Crazy, if Moscow was in German hands in 1942, then the Soviet command center is gone. The Russians would still have had control over resources, however they would have lost a lot of morale and a significant part of their leadership. I dont think the Soviets could have mounted any sort of offensive in that state, leaving Germany the opportunity she needs to finish the war.

__________________
"If your gonna buy the angel s**t, you might as well go for the zombie package as well."
-George Carlin

That's my point!

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

no bombing and no russian front we would be speaking deutche
with no bombing the war would have lasted longer but the same result

Ich liebe Deutsch sprechen!

Oh, and welcome to the forum Audie. Enjoy yourself!

[ 31 July 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: dasreich ]

__________________
"If your gonna buy the angel s**t, you might as well go for the zombie package as well."
-George Carlin

Well, Friedrich, you didn't mention not having a Western front; original idea here was what would happen without strategic bombing; if the entire western front was removed from the picture, then the germans would have been looking at a different picture entirely, and this thread would only be about the eastern front. Were that the case, I would certainly agre with the above statement.

And dasreich, that is a good point, but here's my issue- the russians were already demoralized! Even more, the russians had no effective command structure until late 42; Stalin's purges in the 30s and the german victories of 1941 clearly showed that the red army had no significant command and control to begin with, so what would they have lost with Moscow? If we say losing Moscow would have hurt their command structure, we have to assume that they HAD an adequate command structure. Adn barbarossa would tend to suggest otherwise...
And after taking Moscow, the germans would have been in much the same position- forced to defend a front hundreds of kilometers long, suffer through the russian weather, and deal with masses of T-34s from the urals.
Maybe the russians would not have been able to counter-attack immediately, but neither would the germans... even if they had taken moscow, we should remember how bad their logistic situation already was. The best troops cannot fight without food and ammo, the best tanks can't move without fuel...

Back to the original thread, I'd say Audie (welcome!) put it perfectly- No strategic bombing, and the war ends out the same it just takes longer.

[ 31 July 2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

Yes, crazy. But no strategic bombing means: NO WESTERN FRONT.

And I told you this a hundred times. Taking and stabilizing the Moscow front means that the Soviets cannot counter attack because they have their industry bombed and their main communication centre in the enemy's hands. But it was impossible for us to push any further than Moscow.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

As I mentioned before, without strat bombing Germany could have withstood any seaborne assault. Strat bombing gave us the overwhelming superiority in machinery and logistics necessarry to invade fortress Europe. Friedrich is right when he says:
We would have been slaughtered at Anzio (maybe even Sicily) and have been denied any viable way to hit Germany at its strong point on the coast of France. With an intact industry and rail system, Germany could have AT LEAST maintained a status quo on the eastern front and would likely have taken Moscow and denied the soviets their victory. Lets not forget, Stalin was adament about staying in Moscow, which means Stalin could likely have been killed. And I know of no soviets who could have effectively taken his place.

__________________
"If your gonna buy the angel s**t, you might as well go for the zombie package as well."
-George Carlin

That is my point and I put it in the Moscow thread. The fall of Moscow would have meant the fall of the regime and without it, without its strenght and the cohesion it provided it would have been enormously difficult for the Sovi... Russians to coordinate a devastated country to counter attack...

And when I mean no Western front I am talking about a defeated Monty and a starved Great Britain and a USA quietly in America. Without the air raids, Göring would have launched an aerial offensive along with Dönitz against Great Britain and we know what it meant.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun