Yet another WW2 could Germany have won if... thread

[fredinno]

There's where the problem lies. Those factories won't come online for another year or two, and the transport systems to ferry resources from the former USSR regions to those factories will likely take even more time to build up. The surge in industrial output won't happen until '44 or '45 at the earliest.

Meanwhile, it's going to take just about all the manpower that the Germans can afford to field in order to pacify the occupied areas and maintain adequate levels of resource extraction and delivery, so the number of troops redeployed to the Atlantic coast may be a lot lower than you might expect. Granted, the experience levels of those troops who do return to the west will be higher, and some of the inexperienced reserves guarding the coasts might be sent to relieve veteran units, but the changes won't happen overnight. There's still a sizable window of vulnerability that the US/UK could exploit. It all comes down to whether or not the US public is willing to suffer the considerably higher Allied losses that a one-front war in Europe would entail.

On the other hand, with Stalin out of the picture, the Allied focus might return to taking out Italy and advancing through the Balkans, rather than going toe to toe against the Germans along a limited section of well defended and easily reinforced coastline. The Allies would likely have had the support of several groups in Yugoslavia who wanted the Germans gone at any cost, and the Hungarian government had already made overtures about a change of sides.

I don't see the rapid fall of the Soviet Union as a "war winner" for Germany, but it would very likely have dragged the conflict out for several more years, by the end of which the Reich would be a smoking radioactive wasteland.

The most vulnerable parts of the Southern Med. Coast (Spain, Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia) are all highly mountainous- thus easier for the defenders. Sure, landing is easy enough- but getting out? The Italian Campaign is a pretty good example of what happens. The Germans were doing pretty well in holding the line- they lost because of critical lack of supplies. Soviets Gone? Good luck with that land invasion of Europe. The Atlantic Wall is going to be as tougher than ever, and Southern Flank attacks are just going to end up like Italy or, worse, Gallipoli.

Air power is a more serious question. USSR GDP/Capita was always much lower than USA GDP/Capita, this, coupled with Soviet burn and retreat tactics, meant that not only would industry take years to recover,

Trying to force Hitler out via nuke is not going to work- unless you want to destroy the world while you're at it. Once nuclear winter starts to set in, good luck convincing the American population to stay motivated in war. Nukes in 1940 are immensely overrated.

Hungary was pro-German primarily because it was either be eaten by Germany or by Russia, and Hungary had a lot more "issues" in the past with the Russians. Horthy, the Regent of Hungary at the time, was strongly opposed to Hitler, and the cabinet was heavily divided, but mostly trying to limit the damage rather than actively support Hitler. Overtures had been made covertly to the Allies early in the Soviet campaign, and which would probably have continued regardless of the outcome in the East if they hadn't been so thoroughly rebuffed by the UK, because ultimately there was no long-term safety with Hitler. There were still rumors circulating until practically the end of the war that US paratroopers would suddenly show up to assist against Germany. Former US Ambassador to Hungary J. F. Mongomery's book "Hungary, the Unwilling Satellite" goes into the political motivations and personal opinions of most of the leadership up until Hungary's formal entry into the war.

Tito's was only one of several factions in Yugoslavia opposed to the Nazis, and several groups were likely to suspend their feuds with each other until Hitler was out of the picture, if there was any hope of success. Hitler had very little actual support beyond his own troops, other than those he could manipulate through direct fear of reprisal.

Having the Allies push up into the Balkans would likely have galvanized support in those countries, and it was primarily on account of Stalin's expressed desire to keep the Allies out of the area that those plans were scrapped or never fleshed out in any detail. With Stalin out of the picture, those plans could have proceeded. Basically, the Balkan countries might not have been of all that much assistance, but they wouldn't have been fighting FOR Germany, and it would have spread Germany back out into a 2 front war, at least to a limited degree.

Again, that's assuming it's not just another Italian Front. Tanks don't work well in mountains, and the Balkans were littered with them. Greece, with its narrow front, guarantees another Italian Front. Invading Albania from Allied Italy is better, but not by much. The Dinaric Alps form a 'wall' defending the interior, limiting entry into the interior by mountain passes.

Invading Italy via Slovenia leaves a narrow coastal corridor around Trieste- a Axis with sufficient reserves could simply block the narrow corridor.

No.

America can make all the planes she wants; she has to transport them to Britain, keep them operational, the morale of her crews in check, and ensure the American People don't vote you out of office in 1944. There are plenty of profits to be made trading with Nazi Germany.

Operation Point Blank, mandated at Casablanca, is essentially ordered at the exact moment the other poster suggested Russia had fallen. Their stated primary targets are German aircraft factories.

In late 1943, months after Russia will have ceded the field, the Schweinfurt Raids prove that unescorted bombers will not be able to operate over Germany. If Russia falls, it would be called the Schwienfurt Massacre.

Germany is essentially fighting the Battle of Britain in reverse. You are fighting over German radar, German AAA, and German pilots will parachute to safety over Germany held territory.

Under this scenario, in addition to the extant problems the Allied air forces face, you just handed the Luftwaffe approximately 1,000 extra fighters manned by veteran pilots from the Eastern Front before the American effort even begins, not to mention large numbers of heavy caliber AAA reinforcing the German air defenses, all of which will make Allied losses completely unbearable. Plus, all future air assets will be prioritized for the West, not the East.

German fuel scarcity will no longer be an issue. Germany can put planes in the air and keep them there with a hard CAP over her industrial regions.

The layered escort system of the Allied air forces using P-51 does not come online until '44. By this time, Speer has racheted up fighter production from 5,000 in '42, to 10,000 in '43, to 25,000 in '44. Rather than producing 5,000 fighters in '45; Germany will be producing closer to 50,000 as her new factories and resources come online, lead by fully tested and operationally effective Me-262 that will not be shot down while landing because a flock of Me-109's will be guarding their runways.

America still has to cross the Atlantic. Production of the newest types of U-Boats would increase dramatically, this must be taken into account.

German tactical airpower will be moved to France and Italy, and Richthoffen will begin a limited counter-bombing campaign of British air fields and ports backed up by V-weapon launches.

Oh, and Japan. Under this scenario, Britain and the US will not be able to devote the level of resources to the Pacific as more and more assetts will be required to defend Britain. Japan might have time to finish her defensive lines and actually figure out how convoys work.

So, yes; if Russia fall, Germany wins. Unless Germany is overthrown from within.

The Allies have an inherent disadvantage- their supply lines are coming from another continent, and Airplanes are no different.

If the Soviets fall- considering the Western Axis now occupy a larger area of GDP than Britain and America combined (of course, there were more in the allies than that- but let's face it, Canada, SA, and Australia are a drop in the bucket, and Latin American Nations had few troops on the front line, and were mostly coerced) the war is at best to result in- a cold war, and at worst, an Axis Victory, with the USA facing massive civil unrest, and Britain in full revolutionary Socialist Mode (Basically- this:

The only chance is a ruthless campaign to bomb Germany flat before it can unleash the economic power of Eastern Europe, then blitz though Western Europe- at a time when the USA itself had still not fully unleased its own military potential.

A tall order. Though, to be fair, not much less tall than defeating the Soviets.

 

[Jos de trol]

Apologies in advanced for the fragmented response, but there are many individual points.
In the first instance these massive raids against the Ruhr area had already began in 1942, and as Tooze highlights, the destruction (and continued destruction) completely disrupted manufacture of aircraft components. The construction of fighters was limited by available resources - both steel (coal/iron) and alloys. This won't change in 1943, even if there is a victory in the East in 1942. It will be 1944 at the earliest that you start to see an increase in construction growth. It also ignores the fact that capacity isn't there to construct aircraft and by 1942/3 Germany is already behind in general aircraft design. It also ignores the point that Germany still doesn't have an effective night fighter design.

A lot of AA equipment spread out in the forces in the east would become available too if there's a Russian collapse, particularly if they have some sort of supervision arrangement like with Vichy France where Russia has virtually 0 control over their own military resources.

It was one of the eternal questions of the war for Germany whether to shuffle more AA to it's home territories or to the front.

Having no active front in the east would also mean vast spare ammunition capacity that can be redirected to AA guns. As I understand it high calibre AA guns were incredibly effective, but with their ammunition being so expensive compared to ordinary AA guns they had a bit of a bottleneck.

 

[Easy-Kill]

The problem, as I see it, is that we are going back and forth on a series of hypothetical situations I don't think could have happened in the first place. I've stated my case, twice, and really have nothing else to add.

In which case, as opposed to going into further more detail. The impression I have is that you think Germany will be able to rapidly make use of the resources both stolen from Russia, and made available by not fighting in Russia.

I am saying that by 1943, German offensive power had shrunk substantially and that it would not be able to husband those resources until 1945 (possibly later), by which time the war over Germany has run its course, resulting in the socio-economic collapse of Germany.

I would be very interested in better understanding how Germany is to make a change in its strategic predicament. As you said, you twice made the point about what might happen if those resources are realised. I do not believe that they can either use those resources (in an effective time scale), or that it makes any difference in 1943.

 

[keynes2.0]

The Italian Campaign is a pretty good example of what happens.

The Italian campaign is a good example of what happens when the Germans allocate a disproportionate amount of resources to a front.

 

[Herbert West]

The Italian campaign is a good example of what happens when the Germans allocate a disproportionate amount of resources to a front.

Expand, please.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Regarding aircraft production it should be noted that Soviets had fairly modest aluminium production and large percentage of their wartime supply (not exactly sure but seems at least in order of 30%-40%) was lend lease from US. It does not seem like even German planners felt annexed Soviet Union would have made huge contribution here (they expected Norway to produce more aluminium).

 

[Kovax]

Basically, the same transportation shortages which made it difficult to support an offensive deep into the Soviet Union would also make it difficult to move resources in the required volumes back to factories in the Reich, and the time to move or build new factories to produce German equipment in the Soviet Union would take time. EVENTUALLY, the additional resources (food, specialty alloys, some oil, etc.) would come into play, but I think we're talking about a Germany proper bombed into rubble by that point. It works in a video game where the startup delays and transportation bottlenecks are only minimally represented, if at all, but not in a real-world situation.

Once those resources finally come online, and the transportation system upgraded, they're going to make it hellishly difficult for the Allies to finish the task. I see the war possibly lasting several more years than historically, but Germany would be fighting it primarily from Poland and Russia, not from France and Germany. The ultimate toll in lives would likely make the historical numbers seem like an easy war. On the other hand, once the Allies have a solid hold on the continent, I don't see them settling for a "white peace" deal with someone they KNOW cannot be trusted to honor it. More likely still, things will have gotten so bad in Germany that Hitler's chances of survival against assassination by his own officers and staff will have shrunk to near zero, if he doesn't die of medical issues first. Any sane successor would almost inevitably surrender under the circumstances.

 

[DoomBunny]

Expand, please.

Italy absorbed a relatively high number of German divisions (at times, more German divisions were engaged than Allied ones), and a higher proportion of these were 'elite' formations than was the case on any other major front. Moreover, the Allied formations deployed tended to be of inferior quality, or part of the rag-bag of nationalities available from across the world, Brazilians and Greeks are just two examples. The net result was actually an Allied victory, Foggia was captured allowing the Allied air forces to bomb the Balkans and Austria, by April 1945 15th Army Group was pushing on the Alps and had liberated almost all of Italy, and even without counting the mass German surrender at the end of the conflict the casualty balance sheet was in the Allies favour.

 

[keynes2.0]

Expand, please.

The ratio of Commonwealth+American troops to German troops in Italy was about 3:2, sometimes more and sometimes less. The ratio in Northern and Southern France was about 2:1. Furthermore, Italy had some pretty good German divisions while the allies transfered a lot of quality divisions from Italy to France in Operation Dragoon. Meanwhile the Germans in France had a lot of units of extremely dubious quality using extremely dubious equipment. Oh plus all the latest allied equipment was going to France.

If the Allies had faced the kind of opposition in Italy that they faced in France, they would have probably placed a much higher importance on advancing in that theater. As it was, Italy was a good way to divert German resources and create an opportunity for Overlord and Dragoon to bag huge numbers of prisoners.

Any sane successor would almost inevitably surrender under the circumstances.

So, no surrender then.

 

[Jos de trol]

Basically, the same transportation shortages which made it difficult to support an offensive deep into the Soviet Union would also make it difficult to move resources in the required volumes back to factories in the Reich, and the time to move or build new factories to produce German equipment in the Soviet Union would take time. EVENTUALLY, the additional resources (food, specialty alloys, some oil, etc.) would come into play, but I think we're talking about a Germany proper bombed into rubble by that point. It works in a video game where the startup delays and transportation bottlenecks are only minimally represented, if at all, but not in a real-world situation.

Once those resources finally come online, and the transportation system upgraded, they're going to make it hellishly difficult for the Allies to finish the task. I see the war possibly lasting several more years than historically, but Germany would be fighting it primarily from Poland and Russia, not from France and Germany. The ultimate toll in lives would likely make the historical numbers seem like an easy war. On the other hand, once the Allies have a solid hold on the continent, I don't see them settling for a "white peace" deal with someone they KNOW cannot be trusted to honor it. More likely still, things will have gotten so bad in Germany that Hitler's chances of survival against assassination by his own officers and staff will have shrunk to near zero, if he doesn't die of medical issues first. Any sane successor would almost inevitably surrender under the circumstances.

The logistics for bulk transport (the preferred method for bulk goods being water transport, the Volga and its baltic canal link being pretty good for this) would be far less complicated than the logistics required for transporting material and people to and from active frontlines. Of course it would remain to be seen what transport material has been captured/can be rented from the Russian rump state, how high partisan activity is, and how much of the wells/factories/mines are operational.

I'm sure it would it would be horribly inefficient in comparison to prewar numbers and theoretical maximum efficiency, but I doubt it would be war losing inefficient.

 

[fredinno]

In which case, as opposed to going into further more detail. The impression I have is that you think Germany will be able to rapidly make use of the resources both stolen from Russia, and made available by not fighting in Russia.

I am saying that by 1943, German offensive power had shrunk substantially and that it would not be able to husband those resources until 1945 (possibly later), by which time the war over Germany has run its course, resulting in the socio-economic collapse of Germany.

I would be very interested in better understanding how Germany is to make a change in its strategic predicament. As you said, you twice made the point about what might happen if those resources are realised. I do not believe that they can either use those resources (in an effective time scale), or that it makes any difference in 1943.

And if the USA enters the war in 43/42, they aren't mobilizing everything until 44- giving the Germans breathing room.

The only nation whose situation is dire in this scenario is Japan's- Germany's situation is quite workable.

Italy absorbed a relatively high number of German divisions (at times, more German divisions were engaged than Allied ones), and a higher proportion of these were 'elite' formations than was the case on any other major front. Moreover, the Allied formations deployed tended to be of inferior quality, or part of the rag-bag of nationalities available from across the world, Brazilians and Greeks are just two examples. The net result was actually an Allied victory, Foggia was captured allowing the Allied air forces to bomb the Balkans and Austria, by April 1945 15th Army Group was pushing on the Alps and had liberated almost all of Italy, and even without counting the mass German surrender at the end of the conflict the casualty balance sheet was in the Allies favour.

And the Germans did end up holding that front pretty decently- at least until D-Day happened.

The Gustav Line, though ultimately broken, effectively slowed the Allied advance for months between December 1943 and June 1944. Major battles in the assault on the Winter Line at Monte Cassino and Anzio alone resulted in 98,000 Allied casualties and 60,000 Axis casualties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Line

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

In which case, as opposed to going into further more detail. The impression I have is that you think Germany will be able to rapidly make use of the resources both stolen from Russia, and made available by not fighting in Russia.

I am saying that by 1943, German offensive power had shrunk substantially and that it would not be able to husband those resources until 1945 (possibly later), by which time the war over Germany has run its course, resulting in the socio-economic collapse of Germany.

I would be very interested in better understanding how Germany is to make a change in its strategic predicament. As you said, you twice made the point about what might happen if those resources are realised. I do not believe that they can either use those resources (in an effective time scale), or that it makes any difference in 1943.

No.

To repeat myself, we are playing 'what if'. The problem with playing 'what if' is one variable does not change, ALL the variables change. You cannot change one fact and assume everything else is static.

According to the rules of the game, Russia has been knocked out of the war, has withdrawn behind the Urals, prior to the end of Summer 1943.

Simply put: Russia can't fall and Germany be forced to scrape the barrel to send anything it can East to replace losses that simply cannot have happened; you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

• For Russia to withdraw; Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow need to have fallen and the German Army in Russia needs to be a strong and vital force. Battle damaged, hardened, yes; it CAN NOT BE the decimated shell of its former glory that existed in '43 for Russia to call it quits.
• The Schwarze and Rote Kappels will not exist, revealing operational plans to the Soviets
• There can be no great loss of German Infantry in 1941.
• There can be no encirclement of Stalingrad in '42.
• The war is over long before the battle of Kursk ever happens.

Our focus is on the Battle of the Ruhr.

• With victory imminent in Russia during the Winter of '42-43, the resources allocated to Citadel are now available for the Air War over the Rhine before the battle ever begins.
• By the end of the campaign, the British pilots called the Ruhr "The Valley of No Return". This Happy Valley ringed with 88mm AAA goes online at the beginning, not the end of the campaign, using these parameters.
  • Speer stated after the war the real issue presented by the Air War is it opened an entire second front that required a minimum of 600,000 men that had to be withheld from the front lines to clear away rubble and man the anti-aircraft guns. If Russia is not bleeding men, if Russia is won, manpower is no longer an issue. You don't even have to move them operationally back from the front, these are the Spring reinforcements headed to Russia still inside Germany.
• The 2,700 planes at Kursk, approximately 1,000 of which are fighters, and all the 88mm guns present at Kursk with more rolling off the lines inside the Ruhr daily are now available to Kammhuber and the German air defense network prior to the beginning of the battle. A large chunk of the tactical air can be redeployed to Kesselring in Italy, he'll know what to do with them.
• 'Window' is closed.
  • The Bomber Stream is guarded by 'Window', chaff used to blind German radars. Chaff is understood by everyone with radar, but 'Window' is an ongoing refinement developed because a fully functional night fighter is flown from Norway to Aberdeen, Scotland in May of 1943. Spitfires escort the Luftwaffe plane to its landing point. The German pilots turn over their Ju-88 R-1 with its Lichenstein radar fully intact; and the air crew make several speeches on the BBC. This is a primary factor in UK defeating German night fighters during the Ruhr.
  • IF Russia has fallen, these pilots are not going to defect. Period.
• Trains and Planes can travel in both directions. With Russia down, any Eastern assets can be moved West; rather than continually scavaging the West to plug holes in the East.

Whether or not Bomber Harris takes out the Ruhr is yet another hypothetical in an entire stream of 'what ifs'. But RAF Bomber Command will be decimated if not outright destroyed facing this new challenge.

Regardless of what happens in the Ruhr, Speer has a PLETHORA of options of what to do when it comes to reorganizing his armaments program in the long term using Soviet steel and raw materials.

All of this, and we have not yet begun shuffling forces from the East to the West.

Again, this is all 'what if'. 'What if' is a very unsatisfying game.

 

[Avernite]

I think we've reached 'hypothetical-ception', and would be better off defining the hypotheses better.

There's nothing in 'Germany wins in 43' that determines how hard-fought that was. Maybe they waltzed over Russia, Stalin committed suicide in 1941, and it took until 1943 (with German infantry strolling to the Ural) to find someone to sign a surrender. Maybe they scored a few critical victories and so by winter '42 it was all over but the winning. And maybe in summer 1943 they came up with a strategy that blindsided the Soviets but still took massive expenditures of weaponry and men from May to August.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I think we've reached 'hypothetical-ception', and would be better off defining the hypotheses better.

There's nothing in 'Germany wins in 43' that determines how hard-fought that was. Maybe they waltzed over Russia, Stalin committed suicide in 1941, and it took until 1943 (with German infantry strolling to the Ural) to find someone to sign a surrender. Maybe they scored a few critical victories and so by winter '42 it was all over but the winning. And maybe in summer 1943 they came up with a strategy that blindsided the Soviets but still took massive expenditures of weaponry and men from May to August.

Maybe.

Maybe 'The Coming Race' living in the caverns beneath Anarctica revealed themselves and provided a series of V(ril) weapons powered by the Black Sun that irradiated all copies of Marx's 'Communist Manifesto' until they glowed and exploded, destroying all NKVD and Political Commisars, allowing all Soviet troops to stream for safety in the rear?

 

[Easy-Kill]

No.

To repeat myself, we are playing 'what if'. The problem with playing 'what if' is one variable does not change, ALL the variables change. You cannot change one fact and assume everything else is static.

According to the rules of the game, Russia has been knocked out of the war, has withdrawn behind the Urals, prior to the end of Summer 1943. Russia can't fall, and Germany continue to be forced to scrape the barrel to send anything it can East; you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

• For Russia to withdraw; Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow need to have fallen and the German Army in Russia needs to be a strong and vital force; not a decimated shell of its former glory.
• The Schwarze and Rote Kappels will not exist, revealing operational plans to the Soviets
• There can be no great loss of German Infantry in 1941.
• There can be no encirclement of Stalingrad in '42.
• The war is over long before the battle of Kursk ever happens.

The problem with this thinking is that offensive power is not limited by the number of men or guns that Germany has available, but by the number of vehicles and shells that are available. The invasion of France was preceded by a huge allocation of steel which effectively crippled the civilian sector. German munitions availability (for offensive operations) peaked in Summer of 1941 and decreased steadily (along with mobility assets) as the war wound on. Offensive capability had limited correlation with the number of men available, but the supplies and equipment necessary to realise this.

Our focus is on the Battle of the Ruhr.

• With victory imminent in Russia during the Winter of '42-43, the resources allocated to Citadel are now available for the Air War over the Rhine before the battle ever begins.
• By the end of the campaign, the British pilots called the Ruhr "The Valley of No Return". This Happy Valley ringed with 88mm AAA goes online at the beginning, not the end of the campaign, using these parameters.
  • Speer stated after the war the real issue presented by the Air War is it opened an entire second front that required a minimum of 600,000 men that had to be withheld from the front lines to clear away rubble and man the anti-aircraft guns. If Russia is not bleeding men, if Russia is won, manpower is no longer an issue. You don't even have to move them operationally back from the front, these are the Spring reinforcements headed to Russia still inside Germany.
• The 2,700 planes at Kursk, approximately 1,000 of which are fighters, and all the 88mm guns present at Kursk with more rolling off the lines inside the Ruhr daily are now available to Kammhuber and the German air defense network prior to the beginning of the battle. A large chunk of the tactical air can be redeployed to Kesselring in Italy, he'll know what to do with them.
• 'Window' is closed.
  • The Bomber Stream is guarded by 'Window', chaff used to blind German radars. Chaff is understood by everyone with radar, but 'Window' is an ongoing refinement developed because a fully functional night fighter is flown from Norway to Aberdeen, Scotland in May of 1943. Spitfires escort the Luftwaffe plane to its landing point. The German pilots turn over their Ju-88 R-1 with its Lichenstein radar fully intact; and the air crew make several speeches on the BBC. This is a primary factor in UK defeating German night fighters during the Ruhr.
  • IF Russia has fallen, these pilots are not going to defect. Period.

I don't know what version of history you are living in, but ground forces will make limited difference in the air war. The main challenge will be the large calibre air defence guns. Of the those that were employed, a number of sources (albeit the exact number is unreliable) suggest that only around 10% employed in the east. This will have little to no effect on the war in the west.

An extra 1000 day time fighters will make limited difference to the air war. Again, Germany lacked an effective night fighter and lacked any numerical number to make a difference. As for those 1000 fighters ... the UK was bombing Germany on a nightly/weekly basis with 1000 multi-engine bombers. 1000 fighters was on average, about 8 days worth of production (fighters ... not total aircraft) for the US and UK combined. That is, the allies could produce more fighters in the time it took Germany to ship them from east to west.

As for Window, it was already developed and simply made more effective following the Bruneval raid in early 1942. The only mention of defecting German pilots i know of was in sprint 1944 (capture of the Lichtenstein radar). In the first instance, it has very limited impact due to a lack of effective German centimetric radar in 1943 and secondly, its completely out of time frame. To quote your president it is 'fake news'.

The initial aspects of the Battle of the Ruhr was effectively over in July 1943. By this point, most of the damage was done and the long term effect on armaments production was felt. It marked a point which saw the gradual decline of the German civil and armaments industry, while it took another two years for total collapse. There is nothing that Germany can do in the 6-9 months preceding the battle to affect its outcome. As stated earlier, it requires a complete change in German strategic thinking in 1936-1940 to avoid this defeat.

Regardless of what happens in the Ruhr, Speer has a PLETHORA of options of what to do when it comes to reorganizing his armaments program in the long term using Soviet steel and raw materials.

Ahh Albert "please don't hang me" Speer ... that most reliable of whitness/sources I trust Tooze instead.
No he doesn't. He has the materials captured in 1940 and 1941. Soviet steel production was about 1/4 of that of Germany. Given that Germany was running a shortfall of 40% (if I remember Tooze correctly), Soviet Steel isn't going to make any difference and wont be available for 9-12 months after victory (and then another 9-12 months to be realised in equipement).

I am sorry, but it feels as though you are dismissing the numbers with grand sweeps of the hand, the type that Hitler would be proud of ... 'full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing'.

 

[Easy-Kill]

And if the USA enters the war in 43/42, they aren't mobilizing everything until 44- giving the Germans breathing room.

Right, but by 1943 the UK was already out producing/purchasing Germany in key warfighting equipment. Historically it didn't lose and still managed to plan the great bombardment of Germany. I don't see how that is going to be any different?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I trust Tooze instead.

Really? Adam Tooze? The individual you mention in every single post, repeatedly, because 'Wages of Destruction' renders all other historical tomes and anything resembling first-hand experience irrelevant? You are fond of him? I hadn't noticed.

Seriously, I'm tired of this back and forth over hypotheticals you are using to justify a series of shaded personal attacks. I'm done.

Russia didn't surrender. Germany Lost. Praise God. The End.

Have a nice day.

 

[Yakman]

The Italian campaign is a good example of what happens when the Germans allocate a disproportionate amount of resources to a front.

it's also a great example of fighting a defensive war when the locals don't want to be defended

 

[Yakman]

Maybe.

Maybe 'The Coming Race' living in the caverns beneath Anarctica revealed themselves and provided a series of V(ril) weapons powered by the Black Sun that irradiated all copies of Marx's 'Communist Manifesto' until they glowed and exploded, destroying all NKVD and Political Commisars, allowing all Soviet troops to stream for safety in the rear?

Probable.

 

[DoomBunny]

And the Germans did end up holding that front pretty decently- at least until D-Day happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Line

This doesn't contradict anything I said, indeed, rather the reverse; I already pointed out why this line of thinking is wrong.