1)It is not so that in 1941 the Russians were crushed; besides,the aim of the Germans was not to crush the Russians, it was to defeat the SUHigham wrote:Unfortunately, you are missing the point of this thread. There is no proof of anything. That’s the problem with this theorising.ljadw wrote:US supplies and British fighting had no influence on the outcome of the war in the east in 1941.Higham wrote:Given that we all agree none of us actually want to help Hitler.....
1. Defeat Britain. And only then turn on Russia.
A defeated Britain means Hitler could focus all his resources on crushing Russia. The US doesn’t enter the war in Europe. Without US supplies and without Britain fighting, Moscow falls before winter in 1941.
There were more British supplies than US supplies arriving in the east in 1941.
There is no proof that the fall of Moscow in 1941 before the winter would result in the defeat of the SU .
But in 1941, the Russians were being crushed by the Nazis. It’s only later, when US supplies are arriving en masse, that Russia is able to benefit. So, yes, I get your point. I didn’t phrase that sentence well.
And yes, given the theorising, Moscow would have probably fallen in 1941. German troops were already ivo Moscow at that point. If Britain had been subdued, Germany would have had more resources to project their power deeper into Russia.
Battle of Britain was the turning point. Stalingrad, for all its ferocity, changed nothing.
2 ) Moscow would not have fallen in the autumn/winter of 1941, and the fall of Moscow would not be important
3) It is not so that the fall of Britain would have increased the strength of the Ostheer : it is the opposite . In june 1941,when Britain was still fighting, the Germans had 152 divisions available for Barbarossa;56 other divisions were tied elsewhere .Let's imagine a defeat of Britain before june 1941,this would mean the occupation of Britain, which would claim an additional 20 divisions + LW and KM units . Thus not 152 but 132 divisions only would be available for Barbarossa .