WW2 "What if?"

[Subal das]

I think, it was not possible for Japan because of logistical problems. Japan do not have an oil. If Japan in any way launched some kind of attack in 1941. Hitler may be able to complete blitz crig and take Moscow. In this case Russians still can use Ural and keep fighting. IMO outcome will remains the same. One of the major factor which possibly may have had decisive influence on out come was Hitler's plans for nuclear bomb. But after H3O plant been destroyed in Norway, the whole program been ruined. Russians was fighting alone for almost 3 years, but without US support they most probably was not be able to succeed that much. US support to Russia was huge, starting from food and ending in airplanes.

[xl_target]

US support to Russia was huge, starting from food and ending in airplanes.

Yes thank you, Subal, that is what I mean about the tremendous scale of US support to its allies.
Most people do not know much about the Murmansk and Arkhangelsk convoys. Huge convoys of food, arms, artillery, tanks, vehicles, aircraft, etc were shipped to the Russians till their manufacturing capabilities geared up enough to meet the demand. Many of these convoys were made in terrible weather conditions at great risk by US ships. The stories of these convoys are gripping and just leave you shaking your head at what those sailors endured. There were 78 convoys from 1941 through the summer of 1944.

While the Russians did make some decent fighter aircraft like the Yak-7, Yak-9, Lavochkin La-5 and the La-7, early in the war their front line fighter aircraft were outclassed by German fighter aircraft. The Russians loved the Bell P39 Airacobra that was shipped to them in large numbers. The P39 was unusual in that it was a mid engined aircraft. It had as its main armament a 37 mm cannon that was devastating when it hit. This cannon fired through the hub of the airscrew but it had a relatively low rate of fire and a limited amount of ammunition. It also had two .50 cal Brownings mounted in the nose and several (depending on variant).30 cal Brownings mounted in the wings.The P39 and it previous variant, the P400 were turned down by some other allied airforces as it lacked a decent supercharger and couldn't perform well at high altitudes. It was perfect for the Eastern front. The Russian Air Force used it very successfully.
The P-39 has the highest total number of individual victories attributed to any U.S. fighter type (not kill ratio).
A total of 4,719 P-39s were sent to the Russians but that is a small percentage of what else was shipped to the Russians.


image from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:06101 ... 4P-022.jpg


Image from here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P-39_ ... -06-15.jpg

[hvj1]

Hello XL
With the benefit of hindsight it would be very easy to declare that it would have been impossible for Germay-Japan to invade the US mainland. A few decisive battles and critical decisons, rendered both Germany and Japan quite ineffective.

1. The Battle of Britain, proved to be a very crucial turning point, Germany lost the Battle of Britain, even though, they had the British RAF almost down on their knees, with the Luftwaffe policy of bombing airfields and factories. At one point of time, the number of aircraft and pilots were insufficient to take on the waves of luftwaffe bombers. The sudden shift of policy by Hitler, to Bomb London and other cities, gave the RAF breathing space to recover and stage a magnificent turnaround.

2. The next turning point came when, General Montgomery defeated the Afrika Corps, starting with a victory at El Aleiman. This prevented Germany from capturing the Suez Canal and getting a hold on the regions Oil Supply.

3. Operation Barbarrosa, the opening of the Eastern Front by Germany, with an attack on Russia by Gen Von Paulus 6th Army. Failing to take lessons from Napoleon's defeat, Hitler (megalomaniac that he was) pressed on. The Russian winter and the spirit of the Russians did the rest.

Japan:
The Japanese were already at war with the Chinese, since 1931. It became a full blown war in 1937. Japan's intentions of dominating China both militarily and for natural resources also eyed East indies and Malay for the same purpose. This drew the US into the conflict though indirectly. US imposed an embargo on Japan. Fearing further interference from the US, Japan, which at that point of time was politically heavily influenced by the military, launched the attack on Pearl Harbour.

1. Admiral Nagumo, refused a third wave attack by his aircrafts, which would have destroyed the docks, the repair and maintenance areas. Initially Yamamoto, who had conceived the Pearl Harbour battle, agreed with Nagumo's decision. He was to rue it later, since the Americans bounced back quickly. Had the third wave succeeded, the US would have been setback by at least two years.

2. Finally logisticswise, it was indeed foolish to "wake up a sleeping giant'.

Regards

[timmy]

The trouble with the P39 was tungsten -- or the lack of it!

The P39 was designed to the same specification for an "interceptor" that was also the basis for the P38: over 360 mph and climb to 20,000 in 6 minutes, IIRC.

Kelly Johnson at Lockheed decided to use two Allisons in the twin-boom Lightning, while Bell took the opposite approach: They used one Allison and sought to keep weight to an absolute minimum. The mid-engine used the wing spar as the engine mount, thus saving a lot of the weight needed for a conventional mount cantilevered off of the firewall. Then, by using the space normally used by the engine for a nosewheel, the weight of the tail could be reduced, because it didn't need to be that strong. In addition, mounting the heavy engine in the center of the plane kept down polar inertia: it is harder to turn something with the weights at the end of the aircraft than when most of the weight is in the center. This is the same concept that mandates a midships engine in a high performance car.

The trouble was, Allison had not put a lot of research into supercharging, as did Rolls-Royce. In fact, the Allison was a tougher engine than the Merlin, had better port layout for better breathing, and ultimately a higher performance possibility. This was seen when these V12 engines were used in unlimited hydroplane boat racing. The key to Rolls-Royce performance was their mastery of two stage supercharging.

The Allison could do just as much if it received the turbocharger that it was intended to have. This is why the high altitude performance of the P39 and the P40 was so poor: They didn't have the turbocharger they were supposed to have.

Turbocharging was mainly an American strength. Dr Sanford Moss of General Electric had been doing research on the top of Pike's Peak outside of Colorado Springs, Colorado (over 14,000 feet high) since the end of WW1 on turbocharging. All of the major US heavy bombers: the B17, B24, and B29 (as well as the B29's backup, the B32) were equipped with turbochargers, resulting in excellent high altitude performance.

The problems with the P39 (and also the P40) and their lack of turbochargers was due to the USA's lack of a sufficient tungsten supply, which was mainly found in Germany. The US Army Airforce was dominated by the idea of daylight precision bombing, and therefore, bombers got the priority for turbochargers, which required tungsten steel in their turbines to withstand the high exhaust heat, and there was not enough tungsten to equip all of the US aircraft with the turbos.

So, the only fighters to get turbochargers were the P38 Lightning and the P47 Thunderbolt.

Should you get into a discussion with someone who makes disparaging comments about the high altitude performance of Allison V1710, you need only point them to the P38 Lightning and ask why that aircraft had such excellent performance for its day. The difference was the turbochargers the Lightning's engines were equipped with. Had the P39 been turbocharged, it too would have had great high altitude performance.

Regarding Lend Lease delivered via the "Murmansk Run," there's no doubt that the Red Army profited greatly from Lend Lease aid they received, and they received a lot of it: In 1943, for example, the amount of Lend Lease the Soviets received equalled 20% of their own war production. Of course, the USA here had taken a page from the British, who had long practiced the strategy of supplying gold and munitions to surrogates who fought for them on the Continent: it was a worthwhile investment!

As xl notes, there were 78 convoys that made the "Murmansk Run," but of these, 36 were return convoys. 42 convoys were the ones taking Lend Lease to the Soviet Union from the Western Allies. The early convoys shipped material that the Soviet Union didn't need or couldn't use, such as British Army greatcoats (as useful as the German ones!) and British tanks, which were notoriously slow and were not effective on the Eastern Front. Then, in July 1942, the Germans attacked Convoy PQ17, which they savagely mauled. This was the worst defeat on the Murmansk Run during the entire war, and convoys were suspended until September. When convoys were resumed, only 4 more were completed to the Soviet Union in 1942.

However, saying the Soviet Union got a lot of Lend Lease and noting that they were able to use that Lend Lease to greatly increase their war-making capability against Nazi Germany is one thing -- and true! But saying that they could not have won the War without that Lend Lease is quite a different thing. The issue here is that Lend Lease did not arrive in significant amounts until 1943, and by that time, the Soviet Union had already turned the tide at Stalingrad. There's no doubt that the Red Army continued to suffer setbacks after Stalingrad, but the Germans were on the defensive after that battle: Stalingrad is normally (and correctly, I think) looked at as the turning of the tide by the Soviet Union against Germany, just as Midway is looked at as the turning of the tide by the USA against Japan.

If you read that very interesting book, Khrushchev Remembers, you'll find a very interesting and telling comment about this: Khrushchev complained that, in the 50s, too much of the Red Army's military paraphernalia was still being towed through Red Square in their May Day festivities by Lend Lease trucks, which he found embarrassing.

[xl_target]

More about aid to Russia.

Keep in mind that the Artic convoys weren't the only methods used to supply material to the Russians during WW2
Other routes were the Persian Route and the Pacific Route. The Persian route was through Iran and into Azerbaijan.
The Pacific route was from US west coast ports, through Vladivostok and then on the Trans Siberian railway.
Lend Lease from the US to Russia started Oct 1, 1941 and ended Sept 20, 1945.
A total of 175.5 million long tons (178.3 million metric tonnes) of US aid were delivered to the Russians.

The Allied supply efforts were enormous. The Americans alone delivered 175.5 million long tons (178.3 million metric tonnes) to the Soviets during the war, via numerous routes, including Arctic convoys of World War II to the ports of Murmansk and Archangelsk. Also, Soviet shipping carried supplies from the west coast of the United States and Canada to Vladivostok in the Far East, since the Soviet Union was not at war with Japan at that time (not until August 1945). The Persian Corridor was the route for 4,159,117 long tons (4,225,858 metric tonnes) of this cargo. However, this was not the only American contribution via the Persian Corridor - and now to mention the contributions of all the other Allies like Great Britain, British India, South Africa, British East Africa, Australia, Bahrain and numerous other nations, colonies, and protectorates of the Allied nations. All told, about 7,900,000 long tons (8,000,000 metric tonnes) of shipborne cargo from Allied sources were unloaded in the Corridor, most of it bound for Russia - but some of it for British forces under the Middle East Command, or for the Iranian economy, which was sustaining the influx of tens of thousands of foreign troops and Polish refugees. Also, supplies were needed for the development of new transportation and logistics facilities in Persia and in the Soviet Union. The tonnage figure does not include transfers of warplanes via Persia, nor cargo delivered by air, which amounted to several millions of tons more

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor

Timmy brings up the point: Could the Russians have won the war without Lend Lease?
Its hard to say. If the Germans hadn't stopped to reduce Stalingrad; if they had just bypassed it and continued to Moscow, could they have taken it? If they had taken Moscow, would the outcome have been different? Stalingrad, the winter of 1942-1943, among other things gave the Russians desperately needed time to breathe and build up their strength. Another point to consider, because they had it,the Russians spent their air resources like water. What if they had run out of air resources before their production ramped up? If the Russian airforce had become ineffective due to the lack of aircraft, would the outcome of several battles, or whole theaters, have changed? Lend Lease aircraft certainly helped keep the V.V.S operational.


Re: Stalingrad and apres Stalingrad

Stalingrad was a huge, one could almost say fatal, mistake for Germany. If Hitler had let his generals prosecute the war, Stalingrad would have never happened. If Stalingrad would have been bypassed initially, leaving it to wither on the vine, things might have turned out differently. Hitler insisted on taking Stalingrad but with weather conditions worsening and the inability of the Luftwaffe to keep the sixth army supplied, the inevitable happened and the sixth army was lost. Stalingrad was the start of the rot but if the Germans had won the Battle of Kursk, it would have set the Russians back seriously.

The Germans still had one ace up their sleeve and they played it during the battle of Kursk. Kursk was both the largest series of armored clashes and the costliest single day of aerial warfare in history. The deck, however was stacked to the Russians advantage as the Russians had several months prior knowledge of the Operation and were able to build a defense in depth. This was the last strategic Offensive for the Germans and gave the initiative to the Red Army.

It can be said that the Germans never recovered from the Battle of Kursk and after it, the end on the Eastern front was inevitable.

[essdee1972]

Holy smoke, gentlemen!!! What a post!! And to think I was unable to log on for almost a week!!! (Well I did read about half of Anthony Beevor's D-Day, so not a complete waste of time!)

While on Lend-Lease, a word about the gallant Navy (USN, RN, MM) which actually shipped the stuff, and escorted the merchantmen. Apart from Maclean's fictional HMS Ulysses (IMHO, his best work), and a few "diary note" type articles in soldiers' anthologies, I have not been able to get much factual data on that part of the War, esp first person accounts. Can someone help?

The Germans' biggest disadvantage, IMHO, was in the leadership at the top. Not only extreme rightism, but also cronyism (Goering, for example), insanity (Adolf himself), and many other factors which should never be present in any leadership team, totally destroyed them.

Also, on the US industrial might, in an anthology called "No End Save Victory" (edited, as far as I remember, by Anthony Beevor), there is a piece by a Japanese poet, about the day they declared War, and the Imperial proclamation was read out. He says, to the effect - what have we done? All the best cars, trucks, we have are Fords and General Motors, our armies in China (Manchuria) are fighting in those trucks......... So, the strategic mistake - of allowing hawks to rule national policy! Even after being bloody-nosed by Zhukov in Mongolia, the Japanese did not realise, or did not want to realise, that a modern army was a different cuppa from the ill-armed, ill-led, ill-everything Chinese (not to say that Zhukov was a modernist, not with his cannon fodder tactics, but more about the equipment and deployments). Probably the "face" centric culture had something to do? Any ideas?

I would agree that the sheer industrial capacity of the USA, (and later the USSR) plus the huge manpower reserves of the latter would make any, repeat any, effort worthless. Even the nuke option. USA, with its massive resources, still had only a tiny number (4 or 5 or 6, I forget) by the time they lanuched them. No stretch of the imagination or "what if" scenario could give the Germans more than one or two. And what did Stalin care if a couple of his cities were wiped off the map? And of course, the German nuke programme was probably put paid to with the gallant raids by British-trained Norwegian Commandos on the Norsk heavy water plant. Plus many of the best nuclear scientists being Jewish, were either in the West (USA) or in Dachau / Auschwitz.

Whatever be the result (and thanks to God and the Americans, we were spared further "world dominating" megalomaniacs), no denying that all sides, all armies, all countries, sacrificed and suffered hugely. Millions of brave men died - and all the satisfy the whims of a few people who should probably have been aborted before birth. As the Auschwitz Holocaust Museum has it - "Never Again".

Anybody has the old BBC series on WW2 (last time I saw it, it was on videotape)? Rewatch the one called "Remember".

Cheers!

[timmy]

Anybody has the old BBC series on WW2

Yes, that is the one narrated by Laurence Olivier called "The World at War." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_at_War)

It still stands up well, IMO. There are many others out now, but this is one that's quite worthwhile. Another good one is the BBC series "Battlefield" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_(TV_series)). I do not have the 12 episodes for the Vietnam War, but the others on WW2 are pretty good.

[hamiclar01]

Revisionism is very popular and Political Correctness is almost a religion.

The rest of the world revising history making it politically correct? How amusing!

Most people here have seen “The Great Escape”. Those who have read Paul Brickhill’s book, or delved deep into the actual event, will notice there was no American in the actual story, far less one who did a motorcycle stunt across the Swiss lines.

I am not going to go into detail of how a great white American hunter called Remington is surgically transplanted in the film version of Patterson’s Tsavo account.

U 571, the rich man’s Das Boot, has Americans running a U boat dodging a German destroyer in the Atlantic!!!

I tried to follow a discovery channel CGI special on Dogfights. Their world war one episode, was not about Werner Voss’s last action,or Mannock or Ball. It was an obscure dogfight by Rickenbacer.

At the 50th anniversary of VE day in London, the then British PM thanked the Americans for their help. He did not mention the Russians or any of the Commonwealth.

You yourself refer to a hard earned Allied victory, over a determined opponent as “Ass kicking”. A bit like Pyrrhus telling the Romans: I kicked your ass, though I lost most of my army doing so.

And then we wonder why the world is not taking America seriously!!

I think the rest of the world has now had enough of history with American colours. Hence their distrust. History books/films/TV written by victors have run their course. There is better access to information for everyone, and people, tired of seeing John Wayne charges and Jerry Bruckheimer dialogues (“Go!Go!Go!Go!”), want to know the truth. After decades of revising history themselves, Americans should be the last people to whinge as the world wakes up to a necessary and inevitable duty...to expunge the Steve McQueens and Remingtons and the kick ass Go!Go!Go!Go!

[xl_target]

Hamiclar, The truth is there if you want to find it. Looking to Hollywood for the truth isn't going to get you anywhere.

Holy smoke, gentlemen!!! What a post!! And to think I was unable to log on for almost a week!!! (Well I did read about half of Anthony Beevor's D-Day, so not a complete waste of time!)

Hey, this was all your idea.

[timmy]

I don't think that searching for historical truth in movies is ever a good idea. Movies often don't bear a good resemblance to novels they are lifted from, in the case of movies that are based on fiction. In this latter case, a movie only has 2 or 3 hours to tell a story and develop characters, where a book is not limited by such time constraints, leading to "short cuts" and, in the case of representing historical facts, "amplifying" events and combining characters for dramatic purposes. I don't see how this can be helped.

I cannot say that I have not complained about the way facts are handled in some movies -- I do that often enough with factual history books! However, for myself, when I'm seeking to understand historical events, I prefer to base my research on proper scholarship, backed by comprehensive footnote references and bibliographies.

Some of my most favorite movies of all time are historical, and even then, they simply are not historically correct. For instance, my second most favorite movie of all is Lawrence of Arabia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_of_Arabia_(film) -- it certainly could be looked at as a historical movie made by the British (the "winner") and it is certainly not historically accurate in some important respects, but it still is a most wonderful movie, a real work of art, and it will always remain that for me.

Another historical movie made by the "winners" that is in my top 10 most favorite movies of all is Zulu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_(film). It certainly isn't historically correct, either, but even after I researched the Battle of Rorke's Drift and the Zulu War of 1879, learning about how inaccurate the film was, it still did not loose it's ability to delight and entertain me.

The British film, The Dam Busters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dam_Busters_(film) is a great film -- like so many of the British war films of the 40s and 50s, it is compelling, well done, and has great acting, but it is not historically accurate, either.

The film Mrs. Miniver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._Miniver_(film) is a superb film and an academy award winning film, as well. It has great acting by Greer Garson and Walter Pidgeon and was highly acclaimed in its day by both British and Americans, but alas, it isn't historically accurate, either. But I don't watch it to be educated, I watch it to be entertained.

My point here is not to justify American war films when they slant historical interpretation or play fast with the facts. This, I think, is the trait of any nationality or group that's making films for entertainment. There are some that do such injustice to history that I will not watch them, either. However, I tend to think that films are an entertainment medium, and even TV documentaries still fall in that category, partially. They are not referenced with footnotes and bibliographies, either, and in my opinion are not to be relied upon

But if you would like British film entertainment (as opposed to education), along with the four films I mentioned above, here are some other British war films that I would recommend to anyone who likes watching WW2 war films. They are roughly arranged from the better ones first, in my opinion. Of course, none of them are totally accurate, but they are great entertainment. I am only going to post Wikipedia links, but the titles are obvious in the urls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge ... River_Kwai

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cruel_Sea_(film) -- this is fiction, but a very realistic and superb war movie, none the less

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Never_Was -- from a historical deception of the nazis about the D Day invasion site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_(film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle ... ate_(film) -- about the destruction of the German pocket battleship Graf Spee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sea_Wolves -- British destruction of German spy ring/transmitting station in Goa Harbor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heroes_of_Telemark -- about the destruction of Norwegian heavy water meant for nazi atom bomb development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sink_the_Bismarck!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reach_for_the_Sky -- very good story about Douglas Bader, who flew in the Battle of Britain with artificial legs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colditz_Story

Here are some fictional accounts that you may find interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eagle_Has_Landed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossbow_(film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Eagles_Dare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Dive_at_Dawn

[xl_target]

To add to Timmy's list are some of my WW2 favorites:
The Guns of Navarone
The Longest Day
The Wild Geese (many scenes from India here)
Kelly's Heroes
Raid on Rommell
re-runs from the old TV show of the Black Sheep Squadron. I wish someone would make a boxed set and sell this sometime.


The Flying Tigers (1942).
This one is kind of cheesy but it's still fun. I love anything Flying Tigers. I had the good fortune to shake the hands of four former Flying Tigers at an airshow a few years ago. Unfortunately, I messed up and did not bring the wing of my large scale P40 for them to sign. I did, however, get four former "Black Sheep" to sign a pen and ink drawing of Pappy Boyington's Corsair.

At the same airshow, I did get to chat with and shake the hand of (former US Senator and former Presidential Candidate) George McGovern and have him sign my copy of "The Wild Blue". Unfortunately, most of those guys have passed on now. Mr McGovern died a couple of years after I met him.
The Wild Blue features the wartime exploits of a then twenty-two year old McGovern as he trained for and then piloted a B-24 in combat.

[timmy]

XL: Those are great movies, too! I especially like The Longest Day in your list.

I also like The Flying Tigers. Sure, it is corny, but the point I think many miss when they reject the movie on that basis is that it reflects the culture at that time. In other words, when it came out, it wasn't so corny -- people were in the middle of a war and they were touched by a lot of the stuff we now call corny. I will guarantee you, 50 or 60 years from now, a lot of the post-9/11 stuff that has come out of Hollywood over the last 10 years will get much more derision and howling hoots of disbelief than anything we're now watching from the WW2 era. IMO, part of the point of those movies is to see the way people thought at that time by considering what the writers, directors, and actors presented to resonate with the viewers.

An interesting piece of trivia about The Flying Tigers is that most of those P-40s were mock ups. You can pick the phonies out by noting the three supposed "gun bulges" on the cowls over the engines. These were canvas mockups that just buzzed around on the ground and didn't fly. Watch in some of them when the pilot gets out of the cockpit, and you'll see that the cockpit proportions are not right, either. The gun bulges were there to conceal the automobile engines that were used to fan the fake planes around the airfield.

What I've always tried to figure out, however, is what the passenger plane is that Woody and Pappy fly off at the end of the movie. I have beat a lot of bushes over that issue, and still can't find anything that fits that picture!

John Wayne made a lot of war movies. I think my favorite one is John Ford's They Were Expendable, which, while sentimental, does not pull too many punches about the price that had to be paid. This movie is a fictional account of PT boats in the Philippines and is based, in part, on the true story of MacArthur's escape from Corregidor by the PT boats of Lt John Bulkeley, who was awarded the Medal of Honor.

In my list, I did leave out A Bridge Too Far, which I liked because it wasn't afraid to face up to the controversial Market Garden operation. There are complaints about the movie and its accuracy with regard to the blame that is apportioned to various commanders. It does seem to avoid placing any blame on Monty. However, I do like the way Gene Hackman portrays Major General Gen. Stanisław Sosabowski. Many times, the British tend to downplay the very shabby treatment given to Polish forces that fought under their command (In fact, when one considers the "so much owed by so many to so few" -- Churchill's famous words about the fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain, few people know that the Polish 303 Squadron was the highest scoring unit of that Battle, or that Polish pilots -- supposedly and falsely said to have been destroyed in the first few days of the Blitzkrieg of September 1939 -- comprised 8% of RAF pilot strength at that time. Czechs and other foreign pilots meant that 12% of the RAF's fighter pilots were foreign.) The shabby treatment was that, after the War was over, Clement Attlee's government, wishing to curry favor with Stalin, refused to allow Polish forces to march in the Victory Parade held in London. Every other nation was represented -- from Fiji on up -- but no Poles marched in that parade. So the fact that Attenborough was willing to show this other sad chapter was something I appreciated.

Von Ryan's Express is another movie that comes to mind.

And I really do like The Great Escape. Sure, there was no American, but then again, the Germans didn't use Triumph 650s, either. I still like watching Steve McQueen doing his own stunts on that bike!

Both of the famous biographical movies, Patton and MacArthur, I like. There are aspects of both men's lives that are left out, and they are dramatic interpretations, for sure. I think that the MacArthur movie suffers most in this respect, because if it could have covered his history from his father winning the Medal of Honor at 18 for his actions at Missionary Ridge during the Civil War, his actions in New Mexico in the Native American campaigns, when MacArthur was born, MacArthur's actions during the Vera Cruz operations in 1914 (where he was denied the Medal of Honor because of politics) and as the USA's most decorated soldier of WW1, his leadership of West Point and the US Olympic Team, and his socialite life and marriage. Also, there's his actions against the Bonus Marchers during the Hoover Administration, and his fight with FDR as Army Chief of Staff to preserve the Army's core fighting strength during the depression. A complex man.

Regarding Patton, my Dad fought under him in Africa and Sicily and had little use for him, however he was a very colorful character and had some noteworthy battlefield successes, as well.

Both movies have superb acting and are a joy to watch from the movie aspect, alone.

But most of all -- that picture of George McGovern is very cool. You may remember that he ran for president in 1972, and did so on a platform that was against the Vietnam War, which was raging at the time. Many very horrible things were said about McGovern at that time because of his views. They did not even spare his daughter -- she died of a drug overdose, but I believe McGovern named his B-24 after her during the war (I could be wrong about this). I did not realize until years later that McGovern was a real-life war hero and a man of accomplishment. That is very shabby treatment, as well.

I am going to get that Ambrose book and read it -- thanks for the tip!

[TwoRivers]

Interesting topic. Just would like to point out, that Operation Barbarossa, the initial invasion of Russia, and the diversion of Gen. Paulus' Sixth Army to Stalingrad, are two different events. Stalingrad had nothing to do with the failure to take Moscow. Just consider the time, and look at the map. Now, if Paulus had not been the "Cunctator", and had broken out of the encirclement, against Hitler's orders,...
If Hitler had not postponed Barbarossa, and had gotten to Moscow before winter set in; and the Wehrmacht had had winter uniforms and equipment before Moscow in 1941...
If Hitler had not stopped the German advance at Dunkirk, and so let the British escape; and then had followed up with an invasion...
If Hitler had not broken off the battle of Kursk before a decision was reached, in order to transfer troops to the west because of the allied invasion of Sicily...
Or, going back to WW1, if Gen. Kluge hadn't stopped at the Marne, being too far ahead, and so given the French a chance to rally...
The point, the options for alternate histories are really endless; and a different decision by any actor, at any stage, could have altered history. But one point remains, American intervention was the decisive factor for the outcome. And causative for WW2.

[timmy]

...the initial invasion of Russia, and the diversion of Gen. Paulus' Sixth Army to Stalingrad, are two different events. Stalingrad had nothing to do with the failure to take Moscow.

This is my understanding of events, as well.

...if Paulus had not been the "Cunctator", and had broken out of the encirclement, against Hitler's orders...

I think that this alternative history would have made a difference in the way that things worked out (longer war), but not in the final results. Hitler's conclusions from Soviet failures in the war with Finland, combined with his own crackpot racial notions, made Barbarossa his own "bridge too far," IMO.

If Hitler had not postponed Barbarossa, and had gotten to Moscow before winter set in...

This is an interesting alternative history. The detour into the Balkans to bail out Mussolini undoubtedly cost Hitler dearly. 6 weeks earlier might well have put Hitler into Moscow. However, the lesson of Napoleon's campaign showed that, vital as Moscow was, its conquest didn't mean the end of the Muscovite state by any means. That winter would have been just as cold to the Germans inside Moscow as outside, and the flanks of the front would not have profited from Moscow's fires.

...and the Wehrmacht had had winter uniforms and equipment before Moscow in 1941

Again, this observes what I mentioned earlier: that a 6 weeks head start to Barbarossa would not have altered the fact that the Soviets would not have been defeated by December 1941 (although they may well have lost Moscow), that they were ill-equipped to prosecute war during the winter, or that Zhukov's Siberian troops would still be available for a December counter-attack.

If Hitler had not stopped the German advance at Dunkirk, and so let the British escape; and then had followed up with an invasion...

Here, I don't see the alternative history changing the immediate situation. Even if the BEF was captured, I am not convinced that Churchill would have surrendered. As long as the British controlled the Channel, there is no crossing possible. This still makes, IMO, the defeat of the RAF the pivotal point in this phase of the war, and it makes Hitler's decision to shift the air war from the RAF infrastructure (a tactic that was mirrored in the Allied air war against Germany a couple of years later) to a war against cities the key decision. Hitler had a string of bungles here: Dunkirk was one, and the switch of targets during the Battle of Britain was another. I think Barbarossa was a 3rd. However, had the RAF been defeated, had Hitler invaded Britain, and had he consolidated his British conquest, the subsequent attack on the Soviet Union would really be in question at that point. Adding the resources of at least the UK, if not the Empire, behind his attack would have made things very hot for Stalin, indeed.

If Hitler had not broken off the battle of Kursk before a decision was reached, in order to transfer troops to the west because of the allied invasion of Sicily...

Here, I think that not so much difference would be observed. The issue at Kursk was, IMO, a bit similar to the one Japan faced vs. the USA at Guadalcanal: At Kursk and Guadalcanal, both the Soviet Union and the USA had the manpower and the resources to engage successfully in a battle of attrition. (Remember that, by the time of Kursk, Lend Lease was starting to get vital materiel to the Red Army. However, similar to the Japanese, the Germans couldn't afford a war of attrition at this point. Their line had already been seriously damaged by the lost of von Paulus's 6th Army earlier, and they simply didn't have the resources for such a strategy. I see Hitler's Kursk offensive like a basketball coach who has his team taking the lowest percentage shots: The Soviets had plenty of warning and time as to what was coming and where, and they made very sure that, whatever happened, lots of Germans would be killed and lots of German materiel would be lost -- something Hitler could not ultimately afford.

Or, going back to WW1, if Gen. Kluge hadn't stopped at the Marne, being too far ahead...

My take on this was that von Moltke had not heeded von Schlieffen's warning to make the Right as strong as possible. Whether this would have made a difference, I am not sure, but it certainly would have made for a closer-run thing. My understanding is that the root problem here was not that von Kluck had gotten too far ahead (he was too far ahead, but that wasn't the root cause of the German defeat at the 1st Marne), but that von Moltke's excessive weakening caused the German line to shift east in response to battle demands, opening the fatal gap. When von Kluck shifted to link up and exposed his right flank, the German offensive lost the initiative to Allied counterattacks.

I could take this a step further and note the sacrifice on the part of the Russians: That immediate attack by Rennenkampf's and Samsonov's 1st and 2nd armies, and their defeats by masterful deployments by von Hindenburg/Ludendorff/Hoffmann were a very close run thing, but the effect of the immediate Russian threat was to panic the German High Command to withdraw 3 entire corps from the Western Front. They did not arrive in time to take part in the eastern battles, but they were absent from the line of battle when the gap opened between von Kluck's 1st Army and von Bülow's 2nd Army.

So here, the prompt invasion of the huge, corrupt, and bumbling "Russian Steamroller" had every bit as much to do with Germany's defeat in the 1st Marne as did Gen. Gallieni's taxicabs. (What's usually left out of this story is that this same bumbling Russian Steamroller fatally crippled Austria-Hungary outright in the Battle of Lemberg.) This Russian sacrifice had far-reaching implications: Learning from the lesson of Russian sacrifice for the Western Allies and the good that it obtained for Russia, Stalin resolutely refused to "pull the Western Allies' chestnuts out of the fire" before WW2 and signed the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. This did not prevent calamity from befalling Stalin, however, Britain and France certainly made a repayment of that 25 year old debt in WW2.

But one point remains, American intervention was the decisive factor for the outcome.

In the 2nd Marne, there's no doubt that my Dad's old division, the 3rd "Marne" Infantry, played a key role in stopping the last German "Kaiser's Battle" in 1918, and that other units joined in with the British in plugging the gaps. Had the Americans not been there, that part of the German offensive would have played out differently, but Germany was a spent force by that time. I don't think it would have been possible for Germany to win the war, even in the absence of American troops. Now, the availability of war materiel and, more importantly, the financing of the USA that enabled Britain and France to continue to fight when their resources played out in 1915 -- that is another matter!

[TwoRivers]

Tim, I don't think that Germany could have won WW1. However, with both sides exhausted, a negotiated end to the war would have been almost a certainty, leaving things largely as they had been before the war. The American material help and financing no doubt helped greatly. But there comes a point when there are no men left to fight, both sides are exhausted; and peace, however grudgingly, must be made.