Dear Miro: Well said and im in agreement in most of what you said. What (and i'm not trying to say anyone is wrong because these are merely only our opinions) I am also trying to give the Russians credid for what they did achieve. What is hard to swallow on this one is: The 6th Army was one of the most powerful of all German units of that size. It had many very capable Generals and officers except of course the lacky Paulus. Had Hitler had some common sense, he should have had someone of Manstein or Rommels calibre as the Fuhrer of 6th Army. I keep stressing Rommel because, also of how popular he was at that time. Had Rommel been in command of 6th Army and had disobeyed hitler by pulling back his lines (not that I think Rommel would have allowed things to deteriorate to the point that his command would be like it really was under Paulus. Rommel could have "pulled some rabbits out of the hat" more than a few times, and could have prevented such losses as that actually happened. What I like about the "What if" is that anything could have happened. You deal about seeing it as Hitler saw it, I totally agree with you on. I think it was I that made the mistake in thinking that you were talking about it through the eyes of the Generals. Had these things happened and with Rommel in command, I find it hard to think that the Germans would still have capitulated only a month or so later. Had the Germans pulled this one off, the propaganda value would be so high that it would be hard to imagine what impacts it would have. Lord knows the Russians really got a bang out of their propaganda. I'm also beginning to see that the whole story like about the sniper Zaitsev, was nothing but a pure propaganda play for the purpose of restoring the Russians sagging morale. I'm not saying that the Allies would not eventually have won the war-especially since we were the only ones with the "bomb". I hate the thought of it having been "tested" in Europe. PzJgr made an interesting point that got me started on this rant. If 4th Pz Army or 6th Army had (this is after all is said and done with to do with restoring and securing the situation on the Ost front) been sent to Normandy to bolster the position there, the fight would have been much tougher and longer for sure. The forces available there were enough to handle the situation and fling the Allies back into the sea, but of course Hitler was the only "true" tactician and only HE knew what was correct. Had he kept his fingers out of the cookie jar, its not hard to imagine the D-Day landings would have been a disaster for the Allies. Which brings me to point out that Italy would have been the most suitable place to try a second invasion of Europe. This would also have been the long way to victory-at a much higher cost and in the longer run. I could percieve that Germany could have had a possible peace without being totally devestated. This all depoends though on the fact that we would NOT have dropped the "bomb" in Europe, and if these other factors had come into being. Now to counter myself and from the Allies point of view. I know that the Allies would not settle for anything less than total capitulation of Germany. No less than "Unconditional Surrender". Now then if these things happened and these things were all in Germany's favor, and if the war had been drawned out into an extra say 2 years. It's likely that the Allied alliances could have been torn to shreads. England was almost worn to a frazzel and almost bankruped if not actually bankruped. Russia was hurting badly, and about the only ones capable of really continuing the struggle for much longer; would have been the USA. I know we could not do it all our selves and we needed the Brits and Russians. The French would have certainly been the first to "bow out", as they were just barely trustworthy as it was. What a crazy war that would have been at any rate. Sorry for such a lengthy agree and disagreement. I didn't want to sould like I was lecturing you. I guess it was another of my "mad moments" Whew.