What if Hitler had taken over Stalingrad?, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

Topic started on 27-12-2008 @ 04:11 PM by TheMythLives

I mean if he had taken it over, holding Stalingrad would have opened up lines of supply to critically needed oil. It would have also allowed the Germans to anchor their southern lines along good geographical ground. At the very least, it would have extended the war, forcing the soviets to pay an even heavier cost to regain territory. At the most, with a secure fuel supply, it would have been possible for the Germans to hold off the allies in western Europe, at least long enough for some of their "superweapons" to come into play. If Hitler could have pushed England out of the war before 1945, Germany might have been able to hang on to more European territory, and allowed Hitler to throw all his forces at the Soviet Union. If Hitler and his subordinates had been cunning enough to utilize dissatisfaction with the USSR, he woud have raised more manpower to fight them and caused the USSR considerable trouble behind its own lines.

So basically I guess the real question is would the war have ended differently if Hitler had taken Stalingrad?

Special thanks to: sgatlantisrose for providing the information to me.

Thanks for you thoughts!
~TheMythLives

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 05:11 PM by YourForever

reply to post by TheMythLives

If the war was prolonged, then it would of been Germany that got nuked. They would of taken Stalingrad if they had waited for the Russian winter to pass. It was a logistical nightmare.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 05:16 PM by Peruvianmonk

reply to post by TheMythLives

It's a good question which i have pondered myself. The Germans could have easily taken Stalingrad if Hitler hadn't been hellbent on capturing the Malikop oil fields AND Taking Stalingrad. He divided his already weakend forces and allowed, because of the delay in decision, the Soviet leadership just enough time to get just enough forces in to hold the city, whilst the forces for Zhukov's counteroffensives were organized.

Whether The Germans would have won the war against the Soviets as a result of the taking of Stalkingrad is questionable. The German forces had been walloped at the gates of Moscow taking a million casulties. They could not dismiss this like the Soviets could do with their hundreds of millions in population. If Germany had taken Moscow then yes i do think Germany would have beaten the Soviets down sufficently to claim victory. Although i think the war would never be fully over as the Soviets would have never surrendered and still had considerable forces.

But they could then have transferred a majority of forces to France and prepared for an invasion of England, if the Yanks and Limeys did not sue for peace.

It is important to remember the war was fought and lost in the Soviet Union. Perhaps if Hitler had reinforced Rommell in Libya and Egypt the Afrika Korps could have taken the oil fields in Egypt and linked with the German forces in southern Soviet Union

[edit on 27-12-2008 by Peruvianmonk]

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 05:22 PM by Peruvianmonk

reply to post by YourForever

But think about this. What if as a result of a victory at Moscow or Stalingrad, Germany was able to transfer a larger force back to France and beaten back the D-Day invasions, Would not then the English and Americans sought peace?

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 05:25 PM by redled

Originally posted by YourForever
reply to post by TheMythLives

If the war was prolonged, then it would of been Germany that got nuked. They would of taken Stalingrad if they had waited for the Russian winter to pass. It was a logistical nightmare.

You must realise that much of your enriched uranium that went into Japan came from Germany via submarine, but Germany surrendered, they would have been in Japanese hands otherwise.

Britain helped Russia much, all the way through the war. Stalingrad was huge, but as is always the case, when Stalingrad was most under pressure it was most important, yey when that pressure lifted, it was less so.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 05:47 PM by YourForever

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
But think about this. What if as a result of a victory at Moscow or Stalingrad, Germany was able to transfer a larger force back to France and beaten back the D-Day invasions, Would not then the English and Americans sought peace?

The Germans could have returned half of their forces... the rest would be needed to keep the massive Russian population under control...

But think about America. Not at any time in the War were the Germans or Japs able to hit her industrial base... and with no lend-lease program needed, America could have intensified her effort in Europe.

I can't imagine either side giving up before the Nukes drop. Only question is, could the Nazis have developed them sooner?

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 06:05 PM by Peruvianmonk

reply to post by YourForever

I see your point about The Japanese and Germans being unable to attack America. But Germany would have invaded England AND conquered them, denying the Americans a base to invade europe. Also the Germans and Japanese could have choked America economically. I have no doubt America would have made peace with the Axis in this event.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 06:15 PM by redled

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by YourForever

I see your point about The Japanese and Germans being unable to attack America. But Germany would have invaded England AND conquered them, denying the Americans a base to invade europe. Also the Germans and Japanese could have choked America economically. I have no doubt America would have made peace with the Axis in this event.

Bollx, Churchill was working on making them think they needed an invading Armada. He was also working on under the water oil pipelines. He would have trapped all the Nazis and burn't them alive.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 06:25 PM by Peruvianmonk

reply to post by redled

I gurrantee if the Germans had focused on destroying the RAF and then launched an invasion, England would have succumbed. We had left all our heavy equipment at Dunkirk our army was in disarray and undermanned. How exactly would we have beaten them back?

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 06:36 PM by redled

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by redled

I gurrantee if the Germans had focused on destroying the RAF and then launched an invasion, England would have succumbed. We had left all our heavy equipment at Dunkirk our army was in disarray and undermanned. How exactly would we have beaten them back?

Right, Dunkirk was petrol, they did not expect to go so far so fast, they had a logistics problem. Once home, the Germans gave it all in the Battle of Britain and having lost attacked Russia 6 months later. They had a treaty with Russia at the time of both Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain. So we did beat them back.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 06:39 PM by Peruvianmonk

reply to post by redled

We only beat them back because the German air force instead of concentrating on destroying the RAF, by attacking the airfields, which they were on the brink of doing at the beggining of the Battle of Britain, switched to attacking the cities and areas of production thus allowing the RAF to recover and defeat the Germans.

Basic history my friend.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 06:42 PM by SLAYER69

Originally posted by redled
You must realise that much of your enriched uranium that went into Japan came from Germany via submarine, but Germany surrendered, they would have been in Japanese hands otherwise.

Can you explain exactly what you meant by this?

Britain helped Russia much, all the way through the war. Stalingrad was huge, but as is always the case, when Stalingrad was most under pressure it was most important, yey when that pressure lifted, it was less so.

How exacly did they help Russia?
I know the allied forces helped Russia but Britain itself was in desperate need to supplies which the bulk came from the US

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 06:49 PM by redled

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by redled

We only beat them back because the German air force instead of concentrating on destroying the RAF, by attacking the airfields, which they were on the brink of doing at the beggining of the Battle of Britain, switched to attacking the cities and areas of production thus allowing the RAF to recover and defeat the Germans.

Basic history my friend.

Intelligence my dear boy. We convinced them they could not wipe out the RAF. All else followed. And Enigma and fun...... see next post.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 06:53 PM by redled

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by redled
You must realise that much of your enriched uranium that went into Japan came from Germany via submarine, but Germany surrendered, they would have been in Japanese hands otherwise.

Can you explain exactly what you meant by this?

Germans had purified lots of nuclear material and when Hitler gave up, he tried to send it to the Japs and hang on until they could do something with it. He sent it out in Nv 44, and the Sub was picked up after Nazis surrendered may 45 and they woulddn't surrender to the canadians, so the us got the material.

Britain helped Russia much, all the way through the war. Stalingrad was huge, but as is always the case, when Stalingrad was most under pressure it was most important, yey when that pressure lifted, it was less so.

How exacly did they help Russia?

Supplies. Munitions.

I know the allied forces helped Russia but Britain itself was in desperate need to supplies which the bulk came from the US

US were not that good before Pearl Harbour. Roosevelt was a God, your body politic constrained him and we had to make sacrifices of our own.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 06:59 PM by SLAYER69

Originally posted by redled
Germans had purified lots of nuclear material and when Hitler gave up, he tried to send it to the Japs and hang on until they could do something with it. He sent it out in Nv 44, and the Sub was picked up after Nazis surrendered may 45 and they woulddn't surrender to the canadians, so the us got the material.

That's true for a moment there I thought you were saying that this material is what the US made Fatman and little boy out of.

US were not that good before Pearl Harbour. Roosevelt was a God, your body politic constrained him and we had to make sacrifices of our own.

Again what time frame are you talking about? I recall the lend lease acts way before the Japanese bombed Pear Harbor

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 07:06 PM by redled

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by redled
Germans had purified lots of nuclear material and when Hitler gave up, he tried to send it to the Japs and hang on until they could do something with it. He sent it out in Nv 44, and the Sub was picked up after Nazis surrendered may 45 and they woulddn't surrender to the canadians, so the us got the material.

That's true for a moment there I thought you were saying that this material is what the US made Fatman and little boy out of.

They were.

US were not that good before Pearl Harbour. Roosevelt was a God, your body politic constrained him and we had to make sacrifices of our own.

Again what time frame are you talking about? I recall the lend lease acts way before the Japanese bombed Pear Harbor

No, before you came in Pearl Harbour, you got us to mortgage our Empire before you would help. You took the right side, but screwed the existing empire. That is not in my view necessarily morally bad, but you should have given it to good causes. Like f*cking Nazi Germany.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 07:09 PM by SLAYER69

Originally posted by redled

No, before you came in Pearl Harbour, you got us to mortgage our Empire before you would help. You took the right side, but screwed the existing empire. That is not in my view necessarily morally bad, but you should have given it to good causes. Like f*cking Nazi Germany.

Can you post a link for your source on this ?

Also any collaborating evidence regarding the nuclear fuel for Fatman and Littleboy?

You understand they were both made out of different material dont you?

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 07:14 PM by redled

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by redled

No, before you came in Pearl Harbour, you got us to mortgage our Empire before you would help. You took the right side, but screwed the existing empire. That is not in my view necessarily morally bad, but you should have given it to good causes. Like f*cking Nazi Germany.

Can you post a link for your source on this ?

No link, seen lots of stuff. But it's not exactly today's news.

Also any collaborating evidence regarding the nuclear fuel for Fatman and Littleboy?

You understand they were both made out of different material dont you?

Not different material, rather different blends of material.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 07:19 PM by YourForever

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
I see your point about The Japanese and Germans being unable to attack America. But Germany would have invaded England AND conquered them, denying the Americans a base to invade europe.

Granted, in your scenario, it would have been America alone against Nazi Europe and the Japs. America's isolation could induce a stalement as you suggest, but it would give them time to develop a nuclear offensive and impenetrable defenses. There would always be possibilities and contingencies. I would wager America has no choice but to fight. Peace would inevitably lead to their demise.

Also consider many years would pass before the Nazis fully healed their wounds and cemented their grip on Europe.

However, we both know the premise is fantasy... no way could Germany have taken Russia, Britain and repel the American presence in the same year. They simply did not have the intelligence, manpower or industrial output.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 07:23 PM by SLAYER69

Back to the OP

I'm not sure this would have made much difference when you consider the logistics.

Germany was already spread very thin and this would have been another huge undertaking it's one thing to defeat an enemy on the field of battle it's another to control a city. I believe this would have been an even greater strain on the already strained German situation.

Stalin however was already moving factories farther east and was getting fuel and amunition from the US through lend lease in 1941

Source

Despite deep-seated mistrust and hostility between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies, Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 created an instant alliance between the Soviets and the two greatest powers in what the Soviet leaders had long called the "imperialist camp": Britain and the United States. Three months after the invasion, the United States extended assistance to the Soviet Union through its Lend-Lease Act of March 1941. Before September 1941, trade between the United States and the Soviet Union had been conducted primarily through the Soviet Buying Commission in the United States.

Regardles of this the soviets had a major problem with basics in fielding trained troops against battle hardened Crack German units the Germans units had not by this time been atrited

Source

Lend-Lease was the most visible sign of wartime cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union. About $11 billion in war material was sent to the Soviet Union under that program. Additional assistance came from U.S. Russian War Relief (a private, nonprofit organization) and the Red Cross. About seventy percent of the aid reached the Soviet Union via the Persian Gulf through Iran; the remainder went across the Pacific to Vladivostok and across the North Atlantic to Murmansk. Lend- Lease to the Soviet Union officially ended in September 1945. Joseph Stalin never revealed to his own people the full contributions of Lend-Lease to their country's survival, but he referred to the program at the 1945 Yalta Conference saying, "Lend-Lease is one of Franklin Roosevelt's most remarkable and vital achievements in the formation of the anti-Hitler alliance."

[edit on 27-12-2008 by SLAYER69]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^