Let’s say that “Operation Overlord” never happened . Which of course means that the Normady landing didn’t happend , how would the War go ???
Well, how do you think it would have went?
A Western Allied army all dressed up and no where to go?
What exactly are you asking? What if the US, British-Commonwealth and the assorted Free armies never went to battle on the ground with das West Heer?
if the western allies , believe that the Pacific Front , was “difficult” and sent the greatest part of the army there . I know it sounds stupid but i thought i should hear other guys opinions
i just saw the “second part” of your post . yeah that’s exactly what i am asking .
if the only enemy for the German army was the Russians .
What was actually committed to the Pacific won, so extra forces wouldn’t have altered that apart perhaps from doing it sooner.
The European forces weren’t going to be committed to the Pacific as America and Britain had agreed the ‘Germany First’ policy before the war and confirmed it repeatedly during the war.
American and British non-war strategic interests lay primarily in Europe, so that was always where their main thrust and main commitment of forces would be.
It is frequently discussed issue in the context of WWII. In my opinion there are no doubts that the German-Soviet war in Europe would have continued after May 1945. However, Germany and its ally states were sure to be defeated by the Soviets anyway. Under such circumstances all the European countries would have been liberated and turned into new republics within the USSR in accordance to the baggings of local working classes.
In fact “Operation Overlord” meant the long-term strategic defeat for the Soviet regime and prevented spreading Soviet control over the bulk of Europe. Everyone knows “who controls Europe controls the world”. At that time the Soviet system missed the last chance to gain control over Europe and thus failed to gain control over the world.
One should consider the Soviet miliary superiority over Germans during the whole war and the Soviet military performance, the extent of human and material losses the Soviet union to the extent of its miserable gainings in Europe as well as the destiny of the USSR - the full degenaration of the Soviet system and its collapse within 40 years.
The irony is that the USSR was a semi-loser of WWII just after the end of WWII and was an absolute loser in a medium-term perspective.
Lots of people consider Stalin a great political leader, say that his Soviet regime turned the USSR into a superpower. Though it was Stalin who ceded Europe to the US and thus doomed the rottened Soviet system for death. The Red Army defeated Germany and its ally states at an immense price and Stalin simply presented victory to the US and Britain. So apart from being butchers for the population of the USSR Stalin and his commies were a bunch of mere political losers and bankrupts.
Today it is clear that the only global winner of WWII is the USA that has successfully imposed its so-called democratic project on the world. The Soviets only helped the US to achieve victory by defeating Axis powers in Europe and then completely rottened and demised.
Oh Kato , you’ve come back:)
Where have you been al this time you?
I hope your were not banned?..
BTW so as i understand your point was that STalin has losed his chance to include all the Europe to he USSR when he let the Allies to open Second front in Normandy?
But as we know Stalin continiously bored both the CHurchill and Ropsewelt to start the Secong front as soon as they can.
Since 1942 he persisted the seconf front to be opened.
So in you mind he was a finished idiot - to ask allies to prevent him to capture all the Europe?
BTW did yopu hear the last news from Ukraine?
The SVR published the list of “whom bring the guilt for holodomore” 
Have you seen this list?
Of course Yankees did nothing to beat the Germany:)
Every soviet schoolchildren knew it perfectly. You as a former soviet child has adopted it very well.
The “semi-loser” USSR was so loser that accidentally has fu…ked the GErmany and its allies ALONE.
Than Uncle Sam just come here …Stalin presented him a victory:)
Nickdfresh , you shall love comride Stalin who alone defeated the alls powers and presenter you the victory in Europe:)
I get crazy when hear the kato’s logic…The “rotten USSR” ALONE win all the Axis…
If the western allies wouldn’t have attacked in Normandy, maybe big Uncle Joe would have become that pissed off that he’d declared war on everyone. He wanted this second front like crazy!
I’m personally thankful that Marshal Stalin was nice and gracious enough to leave a few German soldiers alive for the US to kill.
Very sporting of him.
There were some increasing frustrated and disgruntled Anglo-phobic American officers such as Admiral King that wanted to allocate most of the resources of the Pacific after the US lost the Anglo-American argument about whether to proceed into France in 1942 like the US Army wanted too – as much as resources would permit (not enough). Or whether to carry on the war in North Africa and then to Italy itself, as the British ultimately favored the Mediterranean strategy. But this was never a serious consideration as of a shift to the Pacific by the senior US political-military leadership. The more existential enemy was clearly the German state…
In any case, I also thought you might be asking for alternate landing venues to France such as the Balkans or Norway…
Quite correct. As we know the Soviet system has its global project - global communistic revolution. In practice it meant spreading Soviet system across the whole world. As a result of WWII the US got control over the Pacific region and much of Europe with incomparably lower losses than the the ones of the USSR. The British Empire has become totally dependent from the US during WWII. The Latin America remained under the US control. Under such conditions the global Soviet project could not be realised. The USSR was created to be the base for realising this one project and for nothing else. The sence of the USSR’s existence vanished alongside with all the prospects for the global communistic revolution as a result of WWII.
The USSR had been developing its military build-up using its vast resources and turning its population into slaves for two decades before WWII. It accumulated more than enough military power to realise its pre-war strategy of quick victory over enemy in enemy’s territory in 1941. Germany started to restore its military build-up only in the mid 1930s and had much less resources. Considering these factors as well as the first stage of Soviet-German war and the proportion of Soviet losses Stalin and his regime turn out to be criminally inefficient, incompetent lacking any political and military foresight.
I get crazy when hear the kato’s logic…The “rotten USSR” ALONE win all the Axis.
Stalin and his commies were able to turn the rottening USSR into powerful zombie but absolutely failed to use this zombie for its life and death matter - the global communistic revolution that can prolong the life of this zombie for a long period of time.
Than Uncle Sam just come here …Stalin presented him a victory:)
Nickdfresh , you shall love comride Stalin who alone defeated the alls powers and presenter you the victory in Europe:)
Few Americans love losers.
Wait on.
How did the USSR turn its population into slaves for two decades before WWII (which means that a Soviet government was in consistent control from 1921)?
If they were all slaves, who was in the armed forces?
If the Soviets “accumulated more than enough military power to realise its pre-war strategy of quick victory over enemy in enemy’s territory in 1941”, why was there so much fighting on Soviet soil after 1941?
A possible reason for the failure of the Soviet zombies to take over the world in the 1940’s might be that they were slightly occupied in dealing with some rather insistent Germans who seemed rather determined to conquer the USSR, and Russia, which tended to put the COMINTERN and its aims of global revolution on the back burner.
How is this relevant to the failure of Soviet zombies to take over the world?
Anyway, America lost in Vietnam but that hasn’t stopped national respect for their men who fell there.
Well, if we take a person, abolish his right to private property, confiscate his property, make him to work for food, prohibit him to change job on his own, prohibit to change the place of living without the consent from authorities he will become a de-facto slave.
If they were all slaves, who was in the armed forces?
Before 1861 the Moscovian tsar army was menned by serfs. The Armed Forces can be formed from slaves and even gain victories. The army in many Oriental despothies were formed this way.
If the Soviets “accumulated more than enough military power to realise its pre-war strategy of quick victory over enemy in enemy’s territory in 1941”, why was there so much fighting on Soviet soil after 1941?
The Soviets failed to convert their military superiority into quick victory. Soviet tanks could easily reach Roumanian oil-fields in a preventive strike before june 22 1941 and cut off Germans from their main source of oil. The defeat of Germany and the occupation of Europe would be matter of several weeks then.
The slave who got eh guaranted education, medical service and who can make a carier independently of his social origine…
The western ukrainians ,probably, were the slaves who kissed on ass all foreign inviders who “has come to liberate” the ukraine:)I personaly don’t feels like my ancestors were the slaves .
So you , funny boy , don’t even try to talk for ALL russians.
Before 1861 the Moscovian tsar army was menned by serfs. The Armed Forces can be formed from slaves and even gain victories. The army in many Oriental despothies were formed this way.
So why the Oriental russian despoties succesfully crushed all the Western Civilized Inviders since the Sweden and Napoleon, including your best friends poles and finally Nazis?
The Soviets failed to convert their military superiority into quick victory. Soviet tanks could easily reach Roumanian oil-fields in a preventive strike before june 22 1941 and cut off Germans from their main source of oil. The defeat of Germany and the occupation of Europe would be matter of several weeks then.
The utter false…
The Army of soviet Southern front actualy attacked the Romania 22 june but becouse of Germans crushed the whole Central front, there was a threat for them to be fully surrounded , so soviet armies had have to retreat.
The Soviet tanks couldn’t reach the romanian oil field on definition - Germans can easy cut them off and crush alrerady in the first month of war.And entire South can be lost.
Wasn’t it the case that the bulk of the Russian population didn’t have private property, or not much of it, before the October Revolution?
As you’ve mentioned 1861, what were the serfs who comprised the bulk of the Russian population before 1861? The property of their masters. How much freedom did they have to change their job or place of living? How far off being slaves were they?
By 1917, limited reforms still didn’t alter the fact that most peasants who were most of the population weren’t property owners, or not owners of any substantial property.
Nothing had changed dramatically since Marx was writing Das Kapital in the middle of the 19th century, one of the central concepts of which was that workers were denied ownership of the means of production to which they applied their labour for the benefit of the relatively small class of owners of property in various senses, including the means of production, yet the workers did not derive the benefits of their labour applied to others’ property.
How was the peasant class which had been property of its masters before 1861 reduced to slaves after the 1917 Revolution?
Fancy being made to work for food. If only Russia had opted for capitalism in 1917, then I suppose food would have been handed to the masses for free, like in America and Britain and other benevolent capitalist societies at the time, and since.
By 1941, any surviving serfs from the Tsar’s army of 1861 would have been a rather ineffective opponent for the Germans, assuming they had sufficient strength to propel their wheelchairs eastwards. Also, the army and nation they served wasn’t the same one in 1941.
What has the composition of the 1861 Tsar’s army to do with Soviet performance in 1941-45?
Don’t you think that the Soviets would have won, if they could?
Why would cutting Germany off from the Romanian oil fields in mid-1941 bring it to defeat in a few weeks when Germany was at its offensive peak, but it still managed to fight on for about eight months when it was on its knees after the Soviets conquered Romania in August 1944?
Good question mate.
Indeed the bulk of people in 1917 were the destitute, without no or very few private property.
This was EXACTLY the reason why the Bolshevicks so easy recruited the peoples on their side.
“The working class has nothing to lose, except their chains” - this was most popular slogan of them in 1917. Peoples who didn’t have nothing , than fear to lose nothing…
Honestly speaking, this was a direct resault of Tsar’s rule.
The slave who got eh guaranted education, medical service and who can make a carier independently of his social origine…
Slaves received medical service as well. Who needs ill slaves? In the Roman Empire and other states there were certain proportion of brilliantly educated slaves working for their rich masters. The children or relatives of “enemies of people” could expect to make any career just because of their origin in the USSR.
You mistake a bit. They usually liked cutting throats of foreign invaders. Besides for instance in the Austrian empire Ukrainains had its autonomy, self-governemnt, regional parliament, their fraction in Empiral parliament, civil rights, they ceased to be serfs long before Russians in their “own” state and their status was incomparably higher than the status of an average Russian in their state before and even after 1918 . The funniest thing is that Russians were serfs and slaves in their own independent state Russian Empire while local jews, all sorts of foreigners from Europe, different Chechens, Circassians have never been.
So why the Oriental russian despoties succesfully crushed all the Western Civilized Inviders since the Sweden and Napoleon, including your best friends poles and finally Nazis?
My best friends Poles? You are mistaken again. They are more your friends because the status of Poles in your Russian Empire was higher than the status of Russians. Napoleon lost the campaign in Russia but he was finally defeated by the joint efforts of nearly all Europe. Besides till the moment the French logistics were able to satisfy the needs of the Napoleon’s army, the tsar army had seen one defeat after another both in Europe and in Russia. Of course as a result of logistic failure Napoleon lost his army. He can’t replenish this loss and can’t men his new army properly. He had to recruit teenagers or the old.
You forget the fact that the Russian Empire was defeated in the Crimean war by “Western Civilized Inviders” as you put it.
The utter false…
The Army of soviet Southern front actualy attacked the Romania 22 june but becouse of Germans crushed the whole Central front, there was a threat for them to be fully surrounded , so soviet armies had have to retreat.
The Soviet tanks couldn’t reach the romanian oil field on definition - Germans can easy cut them off and crush alrerady in the first month of war.And entire South can be lost.
Could you outline what you imply under the “central front”? The Soviet southern front did not attack neither Roumania nor its troops on June 22. The directive sent to Soviet troops prohibited to undertake any offensive actions against Roumania and Finland in the first days of war.
If you take a map with the state borders of the USSR of 1941 you will see that the Soviet southern front was located much more eastwards than other Soviet fronts and the advance into Roumania will help not only capture its oil-fields but straighten the Soviet-Axis front-line as well as shorten the length of it.
Could the Southern front with its 3000 tanks to succeed in such an advance against Roumania? Yes.
Did the USSR have the military power to stop the Axis near its borders in the fisrt days of war. Yes, more than enough. It had serious military superiority over the enemy even without any mobilization.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Великая_Отечественная_война
Доктор исторических наук, старший научный сотрудник Всероссийского НИИ документоведения и архивного дела Михаил Мельтюхов в своей 600-страничной монографии «Упущенный шанс Сталина. Советский Союз и борьба за Европу: 1939—1941» в таблице 47 приводит следующее соотношение сил на восточном фронте на утро 22 июня 1941 года:
Дивизии 1,1:1
Личный состав 1:1,3
Орудия и минометы 1,4:1
Танки и штурмовые орудия 3,8:1
Самолеты 2,2:1
In more detail here: