OK. WWII time!! 

There have been a million (or so) post mortems and examinations of all the 'what ifs' and the 'maybes' regarding what Hitler did and did not do. Most people agree that one mistake or another led to his inevitable downfall.

I don't know, and I don't believe any of us ever will, whether the Reich could have lasted any significant period longer than it did, even if Hitler had not made the 'glaring' errors and misjudgements that he did.

However, I feel, apart from the fact that he may well have defeated the RAF if he had not turned to bombing citiies when he did. Apart from whether the Japanese had stayed away long enough for England to be brought down before the US became involved. There is one aspect that may have made a significant difference, at least to the length of the Reich's exisistence.  ???

I'm talking about the hypothetical success of the Invasion of Russia.
What would have been the Reichs position, strategically and politically, if they had attacked earlier (or later) and actually swept across 'Russia proper', before the winter set in, and of course, if they had had a reasonable 'supply' line option organised?? 
A situation where the Reich would not have had the 'Second' and very 'resource draining" front. Instead just a need for a reasonable sized occupaton force (and the inevitable SS and Gestapo operations).  ???

It's hard to say. The Germans certainly came very close, to all three major objectives.
I think a couple more weeks of good weather and maybe..................

But then, the Russians had a fantastic resilience. They also had huge numbers, even compared to the Germans. So they may well still have been able to recover, even after the loss of Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad and the Caucus's. The germans still had that huge supply line and one railway track!! 
I think the fuel in the Caucus's would have been a major factor on both fronts, had it 'changed hands'. 

And personally, I think the idea of not properly outfitting your troops when it becomes obvious the goal will take longer than expected for fear of damaging morale was insane.  I think more troops died from exposure to the Russian winter than the Russians themselves. 

Air - Geko.

Hmmm time to listen to WKSU and get my NPR fix....

This reminds me of a story a friend told me some years ago. He became friendly with a German family while on holiday. They got chatting one evening & the German told him he was on the Russian front in WWII. When winter came the German troops were very poorly equipped. mostly in summer gear. They had no greatcoats or decent boots for a start & to make matters worse, the cold affected their weapons. The high quality rifles would not fire due to the extreme cold. The only solution was to kill a Russian soldier & take his greatcoat, boots & rifle.

The only problem with this was that the Russian rifles had a distinctive sound, very different to the German ones. Apparently there were many instances of blue on blue when German troops clothed in Russian greatcoats & firing Russian rifles were naturally mistaken for Russians. It got so bad that an order was issued to the effect that any German soldier found wearing Russian clothing or possessing a Russian rifle would be shot on the spot. A classic Catch 22. Die of the cold or be shot anyway.

This particular soldier deserted & made his way back home. He finally arrived when the war was over. He was one of the lucky ones.

Stalingrad did have huge stratigic importance. If stalingrad fell then the Germans would be able to cross the Volga which was the last natural obstical between them and Asia. The russian oil fields would have been in german hands and so it would have been a huge blow to the russians. Not to mention the blow to moral that would have come from the fall of the city bearing stalins name.

Quote:

I'm sure the Germans had learnt from Leningrad that a surrounded city was not going to surrender. Stalingrad was an industrial city and could have lasted a long time in a seige. The stratiegic importance of such a city is massive. If the germans didn't capture it then they could have gone no further on that part of the front. And there were huge supplies of grain and other things to have in the city. Also factories and many other items of stratiegic importance.

I believe that Stalin would not have let Stalingrad surrender if it was surrounded. It was the only strongpoint on that part of the front and if it fell then the whole of southern russia and asia would be open to the germans. Blitzkrieg did settle for the bypassing of strongpoints however these were just things like bunker complexes etc and not entire citys. And when the city controls the stretch of front then you have no choice but to take it. Crossing the Volga would have been next to impossible if there was a Russian army sitting in stalingrad. Therefore the capture of the city was vital to the advance on teh eastern front.

Right oh. I'm not at my best at the moment. It is one in the morning after all. And its been two years since I read Stalingrad.