If the Soviets did not get involved in WW2

[Dell19]

The only reason the Japanese did not go ahead with Strike North is because in 1938, they got a taste of Soviet Military prowess, courtesy of Georgi Zhukov. This event is known as The Battle of Hahlin Gol. The Wiki article is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Halhin_Gol

The CFC thread on the subject:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=109349

 

[fing0lfin]

I prefer the official Order of Battle to any other WW2-Website. Do you know that the whole Luftwaffe altogether had only 3500 planes in June 1941, and that this number includes transports and recon planes?

The difference between planes/tanks/vehicels and machine tools is that the former are mass produced while the latter are not. As a consequence, the production of machine tools is very time-consuming and more dependent on skilled labour than on raw materials. It takes more than just a couple of months to build a new vehicle or airplane factory.

Of course we are talking about the reality - with the sole exception of the preparation and implementation of Operation Barbarossa. All other facts which are not touched by this matter stay the same. But sure, lets forget common sense, twist the facts and distort reality until you, fing0lfin, can someday, somehow come up with a scenario in which Germany defeats GB!!

Do you really don't care that

• throughout WW2 GB produced considerably more planes than Germany?
• Germany would have needed a numberical superiority of 2:1 in a second Battle of Britain (1:1.75 didn't work, remember?)?
• Germany couldn't have produced that many planes in 1940/41 even without Operation Barbarossa, as I just proved above?
• without Operation Barbarossa, GB could have increased its fighter production by several thousands by reducing bomber production?
• GB would have had a couple of thousand more planes because without Operation Barbarossa, there would have been no Lend-Lease?

Now let me introduce to some more facts that should have at least some importance even in "fing0lfins's fairy land of WW2":

• Aviation Gas. Tetraethyl to be more precise. Tetraethyl was an indispensible part of AvGas for the Luftwaffe, because without it, the octane rating of German fuel would have been too low for airplane engines. Germany actually did produce enough Tetraethyl, and had a supply of several months. However, even the training programm of a large scale increase of the Luftwaffe would have sucked dry that supply within weeks. And no, Tetraethyl plants CANNOT be build within a couple of weeks. Germay started building a third Tetraethyl plant shortly after the start of WW2, but it wasn't finished until 1944. Your usual argument (less resources for tanks, more planes instead) does NOT apply here, because tank engines didn't need Tetraethyl.
• The Royal Navy. Even with total air superiority above England, the RN would have made mincemeat out of the German invasion fleet. Why? Because not until 1943 did the Luftwaffe have torpedo planes or armour piercing shells for dive bombers. Translation for the weak minded: the Luftwaffe couldn't even put a dent into anything larger than a Destroyer until 1943. And even IF the Luftwaffe would have been a threat to the RN, the fleet would have just engaged at night, when air superiority would be completely useless.
• Bomber Command. During the Battle of Britain, Bomber Command basically sat around idle. But during an invasion, there would have been tons of targets for the British bombers: the transports in port, the transports at sea, the unloading transports, the landing zone, the German concentration area in France,...
• So now, the Luftwaffe must not only take care of the British Fighter Command, but also of the RN and Bomber Command while at the same time it has to disrupt the British ground forces and destroy the British transportation network.

Those fundamental facts are irrevocable and signicifant even in the What-If scenario we are talking about.

Learn to read. I'm arguing that the differences (e.g. moderately more planes) wouldn't have made a difference against GB. I hope you understand the difference...

Conclusion: Operation Barbarossa was not only the realization of one of Hitler's dreams (Lebensraum, destruction of Communism), but also a desperate attempt to turn the tide in WW2. GB had defeated the Wehrmacht in 1940, and Hitler and his generals knew that this defeat was decisive and irrevocable. By attacking the Soviet Union, Hitler thought he could compensate this defeat by gaining total control of the European continent, which would lead to a stalemate between Germany and Great Britain. Perhaps, several years after defeating the SU, Germany would have been able to invade GB. Unfortunately, the entrance of the US into the war destroyed this last hope, too.

As you see our sources for information are different. We don't know what is the truth.

1. If you look ar the numbers you will see that Germany outproduced GB nearly twice at the later stages of the war. As though this numbers doesn't metter in our hipotetical scenario. In it the German planes would have been much more.
2. There would not be a second battle of Britain.
3. I don't see why. Whitout op. Barbaross all would had been concentrated at the air production. Also Germany could have forcated it's production, as it did during the war in Russia.
4.GB would have no fule for it's RAF at all. Germany would had surely stormed all africa and middle east.
5.The distance between France and Britian isn't big. Do you know that the royal navy is helpless against the costal batareyas ? And Germany don't need total see control. Only to secure place for the invasion. I am sure that the kriegsmarine could do it without problem.
6.Again the distance is small. It would be hard to bomb the transports in see. And in the land, there is Anti-air deffence. The ratio would have been turned. And the British would have to spend much fighters to escort their bombers.

And in general, shortly after the German troops landed, Britain would fall with the fall of it's capital- London.

About the Barbarossa..well it was a strategic move. Hitler knew that the solviet army wasn't ready for war. And his only chance to defeat this vast country was fast and surprising blitzkrieg. But Russia turned out to be too big for Hitler's ambitions...

 

[El_Tigre]

This is insane. You just keep repeating your arguments although I proved them wrong.

As you see our sources for information are different. We don't know what is the truth.

No, you just don't want to admit that your source is wrong.

1. If you look ar the numbers you will see that Germany outproduced GB nearly twice at the later stages of the war. As though this numbers doesn't metter in our hipotetical scenario. In it the German planes would have been much more.

What did I tell you about the amount of bombers in the RAF? What about Lend-Lease? And didn't you already agree that with the appearance of the US Air Force after 1942 ("later stages of the war") in GB, any invasion plan would have been suicide?

2. There would not be a second battle of Britain.

I see. Germany would have just invaded without air superiority.

3. I don't see why. Whitout op. Barbaross all would had been concentrated at the air production. Also Germany could have forcated it's production, as it did during the war in Russia.

And as I already told you, it is not just a matter of resources.

4.GB would have no fule for it's RAF at all. Germany would had surely stormed all africa and middle east.

What did I tell you about the importance of the Middle East for the British oil production?

5.The distance between France and Britian isn't big. Do you know that the royal navy is helpless against the costal batareyas ? And Germany don't need total see control. Only to secure place for the invasion. I am sure that the kriegsmarine could do it without problem.

The Kriegsmarine against the Royal Navy? What a joke. I'm not wasting my time arguing on this matter. What are "bataereyas"? If you mean coastal batteries, what about the British "bataereyas"?

6.Again the distance is small. It would be hard to bomb the transports in see. And in the land, there is Anti-air deffence. The ratio would have been turned. And the British would have to spend much fighters to escort their bombers.

Why is it hard to bomb transports at sea? For your information, the barges the Wehrmacht would have used to invade GB didn't even have motors. They would have to be towed across the channel, with 3 knots. Sitting ducks for the RAF.
Yes, AA for the British troops.
Let me get this straight: the British Fighter Command, a good deal stronger than the Luftwaffe, has not enough fighters to escort their bombers, but the smaller Luftwaffe has?

And in general, shortly after the German troops landed, Britain would fall with the fall of it's capital- London.

The German troops wouldn't have made it to the beaches.

----------

fing0lfin, I'm tired writing detailed responses to your shabby one-line sentences, which are lacking common-sense and any coherent argumentation. Besides, you keep ignoring most of my arguments (Tetraethyl, for example), and now you even "forgot" that most of yours have already been proven wrong. Your posts just turned bizarre!

 

[Louis XXIV]

Hitler had plenty of other problems besides Barbarossa that limited his efforts.

I don't see how he could have invaded Britain. Any invasion of the island would have required far more resources than Germany had (even with the invasion of the Soviet Union). And, even if the Soviet Union had no plans to invade (which, for the purpose of discussion, we'll say they didn't, even though they probably did). They still had to be watched. Hitler can't know Stalin's plans absolutely, so he must divert some of his forces (even if they aren't as big of a diversion as he would have used against Russia).

But, if outright invasion of Britain won't work, Hitler has other options. The biggest chance of success would be to starve Britain and go after her colonies. People like to compare Hitler's failure to invade Russia to Napoleon's, but what about Napoleon's failure to disrupt Britain's colonial empire? Erwin Rommel would need to capture the Suez and enter the middle east. Would more troops have simply solved the problem? His supply lines stretched all the way across Africa and supplying additional troops would have added more difficulties. And, even if he did disrupt British oil, Britain could have gotten oil from the United States in order to keep them going. Eventually, the United States would have entered the war (their entrance had nothing to do with Barbarossa). If the smallest of footholds remained in Africa (or they could just have come from Britain), they could build up a large force to stop Rommel. It would have been a difficult battle if Germany completely focused on Africa, but the combination of Britain and the United States would have outproduced Germany and had more manpower. From there, they could push into Sicily and Italy. Maybe they wouldn't have the resources for a Normandy landing, but they could have diverted those resources to Italy.

The bottom line is that the war could have lasted a lot longer and been more bloody (for Britain and the United States, no one can say it wasn't bloody for Russia), but Germany couldn't have lasted indefinately.

 

[fing0lfin]

This is insane. You just keep repeating your arguments although I proved them wrong.


No, you just don't want to admit that your source is wrong.

What did I tell you about the amount of bombers in the RAF? What about Lend-Lease? And didn't you already agree that with the appearance of the US Air Force after 1942 ("later stages of the war") in GB, any invasion plan would have been suicide?

I see. Germany would have just invaded without air superiority.

And as I already told you, it is not just a matter of resources.

What did I tell you about the importance of the Middle East for the British oil production?

The Kriegsmarine against the Royal Navy? What a joke. I'm not wasting my time arguing on this matter. What are "bataereyas"? If you mean coastal batteries, what about the British "bataereyas"?

Why is it hard to bomb transports at sea? For your information, the barges the Wehrmacht would have used to invade GB didn't even have motors. They would have to be towed across the channel, with 3 knots. Sitting ducks for the RAF.
Yes, AA for the British troops.
Let me get this straight: the British Fighter Command, a good deal stronger than the Luftwaffe, has not enough fighters to escort their bombers, but the smaller Luftwaffe has?

The German troops wouldn't have made it to the beaches.

----------

fing0lfin, I'm tired writing detailed responses to your shabby one-line sentences, which are lacking common-sense and any coherent argumentation. Besides, you keep ignoring most of my arguments (Tetraethyl, for example), and now you even "forgot" that most of yours have already been proven wrong. Your posts just turned bizarre!

The same can be said about your arguments
1. Why is my source wrong ??? Becasue you want it to be so ??!?
2.You said that Germany couldn't produce more planes than GB !!!!! Isn't 40 000 more than 26 000 ?????!?!? And are tha American planes produced in GB ??
3.I don't say that Germnay would have produced a plane for every tank. But it's plane production would have encreased much. And if you look the numbers you will see that Germany managed to increase it's plane production with 15 000 for one year !!!
4.I don't see anything for the British oil production. Remind me please or just show me at which post you have talked about the British oil. It seems i have missed it.
5.German's fleet won't attack them. But the british one would have to.
6. Hard is , because Hitler won't phone Chruchil and tell him-'We are launching an invasion next week'.
7.I guess that the Germans still hadn't known how to build AA guns...
And why do you decided that wuftvaffe is smaller and weaker ?? Even in the real ww2 the wuftvaffe was bigger. And don't forget that you are making an hypotetical scenario, in which Germany would have much more planes. If not more produced, at least the planes from the east.

The problem of this discussion is that you try to get facts from ww2 and to use the in argument about a hypotetical ww2 scenario. May be even USSR could join the war on German side.

 

[El_Tigre]

1. Because my source is the Luftwaffe Order of Battle, and yours a Bulgarian website.

fing0lfin, so you even know what an "Order of Battle" is, and why the actual number of aircraft cannot be higher than stated in the OoB?

2. Again, for the third time: GB build thousands of 2- and 4-engines bombers instead of fighters with a single engine.

Let me tell you something about those "40.000 planes build in Germany in 1944". First, here are the "Serviceable Aircraft Strengths of the Luftwaffe on the Eve of Overlord, 31 May 44". Again, this is the official OoB of the Luftwaffe:

Spoiler :

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1063
Twin-engined fighters 151
Night fighters 572
Fighter-bombers 278
Ground-attack aircraft 352
Night harassment aircraft 305
Twin-engined bombers 840
Four-engined bombers 97
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 153
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 210
Coastal aircraft 123
Transport aircraft 719
Kampfgeschwader 200 (misc. aircraft 65
Total 4928

And here is the "Serviceable Aircraft Strengths of the Luftwaffe on 10 January 1944":

Spoiler :

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1462
Night fighters 808
Ground-attack aircraft 613
Night harassment aircraft 302
Multi-engined bombers 294
Anti-shipping aircraft 83
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 176
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 293
Coastal aircraft 60
Transport aircraft 269
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) 206
Total 4566

Have another source: "Strategy for Defeat, The Luftwaffe 1939-1945" by Williamson Murray.

Spoiler :

Don't confuse "Aircraft produced" with "Serviceable Aircraft". Now, how to explain the astonishing difference between 40.000 planes produced and 5.000 planes in service (note that the data in the pic above is not the serviceable "German Aircraft Strength", which explains the difference between the two sources.).

I cannot summarize it better than the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (bolding is mine):

"German fighter production continued to increase during the summer of 1944, and acceptances reached a peak of 3,375 in September. Although it has studied the problem with considerable care, the Survey has no clear answer as to what happened to these planes; the differences of opinion between German air generals, it might be added, are at least as great as between those who have searched for the explanation. Certainly only a minority of the planes appeared in combat. Possibly the remainder were lost in transit from factory to combat bases, destroyed on the fields, or grounded because of a shortage of gasoline or pilots. Conceivably some are part of an inflation of German production figures. The answer is not clear."

Now, do you still believe that the Luftwaffe was the largest Air Force in 1944?

Lets assume that the Luftwaffe would have been twice (not possible), or even three times as strong (unthinkable) without Operation Barbarossa, 15.000 planes. I'm still looking for the Order of Battle for the RAF in GB, but here are two tidbits for you to think about:

• The 8th US Air Fleet alone had 10,000 planes in England.
• The USAAF and the RAF covered Operation Overlord with 12.000 planes.

3. Answered above.
4. Post #40.
5. So it would be the Royal Navy against... barges?
6. Recon planes. ULTRA. Resistance. And even if the RN missed the first day of the invasion: it's a one day trip from Scapa Flow to the Channel for the RN under full steam.
7. Answered above. I cited two sources about the actual strength of the Luftwaffe. Now it's your turn to prove that the "wuftvaffe", as you keep calling it, was actually stronger than the RAF. I'm very anxious to see your sources.

Edit: Tetraethyl. I'm going to post this word until I have your response.

Tetraethyl.

 

[CaptainF]

OK I probably shouldn't over-simplify it as waste lands. I know for one it has lots of gold and in the old times, coal and even some iron. But I elaborated that it doesn't or didn't have the resource Japan needs, and there are no people to extract the resources. And all this were also compared with SE Asia.

The battle of Hahlin Gol is more of a myth. The actual Soviet and Mogolians troops outnumber Japan 2-1 with tank and plane supports. where the casualties was the reserse, Soviet suffered 2-1. Actually half of Soviet troops lost combat ability It was hardly a Soviet "victory". And if Japan actually committed full force, this kind of "victory" is even doubtable. I don't believe this can "shake the confidence of Japanese millitary"

I'm taking this from Japanese perspective. Yeah I guess If Japan actually committed a few million troops in Siberia , it might hamper Soviets evacuation to the Urals..... but I don't see any reason for Japan to do it And I think letting a million army frozen in Siberia while a world top three navy is doing pretty much nothing (or, protecting the asian island part) is not a wise move.

Anyways do you guys actually think going north is a good strategy for Japan ?

I would not say that it is a myth. The soviets achieved a decisive victory over the Japanese, with the help of the Mongolians. The objective was achieved, in that the Japanese were driven from Mongolia, they sustained heavy casualties, and their will to challenge the Red Army was eliminated. Granted, it was not a one sided victory, as the Soviets suffered many wounded soldiers (almost twice as many as Japan), but the casualties certainly did not amount to a 2-1 ratio.

I don't know if going north would be a good strategy for Japan, but it would certainly be a good strategy for the Axis powers as a whole. It would distract Soviet attention from Germany, forcing it to fight a two front war, which as we know, is a very difficult war to wage.

 

[Colonel_here]

The dominance of the skies is always needed for such an invasion. It is the planes that will drop parachutter to secure key areas in land. It is planes that would bomb and batter the shore fortifications to soften them up for the landing troops. And any transport no matter whether it moves by itlsef or is towed is a beutiful target for the airforce.
Finally if you need to stop the invasion fleet torpedo bombers will do miracles. And they don't need 4 engines to fly.
Luftwaffe failed to secure the control of the air and there the Sealion ended. And after that it was completely useless to try to gain the sky. The whole commone-wealth started to help out with troops and pilots and aircrafts. Canada I beleive output huge number itself and sent them by air to Britain.
And finally no matter how much you control the lamandsh (English Channel) with fleet it would not make much difference. Germany had to keep it ships to continue to interupt sea traffic to Britian. And the Germany navy would have more trouble manuevering with the transports around. Transports are not that maneuvarable. Plus there is not too much space to maneuver.

 

[El_Tigre]

fing0lfin, I just realized that you must have missed my post #40 altogether, because I posted #41 immediatley thereafter, and it is on a new page.

I'm sorry for having been so irritated, my apologies. I put quite some effort into my posts, and I thought you didn't really care about what I wrote.

 

[Theodorick]

Opps! Misread the question.

 

[fing0lfin]

1. Because my source is the Luftwaffe Order of Battle, and yours a Bulgarian website.

fing0lfin, so you even know what an "Order of Battle" is, and why the actual number of aircraft cannot be higher than stated in the OoB?

2. Again, for the third time: GB build thousands of 2- and 4-engines bombers instead of fighters with a single engine.

Let me tell you something about those "40.000 planes build in Germany in 1944". First, here are the "Serviceable Aircraft Strengths of the Luftwaffe on the Eve of Overlord, 31 May 44". Again, this is the official OoB of the Luftwaffe:

Spoiler :

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1063
Twin-engined fighters 151
Night fighters 572
Fighter-bombers 278
Ground-attack aircraft 352
Night harassment aircraft 305
Twin-engined bombers 840
Four-engined bombers 97
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 153
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 210
Coastal aircraft 123
Transport aircraft 719
Kampfgeschwader 200 (misc. aircraft 65
Total 4928

And here is the "Serviceable Aircraft Strengths of the Luftwaffe on 10 January 1944":

Spoiler :

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1462
Night fighters 808
Ground-attack aircraft 613
Night harassment aircraft 302
Multi-engined bombers 294
Anti-shipping aircraft 83
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 176
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 293
Coastal aircraft 60
Transport aircraft 269
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) 206
Total 4566

Have another source: "Strategy for Defeat, The Luftwaffe 1939-1945" by Williamson Murray.

Spoiler :

Don't confuse "Aircraft produced" with "Serviceable Aircraft". Now, how to explain the astonishing difference between 40.000 planes produced and 5.000 planes in service (note that the data in the pic above is not the serviceable "German Aircraft Strength", which explains the difference between the two sources.).

I cannot summarize it better than the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (bolding is mine):

"German fighter production continued to increase during the summer of 1944, and acceptances reached a peak of 3,375 in September. Although it has studied the problem with considerable care, the Survey has no clear answer as to what happened to these planes; the differences of opinion between German air generals, it might be added, are at least as great as between those who have searched for the explanation. Certainly only a minority of the planes appeared in combat. Possibly the remainder were lost in transit from factory to combat bases, destroyed on the fields, or grounded because of a shortage of gasoline or pilots. Conceivably some are part of an inflation of German production figures. The answer is not clear."

Now, do you still believe that the Luftwaffe was the largest Air Force in 1944?

Lets assume that the Luftwaffe would have been twice (not possible), or even three times as strong (unthinkable) without Operation Barbarossa, 15.000 planes. I'm still looking for the Order of Battle for the RAF in GB, but here are two tidbits for you to think about:

• The 8th US Air Fleet alone had 10,000 planes in England.
• The USAAF and the RAF covered Operation Overlord with 12.000 planes.

3. Answered above.
4. Post #40.
5. So it would be the Royal Navy against... barges?
6. Recon planes. ULTRA. Resistance. And even if the RN missed the first day of the invasion: it's a one day trip from Scapa Flow to the Channel for the RN under full steam.
7. Answered above. I cited two sources about the actual strength of the Luftwaffe. Now it's your turn to prove that the "wuftvaffe", as you keep calling it, was actually stronger than the RAF. I'm very anxious to see your sources.

Edit: Tetraethyl. I'm going to post this word until I have your response.

Tetraethyl.

My source for the most of the info was not a Bulgarian site. I have posted it somewhere above... And when the site is Bulgarian, does this means it's wrong?

Britain produced 26 000 planes when Germany produced 40 000. What does it matter if the planes were fighter or bombers ?? We are tlaking about the production. All these arguments below are....not suitable for the point of the discusion. You said that Gb outproduced Germany. I said the opposite and posted the numbers. That is all.

Well the barges won't attack the RN. The RN would try to attack the barges when they are still at port as you say. And the German costal batterias will protect the barges.
Recon planes, reastance and etc. could not tell you the excact day and hour for the invasion. They could only show that Germany is preparing for invasion.
And one day is enough for the invasion.

What about the tetraethyl ? 75% of the German recources had been used on the east front. Includeing tetraethyl. Without east front, all these tetraethyl would have been used in the west.

And about the luftwaffe and RAF. As you saw, Germany was winning before Hitler switched the strategy.

But all these doesn't really matter You see, such disscustion is just pointless. As i mentioned above it is not about what happened in ww2. There is no matter wheter tha Raf or Luftwaffe was stronger. The question is which air force would had been stronger without the war in the east. I am explaining why i think that Wuftwaffe would have been stronger and why German would have won, but you post all these tables, saying that Raf was stronger. Even if the Raf was stronger, well what does it metter in our disscusion ??

 

[Dell19]

@ Theodorick

The question of the thread is what happens if Russia doesn't join the war. Now that may have led to the USA not joining the war but its not in the scope of the thread question since its a discussion over whether two out of the three major allies could still win the war, not one on their own.

 

[El_Tigre]

But all these doesn't really matter You see, such disscustion is just pointless. As i mentioned above it is not about what happened in ww2. There is no matter wheter tha Raf or Luftwaffe was stronger. The question is which air force would had been stronger without the war in the east. I am explaining why i think that Wuftwaffe would have been stronger and why German would have won, but you post all these tables, saying that Raf was stronger. Even if the Raf was stronger, well what does it metter in our disscusion ??

All the facts I have brought up,

• the production capabilities of the GB
• the compositon and the strength of the RAF
• the German supply of Tetraethyl
• the presence of the Royal Navy
• the impact of Lend-Lease
• ...

have been fundamental and relevant facts in WW2 as it happend, in WW2 as it would have happend without Operation Barbarossa, and they would have been even relevant if Hitler decided to conquer the south pole instead!! Can you explain to me why any of the issues above is completely changed by the absence of a German-Soviet war? Why am I not allowed to make assumptions (based on facts) about such a scenario, while you can make one ridicilous claim after the other, and I have to accept it as the final truth? You keep repeating that because this is a hypothetical scenario, no fact whatsoever should be considered.

Fine, with the following sentence, I'm going to descend to your level of argumentation:

Without Operation Barbarossa, Churchill would have built a Death Star and a supporting fleet of Star Destroyers. The Luftwaffe would have been wiped out, and the war would have ended in 1941.

Now, proof me wrong!! Remember, you may not use historical facts or common sense, because, to cite you again, "well what does it metter in our disscusion ??".

I can only hope that other readers of these posts (should there be any left) found this discussion at least amusing. Maybe someone else gained from reading my posts in this thread. indeed.

 

[El_Tigre]

You see, such disscustion is just pointless.

Now that I'm going to accept as a final truth.

 

[Dell19]

Without Operation Barbarossa, Churchill would have build a Death Star and a supporting fleet of Star Destroyers. The Luftwaffe would have been wiped out, and the war would have ended in 1941.

Thats sig material.

 

[El_Tigre]

Opps! Misread the question.

Theodorick, that was a very good post, you shouldn't have deleted it. Why don't you open another thread if you still have the text?

 

[El_Tigre]

Thats sig material.

Should I cry? Should I laugh?? I don't know...

 

[fing0lfin]

All the facts I have brought up,

• the production capabilities of the GB
• the compositon and the strength of the RAF
• the German supply of Tetraethyl
• the presence of the Royal Navy
• the impact of Lend-Lease
• ...

have been fundamental and relevant facts in WW2 as it happend, in WW2 as it would have happend without Operation Barbarossa, and they would have been even relevant if Hitler decided to conquer the south pole instead!! Can you explain to me why any of the issues above is completely changed by the absence of a German-Soviet war? Why am I not allowed to make assumptions (based on facts) about such a scenario, while you can make one ridicilous claim after the other, and I have to accept it as the final truth? You keep repeating that because this is a hypothetical scenario, no fact whatsover should be considered.

Fine, with the following sentence, I'm going to descend to your level of argumentation:

Without Operation Barbarossa, Churchill would have build a Death Star and a supporting fleet of Star Destroyers. The Luftwaffe would have been wiped out, and the war would have ended in 1941.

Now, proof me wrong!! Remember, you may not use historical facts or common sense, because, to cite you again, "well what does it metter in our disscusion ??".

I can only hope that other readers of these posts (should there be any left) found this discussion at least amusing. Maybe someone else gained from reading my posts in this thread. indeed.

1.As i proved you GB production capability was smaller even with opertion Barbarossa.
2. The first days of the battle of Britain showed the strenght of RAF
3.Germany could use tetraethyl from the east front.
But let's stop here.

Did Britain spent some recources on operation Barbarossa ?? How much ??? Would they had been enouogh to build 'death star' ???? NO

Did Germany used recourceses in op. Barbarossa ??Yes. How much ?? Nearly 75% of it's total recources. Could Germany had thrown these 75% at Britain ? Yes. That's all.

According to your statements, the German force attacking Britain wouldn't have significant increased with this 75% thrown at Britain ???? It's stupid to claim such thing???
Why do you compare the whole British war effort to 20% of the Germans ?? Where would the other 75 % go ??? (5 % spent on the Africa front) ?

I propose to stop the discusiopn here. We are talking on different languages. You are just givving facts about ww2, ignoring that without op Barbarossa Germany could have used 75% more recources against Britain.

 

[Theodorick]

Theodorick, that was a very good post, you shouldn't have deleted it. Why don't you open another thread if you still have the text?

Yeah I should have kept it, and I didn't save the text. If Operation Barbarossa had never even happened at all what would have been the outcome of the war? I answered the wrong question but still I gave a good answer.

I'd join into this discussion now, but it seems somebody has already won the thread with a series of very well made arguements.

Churchhill's deathstar must have been really round.

 

[El_Tigre]

What about the tetraethyl ? 75% of the German recources had been used on the east front. Includeing tetraethyl. Without east front, all these tetraethyl would have been used in the west.

Yes, the Luftwaffe used 75 % of the Tetraethyl on the east front. However, as I have proven (and you never contested it), they used 75 % of their Tetraethyl resources that barely kept 5000 planes in the air.

Now, according to you, Hitler would have produced 40.000 planes in 1944 alone. Were does the Tetraethyl for the excess 35.000 planes come from?

Theodorick, I hear you.