Previously I suggsted the Germans should've moved their army east prior to D-Day, either to try to contain the Soviets first or just prevent their occupation of Germany in a war likely to b lost anyway. This could've been accomplished had they started by the late winter.
I have already pointed out why just abandoning the western front was a damn stupid idea to you. It clearly hasn't sunk in.
Further, you think ALL of the German troops in Western Europe could just be packed up and moved around without any kind of repurcussions or difficulty. Try this on for size: The German rail network can't move a 1/3rd of the armed forces in (if I am understanding you properly) 2 months, especially if they intend to keep using the railways to move supplies for industry and the army on the eastern front.
Unless you think the troops should just drive/walk there. In which case you have just worn out all the equipment and exhausted all of your troops, sacrificed a lot of territory without a fight and have not fundamentally changed the balance of power.
Didn't say that, but they DO have an advantage.
Well, you are basically advocating that Hitler could just elect to lose the war, without any recourse to what will happen to him if he does this.
As some Germans noted, the Russians fought harder than the French.
One of those some being me. I don't need to be reminded. Now, was Soviet (wasn't just Russians fighting, don't be lazy) resilience a result of Stalinism or something deeper?
The Red Army was still using some old equipment in 1941 but its tank etc production rates were high
Tank production took a massive hit thanks to the Soviets losing so much territory. I wasn't till late 1942 that the Soviets were really looking at using the T34 as its main battle tank.
Some old equipment is also an exaggeration. Roughly 10% of Soviet armour in 1941 was the T34 (1940 model mostly, which wasn't as good) or KV series of tanks. This was roughly 2000 tanks scattered across the entire front. The vast bulk was equal or worse than German armour.
Stalin had better prepared his country than the democracies.
Stalin, the dictator who no one could disagree with, left his troops totally unprepared for the German attack. Stalin, whose brilliant army was totally unprepared to fight even a small country like Finland, which seem have been a massive shock. Stalin, who diverted massive funds to a navy that was never finished and wouldn't have been at all useful. Stalin, who purged his officer corps and continued to victimise his commanders, particularly his general staff, once the war had begun?
Maybe it was a good thing the democracies were not prepared in this manner.
The Reich was overwhelmed, despite the barrier of the English channel, because it was vastly outnumbered and outgunned
Because it didn't go to a war economy till 1943... why? The effect on public opinion. Clearly didn't prepare his country well on a strategic level, again largely ignoring his own commanders.
In contrast, the odds were more even in 1940. The democracies had IIRC 135 divisions vs 136 German, and essentially lost in one week!
German concentrations of troops was much better, giving better superiority at the local level. Had German plans not been changed at the last minute the German army would have been slaughtered.
Besides, I thought you said the allies were unprepared, yet now you say they were equal in 1940. Which is it?
You can't assume the British army would've been adaquately larger without the channel; NATO conventional strength lagged well behind that of the Warsaw Pact later.
Quality was on the side of NATO, not to mention NATO doctrine until the 1980s revolved around the use of nuclear weapons to stop a fully Warsaw pact attack. So your example is wrong. Not to mention that a difference of geography would have changed the way the British etc. fought wars from the very dawn of time, so using an example from real history will not apply well in an reconception because the channel was removed.
You don't win elections by compelling conscription and guns before butter in peacetime
West Germany was still using conscription until the collapse of the Soviet threat, yet their government (a democratic government) didn't collapse in a screaming heap.
On the other hand the Soviets proceeded to ruin their economy by puting guns before butter.
Considering that much of the terrain was flat, lacking geographical barriers
The terrain around Stalingrad is also relatively flat yet the Germans were defeated. Meaning? Cities and towns should have been barriers. The Germans crossed a number of rivers, which should have been barriers. The forests (and yes, even the flat bits of the Soviet Union have those) were barriers. The lack of roads were a barrier.
None of these barriers mattered because of poor morale, poor decision making and lack preparation. Again: Stalin's level of preparation is not very impressive.
in part due to their foresight in relocating some industry to the Urals.
Which didn't really start until the invasion started, so not an example of preparation. Arguable the British moved their industry across an ocean, which is even smarter.
I said that dictatorship had ensured adaquate and then some preparations for war. Stalin did exactly what had to be done well before the war; he ruthlessly and rapidly industrialized and militarized the country.
The country was militarised before Stalin was leader of the country and industrialisation was not motivated by fear of war, otherwise most of the industry built would have been specifically designed to produce war material rather than tractors and machine tools.
His foresight and determination saved the slavic peoples from annihilation.
His lack of foresight despite evidence to the contrary almost lost him the war too.
Even had the USSR been fighting alone, it would've survived, and then some.
The allies were providing Stalin the raw materials that he had lost to the Axis, so I find that hard to believe. Not to mention the old trucks debate.
As for aid, it didn't amount to much prior to '43, and by then the Soviets had the upper hand.
They had the upper hand but were miles away from even looking like they would win the war. 1943 ended with the Germans still deep in Soviet territory. Allied supplies helped to mechanise Stalin's armies, allowing them to reclaim most of it in 1944.
Even in their worst defeats they took nowhere near as many casualties as the Soviets.
Strategically they tended to be more important however.
Most of their army got away at Dunkirk.
Without heavy equipment. A lot of troops didn't get away either. Add to this the fact that France was now out of the war.
The Soviets IIRC took more caualties in one battle-Stalingrad-than the US took everywhere.
Not really a recommendation of the Soviet way of war then is it?
Democracies have been pretty sensitive to casualties, and their enemies have known and tried to exploit this e.g. Vietnam; it was also Saddam's hope, albeit hopeless in the latter case. It is very hard to imagine the democracies still fighting had they suffered really big casualties like the Soviets. The Japanese knew they couldn't really win in late '44 but were hoping that high US casualties would force the US to negotiate.
The Soviets were pretty sensitive about casualties in Afghanistan too, so what have you proved? The difference is that the democracies tend to take less casualties because they approach was differently.
No, the real reason is that sacrifice is just too unpopular. Try to win an election by depriving people of cars i.e. halting car production, to build more tanks. Deficit spending is also bad for the economy but democracy ensures it's a chronic problem.
You think it is as simple as one factor? It probably shouldn't surprise me that an advocate of dictatorship has such a simplistic view of the world.
Didn't LBJ win an election based largely on his promise to take a hard line against Vietnam, which by association meant more military spending? Nixon, who proceeded to continue the war to get 'peace with honour'? George W. Bush was re-elected despite the costs of the Iraq war and potential for other wars. Abraham Lincoln won the election during the Civil War despite the costs related to that...