Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Here's an interesting one, what if the Allies had invaded Normandy in 1943?

Without the invasion of Italy.

They would likely have gotten pushed out, and then Soviet Russia would have dominated Europe without an opposing Allied presence.

As we know most of the German army was in Russia and in June 1943 they were involved in the Battle of Kursk. In Normandy the defences, were in the very early stages of being built, this would had made the situation easier for the Allies to invade.

Originally posted by Koenig
As we know most of the German army was in Russia and in June 1943 they were involved in the Battle of Kursk. In Normandy the defences, were in the very early stages of being built, this would had made the situation easier for the Allies to invade.

Two million Germans went into Operation Barbarossa. The combined might of the German military was closer to 10-12 million total at this point. That's hardly "most".

Granted a lot of them were kicking their heels in occupied countries but the best of the troops were on the eastern front being bled white by Hitler's crack pot orders.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Two million Germans went into Operation Barbarossa. The combined might of the German military was closer to 10-12 million total at this point. That's hardly "most".

Correction 3.2 million German troops at the start of Barbarossa.

No, it's actually 2.6. The Russian forces numbered 3.6 million. Check your sources.

Just checked my books and some websites they all say 3 million.

Link me.

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1943: 11,280,000+

Source: http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

Aside from the three million Germans, the attacking force also included 250,000 Italian, 300,000 Romanian and several hundred thousand troops from other allied Axis nations. Arrayed against them were 4.5 million Red Army troops, including 2.3 million in the western border regions at the time of the invasion.

Source: Reference.com

So looks like you're right. Odd. Those figures are higher than that in my text book and notes.

Still, that's not even a fourth of the German forces. And they drummed up a few million more recruits in the next year or so.

Here's some

http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1941/jun41/f22jun41.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/barbarossa.html

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1761.html

http://www.paralumun.com/waroperationbarbarossa.htm

Originally posted by Janus Marius
In Wehrmacht Service*, 1943: 11,280,000+

Source: http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

Aside from the three million Germans, the attacking force also included 250,000 Italian, 300,000 Romanian and several hundred thousand troops from other allied Axis nations. Arrayed against them were 4.5 million Red Army troops, including 2.3 million in the western border regions at the time of the invasion.

Source: Reference.com

So looks like you're right. Odd. Those figures are higher than that in my text book and notes.

Still, that's not even a fourth of the German forces. And they drummed up a few million more recruits in the next year or so.


Hey you got me panicking for a moment.

lol... I had faulty info. Not sure where I got it from, aside from a textbook estimate, which is off. Fairly recent textbook too, which is odd.

Are that sucks write a letter to the author, and ask why the text book is wrong.

I doubt they expected to be quoted for 100% accuracy.

Good point.

I shall let this question ride out for a week see what input I get on this one. Having a bit of a think about this what if, well it’s time to return to the real world how boring.

What if Captain America had never been created? Would we still have won the war?


Nah Im going to post something serious tomarrow about this. I've actually learned sme stuff last week about WWII through various intresting online atricles.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
They would likely have gotten pushed out, and then Soviet Russia would have dominated Europe without an opposing Allied presence.

I still rather hold to this. If the Allies hadn't taken Italy, they would have had to focus the bulk of their forces at the beachhead. Since the Germans wouldn't be having a bulk o their army in the Alps, they could redirect forces to stop a shore invasion. Perhaps even get some armor on the beach. However, assuming that the allies did indeed even land, they would have been hindered more than they were in real history, and the Soviets would have swallowed up Germany at least.

I found some interesting info on this, what do you folks think of it?

Interesting. So do you think an alternate land invasion in this case would be less effective than the real deal was?

Tricky to work out I am still looking in to the pros and cons on this one. I did pick up on some info which will need to be checked to confirm its facts. The info was casualty figurers; the Italian campaign was much more costly than the Normandy. Well that as I said needs to be checked, I shall come back some time next week and post my view on this one. I will admit this one I saw else where, I shall think up a new one myself for next week.

If the South gained their independence in the Civil War, do you think they would be Allies or an Axis Power in WW2???

I'm seriously on the fence about that one.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If the South gained their independence in the Civil War, do you think they would be Allies or an Axis Power in WW2???

I'm seriously on the fence about that one.

Neither. Lack of unification != overseas battle.

I'm certainly surprised the Allies didn't take more drastic measures to locate Hitler and off him. That's certainly the type of action more widely taken today.

The British planned out Operation Foxley to assassinate Hitler some time in 1944. But as the saying goes Hitler was are ally by making all those errors.

I think more important than German forces in Italy- because the Italian campaign ground to such a stalemate it probably acted as a brake on the Allies more than the Axis- I think the simpler point is that we weren't ready to take France in '43. Crossing the Channel was an incredibly difficult task and the resources were not ready.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If the South gained their independence in the Civil War, do you think they would be Allies or an Axis Power in WW2???

I'm seriously on the fence about that one.

Like Janus said neither....I doubt USA would still have been dragged/entered the war if CSA was alive and well.

OK a new one what would had happen if Japan had stayed put attacking China?

All U.S. forces would have been piled into Europe, pretty much. The war would have either ended just a few months earlier than it did, or even a year earlier.

It might be more interesting to look at the conceptual opposite of that question, and ask what would have happened if Japan had invaded Russia back in the early part of the war.

What would they gain?

A barren waste land which had no value what's so ever, thousands would suffer frostbite and hundreds dead in the winter months. And of course the Japanese would have to to face some 30 to 40 Soviet divisions.

But Japan already had form for beating Russia in the 20th Century. Losing as well, but the potential was there. And the Russian army was a pile of shit at that point.

Meanwhile, it was in moving reinforcements against the Germans that were meant to defend against a Japanese invasion that the Russians were able to save Moscow. If the Japanese had indeed attacked...

Russia would have indeed fallen.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But Japan already had form for beating Russia in the 20th Century. Losing as well, but the potential was there. And the Russian army was a pile of shit at that point.



Soviet army was far from crap when they defeated the Japanese.

No, it was crap, the Japanese simply were not on form.

We all know how crap the Soviet army was at first. We all know how they struggled to take even Finland, and how much it got totally smashed by the Germans at first.

I even specifically noted that the Japanese had lost to the Russians as well, so you simply bringing up something I had mentioned anyway makes no difference to the debate and does not address my point.

I forgot this bit of info.



As for Finland, yes that was a mess for the Soviets.

If the Germans managed to capture the oil fields of Azerbaijan, would it have helped them defeat the Russians?

Originally posted by general-pain
If the Germans managed to capture the oil fields of Azerbaijan, would it have helped them defeat the Russians?

Short answer no.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g145/Thorinn/1139865657-221.gif