Does most americans think like this...

[ToBeMe]

<< But I think that Germany would have been defeated, even without Second Front. The war would have dragged propably to 1946, but they would have lost. Germans were already withdrawing as fast as they could in the east when Overlord took place. >>


IMHO that is highly questionable........to many variables.......whithout a second front, Germany would have been nearly impregnable by Russia. Add to this the fact that if there were only one "Eastern" front, vital resources may well not have been the large and limiting factor they were for Germany! No, to say Russia could have done it alone is highly questionable IMO, and another factor to consider, if the U.S had not had a great number of resouces/manpower dedicated to the "Pacific" theatre after Peral............how much more quickly would the U.S. and others have been in Germany????

 

[Nemesis77]

<< IMHO that is highly questionable........to many variables.......whithout a second front, Germany would have been nearly impregnable by Russia. Add to this the fact that if there were only one "Eastern" front, vital resources may well not have been the large and limiting factor they were for Germany! No, to say Russia could have done it alone is highly questionable IMO, and another factor to consider, if the U.S had not had a great number of resouces/manpower dedicated to the "Pacific" theatre after Peral............how much more quickly would the U.S. and others have been in Germany???? >>



Of course, we will never find out for sure, because Second Front DID form .

But the facts remain that even before Overlord germans had completely lost the initiative in the Eastern Front. Soviet Union had already entered in to Poland (or was about to), and when their offensive stalled, they were at the gates of Warsaw. Had Overlord failed completely, and those 30% of forces that germans had in the west were thrown against the Red Army, it would have stalled them. Maybe even push them out of Poland (doubtful). But in the end, that wouldn't have matter one bit. It would just have delayed the inevitable. Soviets had the resources and manpower to keep on fighting, Germans did not.

In fact, when Hitler decided to go with the Ardennes Offensive, he decided against attacking elsewhere because:

1. Strategic offesive in Italy wouldn't really mean anything. Italy was, in the end, a secondary front when compared to West and East Fronts.
2. Red Army could withdraw several hundred kilometers, but it wouldn't mean a thing. Allied in the west didn't have that luxury.

 

[DDad]

A couple of points
Hitler was not a complete moron- it can be argued that his thinking regarding Stalingrad was sound- the idea being get past Stalingrad and take over the Caucusis Oil fields- with Germanys chronic fuel shortage that could have made a major impact on the war. In fact, from what I recall (ancient history) the General Staff wouldn't give the Stalingrad offensive the support initially desired by Hitler.
As far as Calais- from what I've read, Hitler (and the General Staff) had been told for months to expect the invasion to come from the Calais region, and to expect Patton to lead it. The Allies had created a massive disinformation plan on that thesis- to the point of dumping bodies with the "battle plans" in the French side of the Channel. When the Invasion started, the General Staff itself was mixed on whether or not it "was" the Invasion, or just a diversion (on a much bigger scale than the Dieppe raid). By the time they decided it WAS the invasion the Allies had enough control (specifically of the Air) to blunt any counter-attack. BTW, also remember that by this time some of the Generals on the General staff were plotting to kill Hitler.
Many of the Marshals of the Russian Army in WW2 were STILL under a death sentence (from the purge) during the War- if they succeeded, they would be reprieved. Now, if MY neck was on the line - I'd throw as many troops, and not worry about THEIR getting killed as long as mine was safe!
Most of the trucks used by the Russians were US Studebakers- the troops were told they came from the "big new USA plant in the Urals!"
Over 10,000 American A/C (primarily P-39's, A20, B25's) were sent to the Russians.

 

[Jugernot]

Although it is true that the Russian did have a higher percentage of casualties, they weren't as skilled in fighting as the Nazis. So yes, they did loose more percentage wise.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with your statement, but there is small amount of truth to the casulty part.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Although it is true that the Russian did have a higher percentage of casualties, they weren't as skilled in fighting as the Nazis. So yes, they did loose more percentage wise.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with your statement, but there is small amount of truth to the casulty part. >>



Yes, soviets lost ALOT of people in WW2. Reasons being:

1. War in the eastern front was extremely brutal.
2. They fought for a long time, using lots of men and equipment.

Germans thought that Bolsheviks were below them ("Untermensch"), so they didn't really care what happened to soviet POW's. Same goes for germans POW's, soviets didn't really care about them.