panzerjaeger Hortlund
-=Fear is only a state of mind=-
_____________________________
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
|
Printable Version
- 
- 
- 
- 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread