1944-Why is the Year of 10 victories ignored?

[jobseeker2013]

interestingly I have read many experts say ussr could have gone all the way to the atlantic on their own. I am not so sure. if D-Day failed they would most certainly have. however without usa and gb as allies I wonder if there would have been a negotiated peace of some kind in russias favor. david glantz mentions the Russians were on the tail end of their reserve in manpower in early 1945 so a further prolonged conflict would have weakened the russians more. with a fully focused luwtwaffe, werchmarcht and no american supply of trucks I can see how things could have slowed for the russians. also with no possibility of a western front I can see many western europeans enlisting to help the germans to avoid soviet occupation With the British as allies only that is tough because the british would have been distracted by Japan. But the Russians could have recruited from recaptured bylorussia and ukraine. Probably still a negotiated peace in russias favor with Berlin spared

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by jobseeker2013

interestingly I have read many experts say ussr could have gone all the way to the atlantic on their own. I am not so sure. if D-Day failed they would most certainly have. however without usa and gb as allies I wonder if there would have been a negotiated peace of some kind in russias favor. david glantz mentions the Russians were on the tail end of their reserve in manpower in early 1945 so a further prolonged conflict would have weakened the russians more. with a fully focused luwtwaffe, werchmarcht and no american supply of trucks I can see how things could have slowed for the russians. also with no possibility of a western front I can see many western europeans enlisting to help the germans to avoid soviet occupation With the British as allies only that is tough because the british would have been distracted by Japan. But the Russians could have recruited from recaptured bylorussia and ukraine. Probably still a negotiated peace in russias favor with Berlin spared

If you have read Glantz, then you have heard his conclusion on this. Without Lend Lease and a western front, he (and van Creveld as well) postulated that the war would have lasted another 18-24 months ending with the same conclusion. The Germans had absolutely zero chance of defeating the Soviet Union post-1943 and in reality long before that. As you mentioned in one of your previous posts, the German economy was incapable of replacing the losses from Barbarossa or supporting more than a single offensive front after 1941. The Germans grew weaker every moment from the instant they launched Barbarossa.

The Soviets may have been willing to negotiate in 1941/42, but by 1943/44 they were "in it to win it".

[jobseeker2013]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

If you have read Glantz, then you have heard his conclusion on this. Without Lend Lease and a western front, he (and van Creveld as well) postulated that the war would have lasted another 18-24 months ending with the same conclusion. The Germans had absolutely zero chance of defeating the Soviet Union post-1943 and in reality long before that. As you mentioned in one of your previous posts, the German economy was incapable of replacing the losses from Barbarossa or supporting more than a single offensive front after 1941. The Germans grew weaker every moment from the instant they launched Barbarossa.

The Soviets may have been willing to negotiate in 1941/42, but by 1943/44 they were "in it to win it".

This is what has always confused me about Glantz. He makes a point that in early in 1945, the Soviets were reaching a point where there was starting to be a end of the line in their reserve of manpower. I think there would be some hope for a negotiated settlement because of that. This argument can fall apart if the Soviets draft from recaptured territories and former Axis allies switch sides like they did in reality. I want to backtrack and say if GB only was allied with the USSR, then the outcome would not have been a settlement.IMHO