ljadw wrote:That's a total illusion
Anyway, people are saying that if Germany defeat the USSR it would desmobilize part of the Heer and would improve it's production levels. However, evidence was already provided here that the Anglo-American ground contingents were larger than the ones Germany had in the East, and the Allies would have their situation improved by absence of Lend-Lease to the USSR and reduction of the strenght in the Pacific if necessary. So, by logic it seems that the Allies also would be able to do the same and keep their advantage in the air war.
I can be wrong, but I belive that Germany would not last longer if the same or probably larger destruction was inflicted in the country than the one they had suffered by '45. The cities would be in rubble and the transportation system destroyed. People often praise the Stukas as a vital tool for the Heer's advances. True, but this inferiority complex, or better, the superiority complex commonly add to Germany ignores the fact that Thunderbolts, Thypoons and other Allied types also could do ( and did) the same. Not to mention the heavy bombers. I already posted earlier: 2000 B-29s were in the Pacific by mid-1945. A B-29 could carry the bomb load of almost 3 B-17s to targets in Germany. Of course, all that I said here would depend of endless factors. I just would say that I belive that a Soviet defeat would not necessarly meant the Allies would be in a hopeless situation like historians such as Richard Overy say.