soc.history.war.world-war-ii

In article ,
Tero P. Mustalahti wrote:
>David Thornley wrote:
>
>> Of course, that sort of peace would be of limited use to Germany,
>> as it would lead to large Soviet forces advancing to the 1941
>> border much faster than historically, and no real reason to expect
>> them to stop there.
>
>I don't know what you meant by that but of course a direct attack from
>movement was not a realistic option for the Soviets in such a scenario.

Nope; as you point out, it would get the Germans at least a few months'
break in the East. That would still be faster than historical, and
with less attrition to the Red Army.

Unless Hitler could make good use of the break to stop the Western
Allies, it wasn't worthwhile.

If he could have used a temporary peace to defeat the West in
Normandy, that would have been worthwhile. However, the timing
was not good for that.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-