DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**YabbaIn** · 04-21-2009, 02:05 AM

The two front war was an inevitability. The USSR was preparing to attack the Nazis, with a planned date of 1944-5. I suppose if more resources had been put into North Africa, the Brits could have been knocked out of the war sooner, but given the fact that the Nazis threw 80-90% of their military at the Soviets, I doubt they would have been able to succeed even if the USSR had their undivided attention.

So then, Hitler and Stalin planed their wars for quite the same time, as Poland was not meant to start a european war by Hitler. About north africa: I tend to share Mansteins opinion, that anything but an invasion of Britain could not even hope to be decicive and thus merely a diversion. All those coast lines would have needed garrisons - it would have eaten up half the Wehrmacht as occupation force to go through the middle east. BTW, Britain never was knocked out of the war, so ´sooner´ is out of the question. 80-90% is exgerated as well. 75-80% of the land forces where deployed in the USSR prior to Normandy and that doesnt take the subs or airplanes into account, both reducing that number further. The war in the east was, btw, unwinnable for Hitler, regardless of military strength, simply due to its intended nature of being a war of destruction - to surrender is not even an option, if extermination or siberia is what you get for it. Thus the soviets (are rather: the people in the east) would have kept on fighting, even if sticks and stones would have been all thats left to them.

04-21-2009, 02:05 AM	#15
YabbaIn Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 416 Senior Member	The two front war was an inevitability. The USSR was preparing to attack the Nazis, with a planned date of 1944-5. I suppose if more resources had been put into North Africa, the Brits could have been knocked out of the war sooner, but given the fact that the Nazis threw 80-90% of their military at the Soviets, I doubt they would have been able to succeed even if the USSR had their undivided attention. So then, Hitler and Stalin planed their wars for quite the same time, as Poland was not meant to start a european war by Hitler. About north africa: I tend to share Mansteins opinion, that anything but an invasion of Britain could not even hope to be decicive and thus merely a diversion. All those coast lines would have needed garrisons - it would have eaten up half the Wehrmacht as occupation force to go through the middle east. BTW, Britain never was knocked out of the war, so ´sooner´ is out of the question. 80-90% is exgerated as well. 75-80% of the land forces where deployed in the USSR prior to Normandy and that doesnt take the subs or airplanes into account, both reducing that number further. The war in the east was, btw, unwinnable for Hitler, regardless of military strength, simply due to its intended nature of being a war of destruction - to surrender is not even an option, if extermination or siberia is what you get for it. Thus the soviets (are rather: the people in the east) would have kept on fighting, even if sticks and stones would have been all thats left to them.
	Quote