Barbarossa or D-Day?

[GDS_Starfury]

ya'll might want to pick up this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Allies-Had-Fallen-Alternate-Scenarios/dp/1616085460

it goes into some detail as to why Germanys defeat cant all be placed at the foot of Hitler.
my only issue with the books scenerios is the part covering Kursk and written by Glantz.

[Martok]

Damn you Star, for making me add to my already-absurdly long "to read" list.  That looks good. 

[GDS_Starfury]

oh its perfect for the bathroom as each scenerio is 5 to 10 pages max.

the overall jist is that no, Germany and the Axis couldnt have won WW2.  I disagree but they have some interesting arguments.
except for Glantz whos just a Soviet suck up all day long.

[LongBlade]

except for Glantz whos just a Soviet suck up all day long.

How else is he going to get access to their glorious archives?

[Longdan]

Some love the Soviets some love the Germans.

[LongBlade]

Some love the Soviets some love the Germans.

 

[GDS_Starfury]

except for Glantz whos just a Soviet suck up all day long.

How else is he going to get access to their glorious archives?

cash like everyone else 

[LongBlade]

In Soviet Russia archives study you!

[GDS_Starfury]

well he needs to study a concept called objectivity.
there is not one person here that hasnt wargamed Kursk and won as the Germans.  not only won but won across a large number of models, stats, platforms and levels of play from squad to front level strategy.  I say Sir!  the history of wargaming proves Glantz is worng.

[pawelj]

When Barbarossa failed the war was lost by Germany.  When Overlord succeeded the War was won  (sort of) by the Western Allies.

Germany lost the war on the day they declared the war on the US in December 1941. Barbarossa and in fact the entire Eastern front qould be considered a rather bloody side show. It may seem counterintuitive, but Eastern Front was pretty irrelevant to the defeat of Nazi Germany.
There would have been no Eastern Front progress without the Western Front, but the Western Allies would be able to defieat Germany without Eastern Front. The reason is the quality disparity between German and Western Allies, particularly in the area of Artillery support and Air power.
Soviets had numbers, but they had very bad combined arms tactics which resulted in huge casualties. Any progrss on the eastern front only happened after July 1943 when the Allies landed in Italy. From that point Hitler lost real interest in the East and the best units were sent or held in the West. He was essentially refighting WW I when Germany lost in the West, but won in the East.

[bayonetbrant]

Soviets had numbers, but they had very bad combined arms tactics which resulted in huge casualties. Any progrss on the eastern front only happened after July 1943 when the Allies landed in Italy. From that point Hitler lost real interest in the East and the best units were sent or held in the West. He was essentially refighting WW I when Germany lost in the West, but won in the East.

You could also make the argument that the Russians simply improved from 1941 to 1943, and that as the war went on, Russian troops improved, and the incompetent ones were Darwinized out of the force.  I know a lot of folks (we're talking "PhD in Soviet Studies" and "PhD in Military History with dissertations on the Eastern Front" kind of dudes) that would point out substantial improvements in Soviet combat prowess that came about after Stalin quick arbitrarily screwing with the leadership and let the generals fight, as well as the dissemination of the lessons learned from 41-42.

[LongBlade]

You could also make the argument that the Russians simply improved from 1941 to 1943, and that as the war went on, Russian troops improved, and the incompetent ones were Darwinized out of the force.  I know a lot of folks (we're talking "PhD in Soviet Studies" and "PhD in Military History with dissertations on the Eastern Front" kind of dudes) that would point out substantial improvements in Soviet combat prowess that came about after Stalin quick arbitrarily screwing with the leadership and let the generals fight, as well as the dissemination of the lessons learned from 41-42.

It's difficult to argue with this.

The major difference that I see is that although Hitler and Stalin were alike in many ways, Stalin somehow found the courage (can we call it that?) to let go of micromanaging his paranoia. I haven't read up on him enough to know why, but it seems to me that as Stalin let go, Hitler doubled down on the practice. The results speak for themselves.

Had Stalin attempted to run the war as he had the Winter War it seems unlikely that the Soviet Union would have survived.

[GDS_Starfury]

the Eastern Front was hardly a side show.  if the Western allies had to face Germany without Russia I think the war itself would have lasted longer if the allies were able to stomach the casualties.  and thats a big if.  look at the historic level of German forces in Italy and France.  then quadruple them.  think of all of that airpower spread out across the steppe and then concentrate it back in western Europe.
Babarossa arguable lost Germany the war, D-Day did not.

[W8taminute]

Interesting discussion gentlemen.  I'm going with Barbarossa on this for mostly the same reasons that others have so elegantly explained. 

Based on my studies I've always believed that Barbarossa was winnable but H messed everything up, and without 75% of German assets tied up in the east the Western Allies would have had a tough time winning.


Had Germany the time to develop it's atomic program (and it would have without a Barbarossa), and with it's V2 rockets to carry them, Germany could have captured the world.  Hence Edith Keeler must die.  (Oh and Barbarossa needed to happen)   

[undercovergeek]

the Eastern Front was hardly a side show.  if the Western allies had to face Germany without Russia I think the war itself would have lasted longer if the allies were able to stomach the casualties.  and thats a big if.  look at the historic level of German forces in Italy and France.  then quadruple them.  think of all of that airpower spread out across the steppe and then concentrate it back in western Europe.
Babarossa arguable lost Germany the war, D-Day did not.

not that its a realistic reason but playing HOI III i always tried to stay away from Barbarossa - it was a massive mistake

Question then - without Barbarossa, and a western europe focused Germany, would Russia have come to the allies aide without a reason to declare war on Germany?