Rachel is pointing out that the Soviets did defeat the Nazis

[malthaussen]

73. I must have misstyped...

... my reference to A-Bombs was only to dismiss them as a factor, not to suggest they would have made a difference. I don't consider sea power to be as irrelevant as you appear to, and as for switching production to naval units after beating the USSR, the Germans might have done so, but they had limited shipbuilding capacity and it takes a long time to build a capital ship. I doubt they could have produced a navy sufficient to challenge the UK and US, especially when you consider the number of warships we actually never finished because the war ended. The inability of the Germans to project force would, ultimately, lead to a war of attrition, and the Germans would have had even greater problems with partisans the more territory they conquered. There are not many examples of an army being successful against determined guerilla resistance, and it is perhaps special pleading to think the German army would have been any better at the job than others, especially given the difficulties they actually had with the problem.

As for the relative strengths of the coalition and the Reich, it is disingenuous to exclude India from the equation, especially given that good use was made of Indian troops and Indian resources in the war. I think you underestimate the relative resources of the Allies without the USSR and overestimate the resources of the Reich. The biggest problem, though, is that the US capacity was virtually invulnerable, whereas German industry was subject to a continual and expensive drain due to the bombing campaign. Aye, production actually increased despite the bombing, which is irony if you like (and once Hitler decided to stop jerking around and go to a full war-time economy), but if one cites that factoid he disregards the fact that the bombing campaign did destroy a good few resources. And if the USSR had been defeated, it is reasonable to expect that the Allies would have been apt to concentrate even more on such strategy, and not try to open a ground war in 1944. We could have adopted a "Beat Japan First" strategy and then diverted to Europe, instead of vice-versa. And my contention is that the destruction of the USSR would have led to a long war of attrition, but that the Germans would not have been able to overcome the deficits in long-ranged aircraft and naval vessels to make their land power felt. Still, since it's all counter-factual, after all, we can say what we like.

One small quibble: in no way do I imply that Moscow was the capital of Russia when Napoleon took it, so your myth-busting is misplaced. The fact that Moscow was the central rail hub of the USSR is one of the factors that makes it possible that the fall of Moscow would have caused the fall of the USSR, but I think it is not wise to understimate the stubborness of Stalin or the Soviet people. The fall of Moscow would have been a huge disadvantage, certainly more so than it was when Napoleon took it (when it was basically meaningless), but it doesn't mean that the war would have necessarily ended at that time.

-- Mal