Ask me anything about WWII

[WhoIam]

[ QUOTE ]
What would have happened if the Germans had taken Stalingrad in a timely manner?

[/ QUOTE ]
Germany would have had a much better chance of defeating the USSR. An entire army was encircled and destroyed, according to wikipedia, "Axis powers suffered roughly 850,000 casualties, ¼ of their strength on the Eastern Front, as well as a huge amount of supplies and equipment." Russia most likely would still have won, but at an even greater cost (if that's possible). Germany's strategy for the invasion counted on tearing through the country as quickly as possible as the USSR's population and resources would give them an advantage in a protracted fight.

[Rev. Good Will]

What target do you think was best for Hitler to attack first (instead of all at the same time) for Operation Barbarossa; Leningrad, the Ukrane, or Moscow?

[SmileyEH]

At the start of hostilities what was the chance of axis victory would you guess? What would that chance be if the US was certain to remain neutral?

[WhoIam]

[ QUOTE ]
Why did the Allies invade the mountainous and difficult Italy?

[/ QUOTE ]
From wikipedia:
[ QUOTE ]
The primary strategic goal of the campaign was thus to force the German army to tie down units in Italy, which both sides knew was a secondary theater. With the greater Allied numerical strength, such a strategy favored the Allies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Also, Stalin was going nuts about how little the allies were doing on the ground and was putting heaving pressure on the US and Britain to open a second front. At this time, the US didn't have the resources available in Europe to invade France without sustaining ridiculous casualties.

[WhoIam]

[ QUOTE ]
My grandpa was an anti-tank driver in the Canadian military. He was in italy during the invasion for something like 3 years but he rarely talks about the experience-understandable I imagine. Can you tell me about the italian campaign and specifically the canadian role if you can as I don't know much about either?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Italian campaign was incredibly bloody as the Italians and Germans (later only the Germans) were able to take up fortified positions in the mountains (think Afghanistan today). I'm not sure about the Canadian role, but if they fought along with the Americans, there's a good section about it in one of Frank Capra's "Why we Fight" newsreels.

[WhoIam]

[ QUOTE ]
What target do you think was best for Hitler to attack first (instead of all at the same time) for Operation Barbarossa; Leningrad, the Ukrane, or Moscow?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not really sure about this. I know that the Moscow was not important from a military perspective, but Hitler insisted on it over the objections of his generals. Barbarossa likely would have succeeded were it not for the freak winter.

[dylan's alias]

[ QUOTE ]
For something slightly more upbeat, there's a movie about a Jewish kid who is sent to an elite aryan school, captured by the Russians, then recaptured by the Germans. It's supposedly based on a true story, though the name escapes me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Europa, Europa - absolutely worth seeing.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What target do you think was best for Hitler to attack first (instead of all at the same time) for Operation Barbarossa; Leningrad, the Ukrane, or Moscow?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not really sure about this. I know that the Moscow was not important from a military perspective, but Hitler insisted on it over the objections of his generals. Barbarossa likely would have succeeded were it not for the freak winter.

[/ QUOTE ]

How freakish was that winter? I know it was biatch cold from reading that there were times when if you turned off the ignition in your tank or truck, you could not turn it on -- and that the Germans would light bonfires under their vehicles to keep the engines warm enough to start.

I don't know how different engine technology is today, but my car has started at ten below.

[WhoIam]

[ QUOTE ]
At the start of hostilities what was the chance of axis victory would you guess? What would that chance be if the US was certain to remain neutral?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is hard to answer because not everyone came on board at the same time. If you mean the situation in 1939 (Germany vs. France, the UK, and Poland) I would give Germany almost 100% chance of winning. The UK would probably have forced to get out of the war and possibly cede some colonies or territories. Britain most likely would have been completely annihilated in Europe and pounded by bombers at home. Despite a big naval advantage, U-boats would probably have significantly disrupted shipping. People who have studied Operation Sealion (Germany's invasion plan for the UK) have concluded that it never would have worked. Germany simply didn't have the resources to launch a huge cross-channel invasion against a determined population, even before they became entangled in Russia.

One thing a lot of people don't realize is that Germany never wanted to fight England and France. Even after the defeat of France, Germany kept sending out peace feelers (and possibly Hess) to the UK. There's some speculation that British troops were allowed to escape at Dunkirk.

[SmileyEH]

Hm I thought that was the opposite conclusion that the author of "a world at arms" came to - that is the german intentions in regards to the UK and America.