WWII: contributions by front... the economic imperative.

[Jacknola]

East Front v West Front: Is is a continuation of a discussion about the course of WWII with Professor Lokos in a now-closed line. Please consider it fact based, not meant to denigrate any of the Allies in that war.

Theses:

I. Claims the USSR fought 70-80 percent of Axis forces in WWII are historically inaccurate.

II. WWII was won by all the Allies acting in concert ... but if the USSR had faced the Axis alone, they likely would have been defeated and occupied.

III. On the other hand, if the Western Allies had faced the Axis alone, (assuming defeat of the Soviet Union), they would still ultimately have won the war, probably in 1945-46, though at a much higher cost.

My tenet is that the emphasis on Russian contribution at the expense of the contribution of the Western Allies is false history. The belief that the USSR faced 70-90 percent of Axis forces and essentually won the war, possibly originated in Soviet propaganda during the Cold War. The believe in that fact has apparently continued post-Soviet period, because of ethnocentric issues in the Russian educational system. Such ethnocentrisms are not confined to Russia.

As part of a study, over the last few years I have attempted to deconstruct the German-led Axis wartime economies, as best I could. I then assigned combat "values" to various portions of the Axis economy(s). This required ranking all economic forces and comparing ... for example ... submarine production, maintenance, crew, support, etc., to tank-vehicle and Eastern Front oriented munitions production.


I found that surprisingly, even excluding Japan, the total Axis force dedicated to the Eastern front was somewhat less than 50 percent of theoretical even its maximum in 1941-42.

Conclusion: The Soviet Union did not single-handedly win the war against the Axis, nor did they face 70-80-90 percent of the Axis forces.

The extreme casualties on the Eastern Front are not an indication of effectiveness in fighting the Axis, but a reflection of the equality of the fight. Measuring “military effectiveness” by “casualties” (for and/or against) is meaningless unless the war is truly one of manpower attrition. True effectiveness in total mobile warfare is usually reflected in LIGHT casualties... see the wars against Iraq, German attack on France, etc.

The following uses relatively commonly available gross domestic product data as a measure of the industrial capability of the major combatants over the course of the War. This data tends to track my own more rigorous statistics, thus is a simple but useful substitute. It will suffice to allow the thoughtful historian to contemplate the “what-if” on a somewhat factual basis.

WWII, a “total war,” was fought and won by national application of the total power of each country, harnessed to war-making ability. Each country’s initial war-making ability was actually a function of many factors including available manpower, training, martial spirit (elan), organization, leadership, planning, flexibility, mechanization, mobility, etc.

But more than anything else, as the war progressed, its course was decided by economic power and production. In time, the biggest industrial force won, and was always going to win absent some deux de machina.

So lets take a quick look and the comparative industrial forces in action, This chart is found in Wiki. It is simplistic but directionally it tracks my data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II)

Gross Domestic Product, Main Combatents, WWII, by year.


http://inlinethumb25.webshots.com/44312/2281276930103673033S600x600Q85.jpg (http://news.webshots.com/photo/2281276930103673033PtDGky)

http://inlinethumb18.webshots.com/36049/2808270010103673033S600x600Q85.jpg (http://news.webshots.com/photo/2808270010103673033TDuPMJ)

In mobile warfare, extreme casualties occur when the sides are relatively evenly balanced. When one side has overwhelming technology or application efficiency, the war is over quickly... see France 1940, or Iraq 1991 and 2003. In that case the war is Clauzwitzian in nature, and the power of the GDP does not begin to have an obvious effect.

But... in total war, if the initial Clauzwitzian attack by the better prepared-equipped-led armed force is blunted, the war becomes total between the industrial capacity of the two countries... It is then that another story, based of production capacity, emerges. As in the stalemeated manpower-arttrition warfare of WWI, the economic arttrition of WWII was a factor Clauzwitz did not anticipate.

From this economic imperative the bloodshed on the Eastern front begins to be understandable. Initially, in 1941, Axis committed only a portion of their force against the USSR. In GDP units it was about 320-340, against a Soviet GDP of 359. So... if the USSR could survive and turn the war into a total war struggle, based on the rough equality of "committed GDP" they would have a chance. The USSR did blunt the initial rush by terrible expenditures of life and territory.

When that happened after 1941, the USSR could, and did, commit its entire GDP to the war. Estimating German economic focus of 70 percent Eastern Front in 41, and 65-60 percent 42 and 43, allocating all of Austria, and 10 percent of France and Italy to the Eastern front in ’41-42, one can see the Eastern Front became relatively balanced once the war turned into a production race.

Now the course of the Eastern Front war becomes understandable. One can see that the “committed GDP” on the eastern front was initially relatively equal. But from 1942 on, the continual leakage of German GDP to contain and fight the West tilted the economic battlefield increasingly in favor of the USSR.

In 1941, “committed GDP,” Axis=350 including 70 percent German, USSR=359.
In 1942, “committed GDP,” Axis = 300 including 65 % German, USSR = 274 excluding lend lease.
In 1943, “committed GDP,” Axis = 270 including 60 % German, USSR = 305 excluding lend-lease.

Add a factor for the Soviet army military learning curve in use of the weapons into the equation and it can be seen that the pendulum makes an accelerated swing on the Eastern Front in favor of the USSR after mid 1943 or so.

However, if one takes the Western Allies out of the equation, the power balance of “committed GDP” on the only front still fighting, the Eastern Front becomes heavily tilted in the favor of the Axis. In 1941, 1942, 1943, the Axis could have committed their entire economic power, over twice that of the USSR. If Japan entered the war, Axis power would have been over three times that of the USSR.

Simply put, building and supporting one single submarine in the Atlantic was possibly approximately equal to fielding a regiment of 50-75 main battle tanks on the Eastern front. And with no conflict in the Mediterranean, Atlantic, etc., all the resources of the Axis could and would have been focused on the USSR. No amount of Russian sacrifice or heroism could have overcome that disadvantage.

Could the Western Allies, led by US-Britain, have won the war if the USSR had been overrun, or forced from the war in... say ... 1942-43? Well, add 50 percent of the USSR GDP to the total Axis GDP in 1943 (assuming a continual guerilla war in Russia, harsh German treatment of the Russians and corresponding reduction in production incentive).

One can see that by mid 1943, without reducing Italy’s contribution to the Axis GDP because of invasion blockade or bombing, Britain and the USA alone, excluding Canada, Australia, New Zealand, et. al., would have fielded an economic force over two times greater than the total GDP of ALL the Axis including Japan.

Thereafter, the Axis economic power would essentially have been maxed out while the Allies had the potential to grow at an almost unlimited pace... for a great many reasons.... including the fact that the centers of the Allies industrial production were unreachable.

Even if the USSR had been forced from the war in 1942-43, the War in Europe would have won by the Allies in 1945-46. The B-29 was available in large numbers in 1944 and the Atomic bomb in 1945.

That my friends in the economic imperative truth.

And to my Russian friends, everyone respects and stands in awe of the efforts and sacrifice made by the USSR during that war. The fact that two-thirds of the trucks used by the Soviets in the war, a significant portion of the air-power, locomotives, and more importantly a huge percentage of boots, clothing, chemicals, metals, etc., were given to the USSR under terms of Lend lease does not lower the accomplishment, sacrifice, or heroism.

The belief that the USSR was bearing ... what is it now... 80 percent? 90 percent? of the effort in WWII is just Soviet era, post WWII ethnocentric pride that simply does not stand up to examination of the facts.

BUT... what does stand up is that in the early years, the Soviets were fighting maybe 40 percent of Axis power by themselves, and up to 50 percent of the European Axis power for a period of time. There is considerable glory and satisfaction in that.

Some lend lease combat equipment data, does not include items such as clothing, boots, chemicals, etc.

System Allies AxisTanks and SP guns 227,235 52,345Artillery 914,682 180,141Mortars 657,318 100,000+Machineguns 4,744,484 1,058,863Military trucks 3,060,354 594,859Military aircraft total 633,072 278,795Fighter aircraft 212,459 90,684Attack aircraft 37,549 12,539Bomber aircraft 153,615 35,415Reconnaissance aircraft 7,885 13,033Transport aircraft 43,045 5,657Training aircraft 93,578 28,516Aircraft carriers 155 16Battleships 13 7Cruisers 82 15Destroyers 814 86Convoy escorts 1,102 -Submarines 422 1,336Merchant shipping tonnage 33,993,230 5,000,000+Pillboxes, bunkers (steel, concrete- uk only - 72,128,141 tonnes Estimate Concrete runways - 10,000,000 tonnes

[my name again]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

[Hast2]

Jacknola, by uising Wikipedia as a source for your "study", you fail already. Not to mention this "study" is fail by itself.

"casualties on the E.F. are irrelevant", or what did you say there ? What are you talking about ? German army was the most powerful army in the world and the BIGGEST part of it was destroyed on the E.F, also BIGGEST part "Europe Axis" resources was consumed by E.F. Sure, "GPD", "blah-blah", but the BIGGEST part of "Europe Axis" might was destroyed on the E.F., ok? Period. Maybe all those "80 %" are about "Europe Axis".

It's also foolish to underestimate the importance of Pacific Theater, for example. By defeating U.S and allies, Japan Empire could invade USSR. So U.S and allies crushed Japan Empire and USSR with some help from other allies crushed Germany in Europe. One Theater is important for another.

[Laworkerbee]

It's also foolish to underestimate the importance of Pacific Theater, for example. By defeating U.S and allies, Japan Empire could invade USSR.

After the beating then Lt. Gen Georgy Zhukov gave to the Japs in the battle of of Khalkhin Gol I don't think the Japanese wanted anymore of the Soviet Union, if anything I think they feared a Soviet offensive spearheaded by their far superior tank forces with which the Japanese were woefully prepared to meet.

[Telmar]

The extreme casualties on the Eastern Front are not an indication of effectiveness in fighting the Axis, but a reflection of the equality of the fight. Measuring “military effectiveness” by “casualties” (for and/or against) is meaningless unless the war is truly one of manpower attrition. True effectiveness in total mobile warfare is usually reflected in LIGHT casualties... see the wars against Iraq, German attack on France, etc.



I dont want to shatter your self-confidence here but some of your hypotheses are incorrect since the French casualities for may/june 1940 were on the contrary extremely high: 100 000 in 47 days.

I think the Germans had 30000 killed during the "campagne de France".

[Ordie]

If the Soviets were struggled with the single front against the NAZI's it would have been more serious if the Japanese were to have continued the fight in the Far East.

The Soviets were lucky that they had a damn good spy (Richard Sorge) in Tokyo posing as a Nazi journalist.

It was Sorge that informed Moscow that the Japanese were not going to attack the Soviet Union until:

Moscow was captured
the size of the Japanese Army was three times that of the Soviet Union's Far Eastern forces
a civil war had started in Siberia.

However, unlike the NAZI's the Japanese did not have the industrial output to for a prolonged fight. This is why the Allies placed a higher priority on the European Front rather than the Pacific and Burma-India-China.

In my opinion. It was a war on who can outproduce and deliver material to mitigate whatever losses incurred. If a German sub sank a single Liberty Ship, 10 Liberty ships would have reach their final destination.

[Indiana Jones]

I dont want to shatter your self-confidence here but some of your hypotheses are incorrect since the French casualities for may/june 1940 were on the contrary extremely high: 100 000 in 47 days.

I think the Germans had 30000 killed during the "campagne de France".
"Jacknola" certainly refers to the agressors casualties, which given the power of its adversaries, were light indeed in this case. Much of that of course can be attributed to high operational tempo of the campaign which in turn was prima facie made possible by the "Schnelle Verbände", Germanies mechanised forces.
Your casualty figures are too low, by the way- for both sides. German total casualties (Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine): Ballpark 50000 KIA+MIA plus roughly 120 000 WIA.
The Allies suffered disproportionately, the Armée de Terre alone suffering in excess of 120 000 dead and a multitude of POWs, etc.

Jack, I will adress your post tomorrow if I find the time.
Best regards,
IJ.

[manberries]

"Western Allies would of eventually won." That is so insane I don't even know what to say about it. The under supplied and small Afrika Korps gave the western allies enough trouble as it is. Imagine that but on the tune of 3 million soldiers crammed into France and Italy. Let's not forget that the Battle of Britain was largely hurt because much of the Luftwaffe was being transferred east. It just doesn't make any sense to state that if the largest front of any war ever, which consumed the vast majority of German military and supplies, suddenly disappeared that the outcome would be the same except add a year.

[Hast2]

"Western Allies would of eventually won." That is so insane I don't even know what to say about it. The under supplied and small Afrika Korps gave the western allies enough trouble as it is. Imagine that but on the tune of 3 million soldiers crammed into France and Italy. Let's not forget that the Battle of Britain was largely hurt because much of the Luftwaffe was being transferred east. It just doesn't make any sense to state that if the largest front of any war ever, which consumed the vast majority of German military and supplies, suddenly disappeared that the outcome would be the same except add a year.

Even in 1944 Allies had trouble with weakened German army on the Western Front(and Allies were without any pressure during preparation of invasion!) . Imagine they faced it while it is in full force(not to mention Luftwaffe). If they would face them at all - even with Great Britain still holding, "Overlord" or equivalent is unrealistic in such circumstances. And with all occupied territories, with their industry and resources, Germany would at least match U.S.

Just 1 year longer ? Sure...:roll:

[Kitsune]

Claims the USSR fought 70-80 percent of Axis forces in WWII are historically inaccurate.
They are not inaccurate. Even when the Western Allied commitment was greatest, did they never face more than one third of the German armed forces. On the other hand, overall German military losses on the Eastern front made up 75% of the German total cacualties. Of course, Japan was fought mostly by the Western allies, but this country was at the time a far weaker entity than Germany was. The Japan of the WWII period should not be mistaken for the ecconomic giant, which it later became.




II. WWII was won by all the Allies acting in concert ... but if the USSR had faced the Axis alone, they likely would have been defeated and occupied.
Possibly, but also possibly not. Discussions about this topic fill volumes. In any case, your statement, that it would be certainly so, should be classified as "probably wrong".




III. On the other hand, if the Western Allies had faced the Axis alone, (assuming defeat of the Soviet Union), they would still ultimately have won the war, probably in 1945-46, though at a much higher cost.
The same: probably wrong. I sincerly doubt that the Western Allies would have won the war alone, let alone by 1945/46. A landing operation in face of all German armed forces, which are in an ungutted state since the Sovietunion has somehow been swiftly defeated, would have likely failed and may not even have been undertaken in the first place.

Defeat by aerial bombardment? America and Britain had absolutely great problems with the Luftwaffe as it was - they were again, again and again in earnest doubt about the bombing effort, because the losses were simply too high. And this was a Luftwaffe that was to a good deal fighting against the Soviets, defending a country that had to spend a high percentage of its war effort to build ground weapons and vehicles, to replace those that were constantly lost in the war with the Red Army. Had the Western Allies faced a Germany that could have concentrated on combating the aerial attacks, they would have been far less "successful". I use the quotation marks, because, even as it was, the bombing strategy wasn't too effective. Although they killed great many civilians, they did not harm the German war effort in a surprisingly little way. In the end, the war had to be decided on the ground.

Finally, the trump card: the atomic bomb. Most people simply accept the logic that with the nuclear bomb the war would have been won by the USA just like that. But this ignores that America would have been able to build not much more than 15 to 20 nuclear bombs until the end of 1946 - and rather small ones at that. (For example, the bomb used against Hiroshima had the equivalent of only 13 kilotons of TNT - that is almost a tactical nuke by later standards). If we assume an early defeat of the Sovietunion, and hence the possibility for Germany to concentrate on aerial defense and a correspondingly smaller destruction due to the conventional bombardment in the years 1941-1945, this number of nuclear bombs would have been nowhere near enough to defeat Germany. And after that, Germany (the leading nation in physics at the time) would have most likely possessed nuclear weapons themselves - the Sovietunion did not need much longer, and that without the motivation of nuclear weapons actively used against it.

In the end I do not think that it is likely that the Western allies would have won the war by themselves at all. The USA may have had the largest GDP in the world, but wars are not only won by the economy. They are mainly won by motivation and will, and while Americans (and British to a degree) usually think they would be veritable titans in these respects, they actually are not (neither are the British, I am sorry). The real hitch is, that the overall war situation was asymmetric: the Axis never really aimed at conquering America, while America did aim at the conditionless surrender of its opponents. In other word: to win the USA must succesfully conquer its far away opponents, while Germany, Italy and Japan had only to survive, in which case their side would have "won WWII". In this situation, the American populace would have accepted the war as long as it wouldn't have hurt too much (because they are throwing the bombs, nuclear or otherwise, once that would have changed, they would have more and more liked the idea of peace. After all, why should Americans die by the millions in distant parts of the world? And President Roosevelt, who could have America actively participate in the war essentially because of Pearl Harbor, would not have lived forever.

I know, this version will not be to the liking of many Americans, who prefer to see their nation as absolutely relentless once angered. But this is simply not true. Actually, the United States have been often quite relenting, especially if things became too difficult. And as far as anger is concerned, that tends to come and fade again. They would have probably indeed ended WWII by 1945/46, however, not by conquering Germany and Japan all by themselves but by throwing the towel. And just to mention it: this would not have been their undoing. I think that even Britain would have survived since Germany would have had more than enough to do with handling its enormous conquests (again assuming the Societunion would have been swiftly defeated) - and in the end would have either given them up, or, in the case that it would have tried to hold onto them, would have failed to do so. The Germans, unlike the Russians, did never tend to keep millions of soldiers under arms in peacetime, and they would have needed just that, to maintain such an giant Empire.

[C.Fodder]

If the Wermacht and Luftwaffe were'nt so busy in the east, how would the western allies have dealt with the continent? Italy was tough enough with only a small defending force. Air superiority would have been much harder to achieve and maintain. And a counter attack at Normandy would have been an avalanch of panzer divisions.

And how many extra u-boats(or FW 190's) could have been built and crewed without the attrition of the eastern front?

Also if Germany never faced T-34's they may not have developed excellent but expensive Panthers and Tiger II's, sounds good for us, but in reality means higher numbers of capable Mk IV's and Tiger I's, and fresh, trained/experienced crews.
How many artillery pieces did Germany lose in the east ?

I am not saying outright we would have lost, but that the continent may not have been liberated.
EDIT:- yea nukes would probably be deployed eventually but i doubt one or two would have done the job,fanatical regime, still at full strength and all that.They could conceivably ride out the first and develop their own, delivered by V2 rockets.
Probably best to tactical nuke an LZ and come ashore in the aftermath.(speculation)

[Uboj]

@Kitsune - very well put.
On an additonal note, the Allies simply did not have the braun that the Soviet and German generals had (patton excluded). Perhaps that was the result of the mobilisation doctrine, i.e, a 'civilised army'. Roosevelt new this very well which is why he entertained Stalin all that time.

[salmagundi]

Jacknola that is an unusually well researched argument for an internet post. It puts the rest of us to shame.

As for Jacknola's critics, I think they miss the main point "Conclusion: The Soviet Union did not single-handedly win the war against the Axis, nor did they face 70-80-90 percent of the Axis forces".

[T-5 Killer]

I have always wondered about the German atomic project even if they had developed the bomb how would it have been delivered? Germany had no successful heavy bombers and IMHO getting a '40s era Atomic bomb into a V2 always seemed a bit of a pipe dream. Either way I don't think having the bomb is a war winner it would have just upped the casualties and destruction. But I am not a expert by any stretch.

[Hast2]

As for Jacknola's critics, I think they miss the main point "Conclusion: The Soviet Union did not single-handedly win the war against the Axis, nor did they face 70-80-90 percent of the Axis forces".

Who ever claimed that? The Soviet Union did face 70% of the German forces, i never heard anything about "Axis". Source, please.
All participants played their role in WW2 victory, some less, some more. And saying that without one of BIGGEST participants, who sacrificed millions of lives, the rest "would win easily" is SO ridiculous.

[Laworkerbee]

"Western Allies would of eventually won." That is so insane I don't even know what to say about it.

The people who created the Fatman & the Little Boy bombs would disagree. If the Soviet Union had not been invaded and Overlord had failed the conflict would have probably turned nuclear in 1946 or so, and Germany would have been annihilated.

So yeah, the Allies eventually would have won.

[TheKiwi]

US & UK aircraft production so vastly outnumbered that of the Luftwaffe that any thoughts of the Luftwaffe being able to prevent total domination of the skies above Germany are pretty much "Luft46" masturbatory fantasies. 1944 for example saw more than 130,000 US & UK (and commonwealth) aircraft produced, or about 3.5 times that of Germany (without taking any account of the 40,000 or so that the USSR produced). And much of the US/UK production was of heavy bombers, so this underestimates the amount of effort put into production. German atomic research was so far down the completely wrong path, that they would have had to have started almost from scratch again after they realised that they were going the wrong way. Any tales of Germany have an atomic bomb in 1945 or 46 are likewise equally masturbatory.

Atomic weapons were being produced in low numbers (and these would have to take into account the lowering of priority post war), but by June of 1946, the US had produced 11 bombs above and beyond those used for testing and on Japan. (Source - Revolt of the Admirals pg 128). 11 cities no longer producing weapons, ammunition, rations etc, not to mention extra millions of deaths would mean that no matter how fanatical the German leaders are, the rest of the population would have had enough. And a throughly bitter and readioactive future would await us all.

Most of the figures I have seen suggest that at any one time (both before and after 5th June 1944), 70% of the Wehrmacht's divisions were facing the onslaught from the east. That these were defeated is a tribute to the Red Army's determination to crush the threat for once and for all.

Would they have been able to crush the Wehrmacht without the Lend-Lease supplies is a very good question. Without the trucks and rations and locomotives, a larger proportion of the Societ populace would have had to have been diverted from production of tanks and artillery, or removed from the front line. The Red Army would have become a horse supplied army, which is not to say that such an army couldn't have defeated Germany. After all the German army that invaded (and nearly took Moscow) was 90% horse supplied too.

The question therefore becomes how much slower would have the Red Army's advance been without the advantages of motorised transport? Could they have taken Berlin before taking enough casualties to reach the breaking point, or would they have become bogged down on (say) the Polish border? It is difficult to say when/if such a breaking point would occur, but that it could should not be up for dispute. In WW1, the Russian, French and German armies all reached such a point, with morale etc so low that no further offensive operations became possible.

My summation: Without the Red Army's sacrifices, the most likely way the western part of the alliance could have won would have been by nuking the crap out of Germany and her armies. Without the Lend-Lease supplies (and other support), the most likely way the eastern front would have ended would have been in an exhausted draw with both sides taking time out to prepare for the next round.

[West Texican]

Hillary Clinton and Vladimir Putin were not alive in WW2 so that blows my theory.

[TheKiwi]

Post something serious or bugger off to OT&H!

[Telmar]

"Jacknola" certainly refers to the agressors casualties, which given the power of its adversaries, were light indeed in this case. Much of that of course can be attributed to high operational tempo of the campaign which in turn was prima facie made possible by the "Schnelle Verbände", Germanies mechanised forces.
Your casualty figures are too low, by the way- for both sides. German total casualties (Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine): Ballpark 50000 KIA+MIA plus roughly 120 000 WIA.
The Allies suffered disproportionately, the Armée de Terre alone suffering in excess of 120 000 dead and a multitude of POWs, etc.

Jack, I will adress your post tomorrow if I find the time.
Best regards,
IJ.

I don't think jacknola means only agressor casualties, but the number of casualties in general.

In the previous row with Lokos, Jacknola dismisses the share of German KIA on the Eastern front as irrelevant to measure the share of the war effort.

If I understand him correctly, there should have been less German KIA had the Red Army been more effective. And he uses the example of the campagne de France to show this.

However, French losses are on the contrary extremely high. And the German losses are higher than what I thought. Thanks for the update.

[Laworkerbee]

US & UK aircraft production so vastly outnumbered that of the Luftwaffe that any thoughts of the Luftwaffe being able to prevent total domination of the skies above Germany are pretty much "Luft46" masturbatory fantasies. 1944 for example saw more than 130,000 US & UK (and commonwealth) aircraft produced, or about 3.5 times that of Germany (without taking any account of the 40,000 or so that the USSR produced). And much of the US/UK production was of heavy bombers, so this underestimates the amount of effort put into production. German atomic research was so far down the completely wrong path, that they would have had to have started almost from scratch again after they realised that they were going the wrong way. Any tales of Germany have an atomic bomb in 1945 or 46 are likewise equally masturbatory.

Atomic weapons were being produced in low numbers (and these would have to take into account the lowering of priority post war), but by June of 1946, the US had produced 11 bombs above and beyond those used for testing and on Japan. (Source - Revolt of the Admirals pg 128). 11 cities no longer producing weapons, ammunition, rations etc, not to mention extra millions of deaths would mean that no matter how fanatical the German leaders are, the rest of the population would have had enough. And a throughly bitter and readioactive future would await us all.

Most of the figures I have seen suggest that at any one time (both before and after 5th June 1944), 70% of the Wehrmacht's divisions were facing the onslaught from the east. That these were defeated is a tribute to the Red Army's determination to crush the threat for once and for all.

Would they have been able to crush the Wehrmacht without the Lend-Lease supplies is a very good question. Without the trucks and rations and locomotives, a larger proportion of the Societ populace would have had to have been diverted from production of tanks and artillery, or removed from the front line. The Red Army would have become a horse supplied army, which is not to say that such an army couldn't have defeated Germany. After all the German army that invaded (and nearly took Moscow) was 90% horse supplied too.

The question therefore becomes how much slower would have the Red Army's advance been without the advantages of motorised transport? Could they have taken Berlin before taking enough casualties to reach the breaking point, or would they have become bogged down on (say) the Polish border? It is difficult to say when/if such a breaking point would occur, but that it could should not be up for dispute. In WW1, the Russian, French and German armies all reached such a point, with morale etc so low that no further offensive operations became possible.

My summation: Without the Red Army's sacrifices, the most likely way the western part of the alliance could have won would have been by nuking the crap out of Germany and her armies. Without the Lend-Lease supplies (and other support), the most likely way the eastern front would have ended would have been in an exhausted draw with both sides taking time out to prepare for the next round.

Spot on post.

[salmagundi]

Who ever claimed that? The Soviet Union did face 70% of the German forces, i never heard anything about "Axis". Source, please.
All participants played their role in WW2 victory, some less, some more. And saying that without one of BIGGEST participants, who sacrificed millions of lives, the rest "would win easily" is SO ridiculous.

"Who ever claimed that?" - you will in the following sentence
"Soviet Union did face 70% of the German forces.." - see
"..i never heard anything about "Axis". Source, please." - we're discussing the original post
"All participants played their role in WW2 victory, some less, some more. And saying that without one of BIGGEST participants, who sacrificed millions of lives, the rest "would win easily" is SO ridiculous." - "OP didn't say it would have been easy & recognises the contribution the SU made.

[Robert.V]

Most of the figures I have seen suggest that at any one time (both before and after 5th June 1944), 70% of the Wehrmacht's divisions were facing the onslaught from the east. That these were defeated is a tribute to the Red Army's determination to crush the threat for once and for all.

Would they have been able to crush the Wehrmacht without the Lend-Lease supplies is a very good question. Without the trucks and rations and locomotives, a larger proportion of the Societ populace would have had to have been diverted from production of tanks and artillery, or removed from the front line. The Red Army would have become a horse supplied army, which is not to say that such an army couldn't have defeated Germany. After all the German army that invaded (and nearly took Moscow) was 90% horse supplied too.





Not this again, come on. SU had enough Rations to feed it's whole army, the population would have suffered more though. The locomotives came really at a very late stage. And the majority of trucks came at a late date also. and only 19% of the entire fleet of trucks in SU were imported. And I don't think people understand how big the Red army was at that time.

if SU fell, America would have eventually won by using Atomic weapons. With that I agree with you.

As far as Jacknola's post i'm not even going to start with that ****.

[Hast2]

The people who created the Fatman & the Little Boy bombs would disagree. If the Soviet Union had not been invaded and Overlord had failed the conflict would have probably turned nuclear in 1946 or so, and Germany would have been annihilated.

With rest of the Europe...


"Who ever claimed that?" - you will in the following sentence
"Soviet Union did face 70% of the German forces.." - see
"..i never heard anything about "Axis". Source, please." - we're discussing the original post
"All participants played their role in WW2 victory, some less, some more. And saying that without one of BIGGEST participants, who sacrificed millions of lives, the rest "would win easily" is SO ridiculous." - "OP didn't say it would have been easy & recognises the contribution the SU made.

I don't understand you.

Did Soviet Union face 70 % of Axis forces ? Certainly no.
Did Soviet Union face 70 % of German forces ? Certainly yes.

Your point ?

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Did Soviet Union face 70 % of Axis forces ? Certainly no.
Did Soviet Union face 70 % of German forces ? Certainly yes.

Your point ?

German Land forces.

But we are talking in terms of industrial capacity as applied to war here. And as Jacknola pointed out, the number of resources put into a single U-Boat was equal to about 50-75 tanks.

As for the rest of Jacknola's critics, amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics.

[Hast2]

Megaraptor;4511688']German Land forces.

But we are talking in terms of industrial capacity as applied to war here. And as Jacknola pointed out, the number of resources put into a single U-Boat was equal to about 50-75 tanks.

As for the rest of Jacknola's critics, amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics.

Jacknola didn't point out who and how would take out those Land forces, unfortunately. Not to mention without Eastern Front, Germany could produce hell a lot of U-Boats.

Professionals think tactics and logistics.

[Jaguar]

Jacknola

Interesting research but some points you take for granted are, to say the least, highly debatable, if I understanded you correctly of course.

I - You introduced the concept of "committed GDP" and gives the example of submarines and how one equals to a 50-75 tank regiment. Not knowing your data and calculation one can only speculate. Anyway, I do know that these estimations usually require a lot of assumptions*.
Another way is to research the amount of resources directed to submarine production and operation in Germany at that time vis-a-vis, lets say, tank production and operation. I doubt this data is readily available.
(*) - Which type of submarine? which type of Panzer? Where is the regiment fielded? Are the economies of scale in both productions the same? How the logistical support structure can be measured? Just a tiny amount of variables the model has to cope with.
Edit: we are only talking about one example, to be accurate the same must be done to every other sector (from food to radar, from concrete to cartridges), a work of herculean proportions....

II - While adressing issues like manpower, training and such you seem to focus only in economic power/production and to establish this variables as the only ones capable of predict war´s outcome. I found this an extreme oversimplification.

III - Your certainty in a Western Allies victory (without SU contribution) is based on said economic issues and air power/nuclear weapons. You didn´t suppose an invasion, and I do agree that one would not be possible in this case, at least not one with losses acceptable to the public opinion (of course defending the homeland the threshold should be much higher).
So, as air power alone is meaningless, we relly exclusively in the use of nuclear weapons which you and others also take for granted. Based on what may I ask? One thing is bombing a far away country with a completely diferent culture and origin, and even this wasn´t a easy decision at that time. I´m not expressing disagreement but the rationale is not clear and its development far from certain, at least to me.

[TheKiwi]

Not this again, come on. SU had enough Rations to feed it's whole army, the population would have suffered more though. The locomotives came really at a very late stage. And the majority of trucks came at a late date also. and only 19% of the entire fleet of trucks in SU were imported. And I don't think people understand how big the Red army was at that time.

if SU fell, America would have eventually won by using Atomic weapons. With that I agree with you.



Most sources quote approx 2/3rds of the Red Army truck fleet was Lend Lease sourced, but I'd be keen to see where your 19% came from.

Further cutting of rations to the non-armed forces populace is not something that can be supported long term. In my previous comment, I talked about armies (and nations) reaching a breaking point beyond which offensive operations simply wouldn't be possible. All the forces in the 1st world war reached this (with the exception of the US who hadn't yet had enough time, and the UK/Commonwealth who were on their last legs). A large factor in each of these was the knowledge of the hardships that the people back home were enduring. You are therefore running a serious risk of accelerating the breaking point of your forces. The Russian Army had reached this point in 1917/1918 despite being well enough supplied, and I can't see anything to suggest that it couldn't/wouldn't eventually happen to the Red Army. Likewise the Imperial German army of 1918 was better supplied by far than the civilians back home, and it was in large part the knowledge of this that contributed to their collapse as a fighting force. The WW1 French army (an army well known for their dedication to the offensive regardless of casualties) also reached this point in 1917. In that instance, a recognition by the front-line infantrymen that statistically they had got to the point where all units were taking 100% casualties.

Going back to the trucks, a non-motorised supplied army cannot put together an assault as effective as a motorised one. The supply lines are significantly harder to support. This is due to both the slower delivery speed of horse transport and that the feed/supply for the horses is considerably more bulky than the oil equivelent. When your offensives depend upon a million of more shells being fired to support your infantry/tank forces, you will take longer to build up stocks, allowing your opposition more time to prepare. WW1 is a perfect example of these limitations. A Red Army 2/3rds dependent upon horses rather than trucks would suffer amny of the same limitations regardless of tank numbers. This most likely means a slower advance with more casualties (or both sides but obviously in favour of the defender). More casualties and once again you are pushing towards the breaking point.

[cbiwv]

Not this again, come on. SU had enough Rations to feed it's whole army, the population would have suffered more though. The locomotives came really at a very late stage. And the majority of trucks came at a late date also. and only 19% of the entire fleet of trucks in SU were imported. And I don't think people understand how big the Red army was at that time.

if SU fell, America would have eventually won by using Atomic weapons. With that I agree with you.

As far as Jacknola's post i'm not even going to start with that ****.


There are newer studies that show that Germany was very close to having the bomb. It would not have been as easy as you make it out.

[Robert.V]

Most sources quote approx 2/3rds of the Red Army truck fleet was Lend Lease sourced, but I'd be keen to see where your 19% came from.

Further cutting of rations to the non-armed forces populace is not something that can be supported long term. In my previous comment, I talked about armies (and nations) reaching a breaking point beyond which offensive operations simply wouldn't be possible. All the forces in the 1st world war reached this (with the exception of the US who hadn't yet had enough time, and the UK/Commonwealth who were on their last legs). A large factor in each of these was the knowledge of the hardships that the people back home were enduring. You are therefore running a serious risk of accelerating the breaking point of your forces. The Russian Army had reached this point in 1917/1918 despite being well enough supplied, and I can't see anything to suggest that it couldn't/wouldn't eventually happen to the Red Army. Likewise the Imperial German army of 1918 was better supplied by far than the civilians back home, and it was in large part the knowledge of this that contributed to their collapse as a fighting force. The WW1 French army (an army well known for their dedication to the offensive regardless of casualties) also reached this point in 1917. In that instance, a recognition by the front-line infantrymen that statistically they had got to the point where all units were taking 100% casualties.

Going back to the trucks, a non-motorised supplied army cannot put together an assault as effective as a motorised one. The supply lines are significantly harder to support. This is due to both the slower delivery speed of horse transport and that the feed/supply for the horses is considerably more bulky than the oil equivelent. When your offensives depend upon a million of more shells being fired to support your infantry/tank forces, you will take longer to build up stocks, allowing your opposition more time to prepare. WW1 is a perfect example of these limitations. A Red Army 2/3rds dependent upon horses rather than trucks would suffer amny of the same limitations regardless of tank numbers. This most likely means a slower advance with more casualties (or both sides but obviously in favour of the defender). More casualties and once again you are pushing towards the breaking point.

Here you go http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm and it's a number I came a cross before in few books aswell.


There are newer studies that show that Germany was very close to having the bomb. It would not have been as easy as you make it out.


Really ? i'd like to see the source of this if you care to provide or mention it. You have to get the bomb to your target and I imagine that wouldn't have been easy at all if Nazi's had won in the east and especially had time to recuperate and strengten their air force.

[TheKiwi]

Sorry but that is incorrect. Germany had gone a very long way down the wrong path in her atomic research and this was only realised late in 1944. They would have had to have started effectively from scratch. That's many years of work and research (and just as importantly materials) that they would never have. Germany with an atomic bomb is pure fantasy, much like the "Japan with atomic bomb" stuff.

[cbiwv]

Sorry but that is incorrect. Germany had gone a very long way down the wrong path in her atomic research and this was only realised late in 1944. They would have had to have started effectively from scratch. That's many years of work and research (and just as importantly materials) that they would never have. Germany with an atomic bomb is pure fantasy, much like the "Japan with atomic bomb" stuff.

Recent studies have proven that incorrect.

[Elbs]

Recent studies have proven that incorrect.

Everything I've read seems to indicate otherwise. You have a source for these studies?

[cbiwv]

Everything I've read seems to indicate otherwise. You have a source for these studies?

http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-hitlers-a-bomb

[TheKiwi]

http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-hitlers-a-bomb


Not really much in the way of information there. Where are the radioactive wastes from these "tests" that were supposed to have happened? Not the kind of thing you can hide in a country as crowded as Germany.

[cbiwv]

Not really much in the way of information there. Where are the radioactive wastes from these "tests" that were supposed to have happened? Not the kind of thing you can hide in a country as crowded as Germany.

Buy the book. I'm sure it explains it all. Also, Germany is not that crowded. Heck, by 1944 it had lost half of its male population. I think it still frightens the elite of the world that such a small nation put such a scare into the "WO".

[TheKiwi]

Heh, with that one statement above you're not doing yourself any favours. Half the male population of Germany would be about 30-40 million people.

And apparently the so-called test range within the book was tested back in 2006 with no radioactivity found.

[Kilgor]

Oh please, not again.

Germany had no uranium enrichment program, and this was by far the most limiting factor in producing a bomb.

[cbiwv]

Oh please, not again.

Germany had no uranium enrichment program, and this was by far the most limiting factor in producing a bomb.

We will never know the entire truth. Lots of coverups and false information pertaining to WW2.

[CMNot]

No Soviet Union -> Frees up 5million soldiers for Hitler -> Germany invades UK -> then what?

Sweet, we got a mother****ing oracle in da house!!!1!!


I think it still frightens the elite of the world that such a small nation put such a scare into the "WO".

I just can't think why the thought of a fully industrialised, economic power waging total war would frighten anyone.

[TheKiwi]

Nothing quite like a "Nazis with teh atoms bomb" thread to bring out the retards.

[cbiwv]

Nothing quite like a "Nazis with teh atoms bomb" thread to bring out the retards.


I'm a retard? Just because I don't share your views.

[Kilgor]

No Soviet Union -> Frees up 5million soldiers for Hitler -> Germany invades UK -> then what?

Germans couldn't walk on water, very much like they couldn't destroy the RAF

[Laworkerbee]

We will never know the entire truth. Lots of coverups and false information pertaining to WW2.

It's pretty well known actually, you and the author who is trying to sell his book are the only ones going on about it.


Well this whole frickin thread is about armchair generals and what ifs. It's nice that you're patriotic, but if Hitler would have directed all the effort that went into Operation Barbarossa on invading Britain instead, he would have succeeded, and then the US wouldn't have had any bomber bases in the UK, would they?

The million man swim, how exactly would these millions of Germans landed in Britian?

[Hast2]

The million man swim, how exactly would these millions of Germans landed in Britian?

The situation in GB was not very good even with Eastern Front. Just blockade GB and constantly raid with mighty Luftwaffe until GB surrenders. No need to invade(and from where U.S would nuke Germany then, exactly? Assuming U.S would nuke Europe).

Then send all U-bots to Pacific...:roll:

[TheKiwi]

I'm a retard? Just because I don't share your views.

Well so far you've posted links to a widely rediculed book, suggested that where no evidence was found to support the book that it's a conspiracy, and stated that 40 million German men died in the war.

Am I supposed to think you're an undetected genius?

[TheKiwi]

The situation in GB was not very good even with Eastern Front. Just blockade GB and constantly raid with mighty Luftwaffe until GB surrenders. No need to invade(and from where U.S would nuke Germany then, exactly? Assuming U.S would nuke Europe).

Then send all U-bots to Pacific...:roll:

Lets see, the UK was massively out producing Germany in aircraft, and was beginning to defeat the wolf packs by 1942. The luftwaffe was unable to dominate even southern UK, let alone the rest of it. And any kind of invasion is pure rubbish. Even assuming that the barges they assembled for it could make the crossing (which is doubtful considering the weather of the channel vs barges designed for the Rhine river), they had insufficient capacity to resupply the German forces that made it accross.

[CaptMorgan68]

II. WWII was won by all the Allies acting in concert ... but if the USSR had faced the Axis alone, they likely would have been defeated and occupied.



Utter BS. Arguably the outcome of WW2 was decided in Stalingrad and preventing Germany from reaching the oil rich parts of Soviet Union circa 1942-43. Allies joined the war effort only when it became clear that if they don't Stalin will manage to cover the whole of Europe in the process of liberation from Nazis.

[cbiwv]

Well so far you've posted links to a widely rediculed book, suggested that where no evidence was found to support the book that it's a conspiracy, and stated that 40 million German men died in the war.

Am I supposed to think you're an undetected genius?

I'm not all that impressed with you either.

[cbiwv]

Lets see, the UK was massively out producing Germany in aircraft, and was beginning to defeat the wolf packs by 1942. The luftwaffe was unable to dominate even southern UK, let alone the rest of it. And any kind of invasion is pure rubbish. Even assuming that the barges they assembled for it could make the crossing (which is doubtful considering the weather of the channel vs barges designed for the Rhine river), they had insufficient capacity to resupply the German forces that made it accross.

You've not even considered that the entire dynamics of that conflict would have changed if Germany had not attacked the USSR and concentrated all its resources on Britian. Yeah, you are a bright one.

[TheKiwi]

You mean as oposed to say I don't know... Summer of 1940 where the Luftwaffe was able to concentrate all it's efforts on the UK... and were comprehensively defeated. At that point in time, Germany had no other major drains on it's resources. Is that concentrated enough for you?

[Hast2]

Lets see, the UK was massively out producing Germany in aircraft, and was beginning to defeat the wolf packs by 1942. The luftwaffe was unable to dominate even southern UK, let alone the rest of it. And any kind of invasion is pure rubbish. Even assuming that the barges they assembled for it could make the crossing (which is doubtful considering the weather of the channel vs barges designed for the Rhine river), they had insufficient capacity to resupply the German forces that made it accross.

UK was massively out producing Germany in aircraft, but Germany was massively out producing UK in everything else. It's all about prioroties at that moment. You should check how many times the Navy asked Hitler to build more U-bots, but because Eastern Front was priority, he refused. Soviet Union could fall only in 1941-1942, only a statement was possible after these years for Germany, with occupied European part of Soviet Union. So it's 3 years untill nuke and Germany still has the most powerful land army in the world and massive resources to spare.
Beginning to defeat the wolf packs by 1942 ? I'd say by 1943. With GB as a priority that would quickly change.

[cbiwv]

You mean as oposed to say I don't know... Summer of 1940 where the Luftwaffe was able to concentrate all it's efforts on the UK... and were comprehensively defeated. At that point in time, Germany had no other major drains on it's resources. Is that concentrated enough for you?

Their industry was not even totally mobilized for war until 1943 when in reality their fate was already determined.

[Soldat_Américain]

Hey Jack,

Very good read.

[TheKiwi]

Their industry was not even totally mobilized for war until 1943 when in reality their fate was already determined.

Try talking to a Marine. Ask them if they fancy being towed accross 22 miles of rough water in a river barge to assault a hostile beach. And to know that their support and supplies are equally dependent upon such a barge that will swamp and sink in anything less than perfect conditions. Even the US/UK with all their designed and dedicated landing craft for D-day had a close run thing with the weather.

Or you could be suggesting that Germany somehow changed their re-armament policies in the 4-5 years before 1939 to focus on being able to invade the UK? Germany's economy was already tanking prior to 1 September 1939, it was being crushed by re-armament. Only the invasions of Poland, France etc and their seizure of their oil reserves, gold etc saved them from economic disaster. But you seem to be suggesting that they take the 4-5 years needed to develop a proper amphibious force so that they can face off with the UK - a country Hitler did not want to fight and indeed to steps intended to ensure that Germany didn't have to.

[Elbs]

This talk of the Germans invading the UK is tickling the funny bone.

Whatever happened to the Royal Navy in this scenario? The battleships, battlecruisers, submarines and aircraft carriers are going to be sitting idle while the Germans cross the channel in dinghies? The RAF is going to watch the show unfold?

How would Germany transport its forces across the Channel?

[cbiwv]

Try talking to a Marine. Ask them if they fancy being towed accross 22 miles of rough water in a river barge to assault a hostile beach. And to know that their support and supplies are equally dependent upon such a barge that will swamp and sink in anything less than perfect conditions. Even the US/UK with all their designed and dedicated landing craft for D-day had a close run thing with the weather.

Or you could be suggesting that Germany somehow changed their re-armament policies in the 4-5 years before 1939 to focus on being able to invade the UK? Germany's economy was already tanking prior to 1 September 1939, it was being crushed by re-armament. Only the invasions of Poland, France etc and their seizure of their oil reserves, gold etc saved them from economic disaster. But you seem to be suggesting that they take the 4-5 years needed to develop a proper amphibious force so that they can face off with the UK - a country Hitler did not want to fight and indeed to steps intended to ensure that Germany didn't have to.


My father and cousin were Marines. Yes, Germany started the war too soon. Their Navy and Air force were not strong enough for the tasks at hand. They had no choice but to fight Britian. It was the staging grounds for American forces. The UK was not going to side with Germany. Germany's best hope was not to declare war on the U.S. Actually, they would have been better off settling for what they were given. It seemed the allies were doing what they could to please Hitler. They allowed him to seize territories surrounding Germany but he got too greedy and went too far. They had to declare war after Poland. My last words on this.

[Kilgor]

You've not even considered that the entire dynamics of that conflict would have changed if Germany had not attacked the USSR and concentrated all its resources on Britian. Yeah, you are a bright one.

Ppppst.

The Battle of Britain was fought and won when the Germans and Soviets were still chummy and shaking hands over the corpse of Poland.

The worst case scenario is that the UK had to pull back all of the Royal navy to guard the home Islands. The meagre German navy would have been raped like a Bitch, especially being within British air attack range.

[Jacknola]

Utter BS. Arguably the outcome of WW2 was decided in Stalingrad and preventing Germany from reaching the oil rich parts of Soviet Union circa 1942-43. Allies joined the war effort only when it became clear that if they don't Stalin will manage to cover the whole of Europe in the process of liberation from Nazis.


The discussion is not progressing to the intellectual level I had hoped. Instead, historically illiterates are making shoot-from-the-hip posts... such as the one above. OMG... "the Allies joined the war effort after Stalin..?????" WTF? What the heck was Britain doing in 1940 while Stalin was chummy and supplying his best pal, Herr Hitler? Britain took all the the Germans could throw at her when she was TRULY alone. No Soviets, only partial US supply support.

So just when was it that Britain "joined the war effort of the Soviets....?"

DOUBLE WTF...? "The US "joined" the war effort of the Soviets...only after Stalin..." WTF was Pearl Harbor about in Dec. 1941 and WTF did it have to do with fear that Stalin would take over the world? Or does that little fracus escape mention in certain histroy texts? Jeeezzz prior to June 22, 1941, the US, not even officially in the war, was adding loads to the anti-Axis war effort. What the heck was "Stalin" doing? He was supplying Herr Hitler that's what.

Originally Posted by powerwheelie http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4513391#post4513391)
Well this whole frickin thread is about armchair generals and what ifs. It's nice that you're patriotic, but if Hitler would have directed all the effort that went into Operation Barbarossa on invading Britain instead, he would have succeeded, and then the US wouldn't have had any bomber bases in the UK, would they?

In 1940, the Axis powers, with all the power of the continent and with most of their united armed forces available, were committed to an invasion of the British Isles, wanted to invade and tried to invade, but could not win the battle of Britain despite controlling half the continent. Defeated in the air and unable to make progress at sea, Germany gave up the plan to invade.

So what the heck are you talking about... "effort that went into Barbarossa...?" WTF? In the battle of Britain, there were no "30 divisions of German planes left facing East.." unlike the reverse in Barbarrosa.

And then... when, what year, were the Germans then supposed to be able to return to the West (after hypothetically defeating the USSR), suddenly be able to out-produce both the US and Britain in airplanes (despite the Allies having close to a 3-1 advantage in industrial power, safe from bombing), capture control of the air, develop a surface navy capable of transporting heavy divisions to Britain, and then win a ground war in Britain against the massed ground forces of the US and British Empire?

In my opinon, the first truly "decisive" moment of WWII was the Battle of Britain followed by the Battle of the Atlantic. If Britain had lost either battle then the Axis probably would have won in Russia.

The second decisive moment was in a battle where a total of 4,000 lives and about 400 planes were lost, and only a total of about 20 bombs hit the target resulting in 5 ships sunk ... a mere skirmish by Eastern Front casualty and material loss standards.

But when the US dive bombers peeled off and dived on the top of the Japanese fleet at Midway, the issue in the Pacific was directionally settled. The ability to concentrate on Europe was able to be confidently endorsed. That battle was truly "decisive."

Sheer numbers of casualties do not necessarily indicate effectiveness in warfare...

I would place Stalingrad among the great turning points... but not "decisive" in that it sealed the course of a portion of the war. The issue on the Eastern Front was still in considerable doubt for over a year after Stalingrad. In my opinion, the defense of Moscow in the late fall of 1941 was what saved the USSR.... more so than Stalingrad. (not denigrating the heroic effort of the Russians in that campaign... but only passing judgment on the nature of the word "decisive.")


I was hoping for more in this line. For instance...one thing that stands out in red letters in my thesis about the Eastern Front is perhaps the true reason the Russians were able to hold out, and then gradually gain the upper hand.

How the heck did the USSR manage to maintain and then increase its GDP when half the country was overrun, and virtually every factory, habitable house, building was destroyed, the people slaughtered, infrastructure wrecked, roads ruined, railroads converted to western gage. The history books mention in passing the Soviets ability to move their core industries east... but they had very little warning or time to do this.

The answer to that question could well be one major (ignored for the most part in the West) key to the results of both the eastern Front and WWII. Are there any historical studies that focus on this economic aspect?

[Kitsune]

Sorry but that is incorrect. Germany had gone a very long way down the wrong path in her atomic research and this was only realised late in 1944. They would have had to have started effectively from scratch. That's many years of work and research (and just as importantly materials) that they would never have. Germany with an atomic bomb is pure fantasy, much like the "Japan with atomic bomb" stuff.
As I already mentioned, America would have been able to produce only about 15 to 20 nuclear bombs until the end of 1946, and rather small ones at that. After that we would have had 1947, and I see no reason to be certain why this year would not have seen the first German atomic bomb. In actual history Sovietunion did not need much longer for their own first nuclear bomb - without being spurned on by a fight for its survival. Germany's position in nuclear physics was also good enough to acquire a leading position in the building of nuclear reactors, which allow a much more efficient way to produce weapons capable material than the centrifuge method used by the American nuclear program.

In the end, if the war would have lasted only a few years longer, there is no reason to categorically rule out a Germany armed with nuclear bombs at all, as you seem to do for some reason. And after that the situation would have become increasingly messy, especially for Britain.



Concerning the Aerial War:

Had Germany been able to concentrate more on producing aircraft (because it would not have needed to spend much of its industrial capacity for a titanic struggle of land forces against the Soviets), the numerical superiority in Western Allied Aircraft would have been smaller. Possibly it would not even have been enough for them to stay on the offensive anymore.

After all, the attacker in an aerial war is at a massive disadvantage: First, his forces need to fly a long way in and out, meaning that his airplanes have to spend a lot of fuel outside fights. Additionally, aircraft with shorter ranged can't be used by him at all. The defender has not to face these problems, he can use small and nimble fighters with short range without any difficulty and use his longer ranged ones with greater effect.

Even worse, every pilot of the attacker who is shot down by the defender is a certain loss, since even those aerial crews who manage to bail out of their planes will end up as POWs. In contrast to this, those pilots or crewmembers of the defender, who rescue themselves succesfully with a parachute, will be able to fly again. Since usually about half of the aerial personnel were able to do that, the attacker has to expect to lose about double as many men as the defender for this reason alone.

In WWII, the Western Allies were only able to maintain their aerial campaigns over Germany because their opponent was to such a degree occupied elsewhere. And even so, they had quite some problems, having the first real successes only from summer 1943 onwards. But even after that things became again more difficult, and even in early 1944 the losses had again become so high that they were hardly bearable.
I am sorry to disturb your own attempts at masturbation, Kiwi, but it does not look as if the Western Allies would have simply won the war by aerial bombardment, with or without nuclear bombs.


Concerning the Maritime War:

If WWII would have lasted longer, Germany would have been able to field Type XXI class submarines from 1945 onward, and these were way more advanced than anything the Allies had at the time. With their ability to operate longer and faster while submerged there would have been nothing which the Western Allies could have invented to detect and neutralize them just like that. At least in our reality there was nothing of the kind that rendered submarines obsolete and especially the Type XXI influenced the building of submarines by about everybody after WWII.




But to reiterate my main argument:

Even without the Sovietunion, the fight between the Allies and the Axis would have been not an even one. But it did not have to be. This is because the conditions for "winning the war" were also uneven: as we have come to understand it, an Allied victory demanded the total defeat and conquest of the Axis nations - which also produced the greatest incentive that is possible for the latter. But on the other hand, for Germany, Italy and Japan, the only condition they had to meet to "win WWII" was to survive. If one considers additionally the vast distance over which especially America needed to fight the war, the Western Allies would not have been able to meet their ambitious war aim of total Axis defeat without the Sovietunion.

[LineDoggie]

Is this useful info?:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/documents/index.htm

It pertains to Lend-Lease shipments to the USSR

[Kitsune]

How the heck did the USSR manage to maintain and then increase its GDP when half the country was overrun, and virtually every factory, habitable house, building was destroyed, the people slaughtered? The history books mention in passing the Soviets ability to move their core industries east... but they had very little warning or time to do this.
Even in the war against the Sovietunion it was not the case that "virtually every habitable house or building was destroyed and its inhabitants slaughtered" - certainly not within the first onslaught up to the end of 1941. The speed of this advance also determined the time the Soviets had to move their industrial facilites - almost half a year for industrial plants close to the western borders of Moscow. Since the Soviet industry (quite differently to the German one) had been first and foremost created with the production of arms in mind, many of its important facilities were not situated near the Western border of the country anyway (especially with the Soviet obsession with secrecy). That may explain how the relocation was possible.

As imoressive as this was, I am not quite sure wether the system of the Sovietunion itself had much of an positive effect on Russian technological or organisatorical abilites. The more important factor may have been the proper motivation that standing at the edge of the abyss provides. Likewise, the Germans were later in the war usually able to rebuild industrial facilities hit by aerial bombardment within amazingly short time, and often even managed to improve them while doing so.

As far as the measurement of war activities with GDP is concerned, one should be a bit cautious. Even today, in peacetime, the determination of the Gross Domestic Product of a nation is complicated and can lead astray. Generally, this thing measures only economic activity and nothing else. If for example somebody pays somebody else with borrowed money to transport a pile of rubbish from location A to location B and then pays another person, again with borrowed money, to transport the same pile back from location B to location A, he has done nothing productive at all - but this activity will have increased his nations GDP.
It is a another problem entirely to compare the GDPs of different nations with different economic systems. And to determine the GDP of the war economies of the WWII era should be even more difficult, consider alone the problem of acquring really reliable data for many combatants.

[CaptMorgan68]

The discussion is not progressing to the intellectual level I had hoped. Instead, historically illiterates are making shoot-from-the-hip posts... such as the one above. OMG... "the Allies joined the war effort after Stalin..?????" WTF? What the heck was Britain doing in 1940 while Stalin was chummy and supplying his best pal, Herr Hitler? Britain took all the the Germans could throw at her when she was TRULY alone. No Soviets, only partial US supply support.

So just when was it that Britain "joined the war effort of the Soviets....?"

DOUBLE WTF...? "The US "joined" the war effort of the Soviets...only after Stalin..." WTF was Pearl Harbor about in Dec. 1941 and WTF did it have to do with fear that Stalin would take over the world? Or does that little fracus escape mention in certain histroy texts? Jeeezzz prior to June 22, 1941, the US, not even officially in the war, was adding loads to the anti-Axis war effort. What the heck was "Stalin" doing? He was supplying Herr Hitler that's what.

Originally Posted by powerwheelie http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4513391#post4513391)
Well this whole frickin thread is about armchair generals and what ifs. It's nice that you're patriotic, but if Hitler would have directed all the effort that went into Operation Barbarossa on invading Britain instead, he would have succeeded, and then the US wouldn't have had any bomber bases in the UK, would they?

In 1940, the Axis powers, with all the power of the continent and with most of their united armed forces available, were committed to an invasion of the British Isles, wanted to invade and tried to invade, but could not win the battle of Britain despite controlling half the continent. Defeated in the air and unable to make progress at sea, Germany gave up the plan to invade.

So what the heck are you talking about... "effort that went into Barbarossa...?" WTF? In the battle of Britain, there were no "30 divisions of German planes left facing East.." unlike the reverse in Barbarrosa.

And then... when, what year, were the Germans then supposed to be able to return to the West (after hypothetically defeating the USSR), suddenly be able to out-produce both the US and Britain in airplanes (despite the Allies having close to a 3-1 advantage in industrial power, safe from bombing), capture control of the air, develop a surface navy capable of transporting heavy divisions to Britain, and then win a ground war in Britain against the massed ground forces of the US and British Empire?

In my opinon, the first truly "decisive" moment of WWII was the Battle of Britain followed by the Battle of the Atlantic. If Britain had lost either battle then the Axis probably would have won in Russia.

The second decisive moment was in a battle where a total of 4,000 lives were lost, about 400 planes and a total of 5 ships were sunk... a mere skirmish by Eastern Front casualty and material loss standards. But when the US dive bombers peeled off and dived on the top of the Japanese fleet at Midway, the issue in the Pacific was directionally settled. The ability to concentrate on Europe was able to be confidently endorsed. That battle was truly "decisive."

Sheer numbers of casualties do not necessarily indicate effectiveness in warfare...

I would place Stalingrad among the great turning points... but not "decisive" in that it sealed the course of a portion of the war. The issue on the Eastern Front was still in considerable doubt for over a year after Stalingrad. In my opinion, the defense of Moscow in the late fall of 1941 was what saved the USSR.... more so than Stalingrad. (not denigrating the heroic effort of the Russians in that campaign... but only passing judgment on the nature of the word "decisive.")


I was hoping for more in this line. For instance...one thing that stands out in red letters in my thesis about the Eastern Front is perhaps the true reason the Russians were able to hold out, and then gradually gain the upper hand.

How the heck did the USSR manage to maintain and then increase its GDP when half the country was overrun, and virtually every factory, habitable house, building was destroyed, the people slaughtered, infrastructure wrecked, roads ruined, railroads converted to western gage. The history books mention in passing the Soviets ability to move their core industries east... but they had very little warning or time to do this.

The answer to that question could well be one major (ignored for the most part in the West) key to the results of both the eastern Front and WWII. Are there any historical studies that focus on this economic aspect?

Listen with all due respect if Britain was not an island it would have had no chance in hell against Germany without American support.

Pearl Harbor was all about Japanese ambitions in the Pacific. If god forbid Nazi Germany and Japan won WW2 who knows if those two would not end up duking it out between each other as well?

The reason Stalingrad was decisive was because no longer Germans seemed invincible. Their convictions of superiority were shattered forever. Now it's not because Russians are better than anyone. It's quite possible if the Americans had an opportunity to join the European theater of war earlier they could have been the ones to deal the Germans a crushing blow first. Also in Stalingrad Soviets were first who managed to negate German's advantage in superior mobility and firepower. It was dirty close combat in city ruins with little chance of using armor effectively. Forget about mobility. Also, First German field marshal to ever be captured in this war was Gen. Paulus commander of Germany's Six Army attacking Stalingrad. The PR effect on people in Britain and the US cannot be underestimated as well.

Lend-Lease was very important. It's true. Although the judgement on whether the Soviets would have managed without it is still out, but what is for sure is that equipment does not fight by itself. You still needed heroic effort of Soviet people to win the war. Stalin was a loon and a tyrant. Soviet Union wan the war despite him not because of his strong leadership skills. Russians should have wiped Gori the f** out during the war with Georgia last summer just for what this motherf***er did to millions of people. He did this along with another close Georgian friend, head of NKVD, Laurenti Beria. (Note: Stalin was born in Gori)

Stalin supplying Germany? I want some sources on that.

[TheKiwi]

I'm going to have to agree that the defeat of the Wehrmacht outside of Moscow in December 1941 was the decisive point, quite possibly of the entirety of WW2. Had the Wehrmacht managed to take and to hold Moscow, they would have controlled the major North/South transportation nexus in the Soviet Union. This is completely aside from the political implications of this.

Kitsune, do you really not think that 15-20 ruined cities, especially in the Ruhr would have ruined Germany's capability to fight? I'm pretty sure it would also have ruined any chances of catching up in atomic research. Something to bear in mind is that it took the USSR 4 years to produce their 1st atomic weapon with full details of production etc being supplied by the Fuch's.

Capt Morgan, apparently the USSR in 1940 supplied Germany with 900,000 metric tons of crude oil, 500,000 metric tons of manganese ore, 100,000 tons of chrome ore and 1,000,000 tons of horse fodder for the German army.

In exchange for these, the Germans were supposed to have supplied the USSR with armament technology and forth (plans for the Bismark for example were supposed to have been supplied along with samples of aircraft both operational and experimental). The Germans haggled about prices and created delaying mountains of paperwork so that by June 1941 the trade was massively in their favour. (Source: A.S Milward, War, Economy & Society 1939 - 1945).

[Laworkerbee]

As I already mentioned, America would have been able to produce only about 15 to 20 nuclear bombs until the end of 1946, and rather small ones at that. After that we would have had 1947, and I see no reason to be certain why this year would not have seen the first German atomic bomb.

I can think of plenty of reasons, mainly the Germans never had a serious commitment to building such a bomb, certainly not on scale nor on par with what the Americans did with in their program.

Secondly, even if only half of those bombs were delivered and the other half lost in action, do you really believe that German will was so strong as to be able to stand up to cities being literally vaporized with hundreds of thousands of people sick from radiation poisoning? I really think not. The Germans would have had no idea how many bombs the Allies had at their disposal.

[Zarak]

LOL "Only 15-20 nuclear bombs"...

Only 15-20 cities vaporized...only...

[CaptMorgan68]

Capt Morgan, apparently the USSR in 1940 supplied Germany with 900,000 metric tons of crude oil, 500,000 metric tons of manganese ore, 100,000 tons of chrome ore and 1,000,000 tons of horse fodder for the German army.

In exchange for these, the Germans were supposed to have supplied the USSR with armament technology and forth (plans for the Bismark for example were supposed to have been supplied along with samples of aircraft both operational and experimental). The Germans haggled about prices and created delaying mountains of paperwork so that by June 1941 the trade was massively in their favour. (Source: A.S Milward, War, Economy & Society 1939 - 1945).

Well then this is yet another evidence Stalin was a moron and a complete f***ck up when it came to strategy.

[CaptMorgan68]

I'm going to have to agree that the defeat of the Wehrmacht outside of Moscow in December 1941 was the decisive point, quite possibly of the entirety of WW2. Had the Wehrmacht managed to take and to hold Moscow, they would have controlled the major North/South transportation nexus in the Soviet Union. This is completely aside from the political implications of this.


x2..............

[TheKiwi]

The irony was that Germany got vastly more out of trading with the USSR than they ever did with invading her. And of course once war began, access to the USSR's 31 million tons of oil per year was denied to her, making the only supplies Germany could depend up the Romanian oilfields (only about 5.5 million tons per year) and synthentic oil (another 4.5 million tons), and these of course had to be split with Italy.

Compare this to the 170 million tons per year that the US was producing. Japan went to war taking Indonesia which could supply less than 6 million tons per year, or even less than Germany had. And by mid-1944 almost none of it was reaching Japan.

[F16]

TheKiwi, first of all, I would like to thank you for your contribution to this thread.

As for the Battle for Britain. Was it possible for the Germans to defeat the RAF Fighter Command? There was a chance.
If the Germans had detailed action plan, very good intelligence, prepared their every step, and followed one single goal, to destroy the RAF fighters, its production centers, and its crews.

Let's not forget, by the summer 1940 Britain was alone against the whole Reich, Britain had limited materiall and human resources, after all they are an island, and need all the essential material to be shipped or flown in.

The Germans hadn't a detailed plan about what to do with the British, want they to invade, or they want something else, thus Germans didn't know what they want, that's the first mistake.

Hitler wanted to make a peace with the British, but they rejected, then Luftwaffe began to bomb cities to soften up the British to sign the peace agreement. One day they were bombing cities, the other day they were bombing radar installation, one other day they were bombing airfields.

As everyone can understand there was absolutely no strategy, no detailed plan, no single goal in Luftwaffe's action in Britain. They simply spread out their resources on different goals, and achieved none of them.

Instead if they would concentrate only on fighters, if they had detailed picture of the RAF's Fighter Command, it's structure, airfields, maintenance and productions centers, research and development centers, oil storage facilies, pilot training centers, yes in that way they would have finished the RAF.

The British may have stockpiled a lot of fighters, they may have a lot of oil reserves, the one thing so essential in the air combat and in great shortage for the British - well trained and experienced fighter pilots, there weren't very much of them, especially experienced ones, if the Germans managed to take out the best british fighter pilots in the first months of the Battle of Britain, it would be easy to take on the newbie pilots and finish the RAF. In this way making the Sea Leon operation more possible.

The reason is, they decided to invade the SU, after the France fall, the decision was already made, so they just didn't need great mess with the Britain, that's why they didn't put the needed pressure on the RAF. Cause there was no need to waste Luftwaffe's sources to take out the RAF if you don't plan an invasion on the british islands.

[TheKiwi]

Thank you F16. I actually enjoy the whole "alternative history" thing, but I do like my alternatives to be realistic ones.

Your scenario above is interesting, but Fighter Command had already anticipated such an event. If it appeared they were loosing the battle for the skies over southern England, fighters would have been withdrawn north beyond the range of the Luftwaffe's Bf-109 force. From here they could intercept bombers sent further north, and be held in reserve for the time an invasion was launched. This also allowed them to be fed into the battles of the south at the times and places of Dowding's choosing.

I do agree with you about the critical issue in the BoB being the number of trained fighter pilots. The behaviour of Training Command during the BoB was scandalous, they were running things as though it were peace time. Neither new tactics, nor new equipment were being taught, nor was there any sense of urgency. The only good thing to come out of the backstabbing that resulted in the retirement of Dowding and replacement of Park after the BoB was that Park was transferred to command Training Command.

[F16]

Thank you F16. I actually enjoy the whole "alternative history" thing, but I do like my alternatives to be realistic ones.

There is nothing to thank, you are writing great posts, it seems you've done a lot of research and read lots of material on the issue, by the way, the point with the breaking point is quite new and interesting.


Your scenario above is interesting, but Fighter Command had already anticipated such an event. If it appeared they were loosing the battle for the skies over southern England, fighters would have been withdrawn north beyond the range of the Luftwaffe's Bf-109 force. From here they could intercept bombers sent further north, and be held in reserve for the time an invasion was launched. This also allowed them to be fed into the battles of the south at the times and places of Dowding's choosing.


What's about the Fighter Command's other assets, like mentioned prevoiusly, was it possible to evacuate production centers, training centers, was there in Scotland enough infrastructure to home all the RAF Fighter Command facilities, how much time would they need to restore their operating and supporting capabilities, what would be the Germans doing all the time the British were busy by setting up at the new place.

My point is that if you want to destory the Fighter Command, it's not about downing fighters, it's not about destroying their oil storage facilities, or suspected pilot training schools, it's about a strategy, you need a well thought out plan, you need detailed goals, you need targets of first priority, of second and so on, it's about a complex, only in conjunction with other measures you can solve the Fighter Command issue, you need a system approach, there was nothing of all that by Germans when they were involved with the BoB.

Anyway, the Germans needed time to build up sufficient transport capabilities to cross the Canal, and the Home fleet was strong and outnumbered the German Navy by far. My question for you, TheKiwi, was it possible for the Germans to sink the Home Fleet battleships and destroyers using Luftwaffe's assets, like Ju-87 Stuka dive bomber, were those birds able to damage the british battleships far enough to bring them underwater?

We are assuming that there is no Fighter Command anymore and the Germans started landing on the main Island.

Recently, I was reading a quite interesting book about the german 6th Infantry division, in late summer 1940 that division was deployed in northern France, what's interesting, all the time they were deployed there, every day they were training... shore assault tactics.

[TheKiwi]

Well I must admit to being unsure about the time needed to relocate facilities etc to the north of the UK, so I am going to make an assumption that as this had been planned by Dowding since the time of the Kanalkampf (June/July 1940) that at least some of the preliminary work must have been done.

As far as the Luftwaffe and the RN are concerned, I think the Med campaign showed that yes dive bombers etc, especially where operating in an environment of air superiority were capable of sinking capital ships.

BUT: The issue the Wehrmacht is going to have after it comes ashore in or around Dover is resupply. Unless they capture a British port intact (more specifically Dover which the British had taken great care to ensure they wouldn't), they're dependent upon motorised river barges to bring fuel, ammunition and re-enforcements across the channel. These move at about 2-3 knots, that is to say even in good conditions you are talking 6 or more hours to get across the channel. Allow for time to load and unload and you can see you will have to be operating 24 hours a day to keep the forces in the UK supplied. The RN on the other hand is very capable of sending destroyers out of (Harwich I think), timing their arrival at the channel for dark and ripping the crap out of the supply barges, before withdrawing by dawn. The German Navy after the Norway campaign really doesn't have anything that can stop them. Submarines are too slow, and the German stock of mines was small and had been largely exhausted by June 1940. Bear in mind too that the RN was never afraid of risking an older Battleship or two on an exercise like this, they could be very pragmatic when it came to balancing risks vs return, however destroyers and light cruisers are the more likely participants.

Just to add to the resupply woes of the Wehrmacht in the UK, any bad weather of any kind will stop the sailings of the resuppy barges too. These are very low freeboard barges, taken up from the river trade and meant to be sailing down the Rhine, not coping with force 4 seas on a choppy channel.

This all however may be past the point. If as you say above, the Luftwaffe had somehow managed to wear down the RAF to the point where it could no longer prevent a landing, it is quite possible that a political solution would have been sought by the British. A armistice or temporary peace of some kind, although one far kinder to the UK than the one imposed on the French.

[T.S.C.Plage]

I have always wondered about the German atomic project even if they had developed the bomb how would it have been delivered? Germany had no successful heavy bombers and IMHO getting a '40s era Atomic bomb into a V2 always seemed a bit of a pipe dream. Either way I don't think having the bomb is a war winner it would have just upped the casualties and destruction. But I am not a expert by any stretch.
If you search for "Amerika-Bomber" you'll find out that there were a couple of already tested types of aircrafts like the Me 264 or the Ju 390 besides some other more or less advanced ideas.

[Billy No Mates]

Anyway, the Germans needed time to build up sufficient transport capabilities to cross the Canal, and the Home fleet was strong and outnumbered the German Navy by far. My question for you, TheKiwi, was it possible for the Germans to sink the Home Fleet battleships and destroyers using Luftwaffe's assets, like Ju-87 Stuka dive bomber, were those birds able to damage the british battleships far enough to bring them underwater?.

The Home Fleet it self would not necessarily have become embroiled in anti-invasion actions in the south it would of fallen to the smaller commands such as large force of J and K class destroyers assembled at the Nore to tackle the actual invaders,the heavy units were to guard against a hook to the north,the only heavy unit in the south in 1940 was an 'R' class battleship .
Dive bombers were quite effective and would have taken a toll but even in the most advantagous of conditions to them when the ships were close inshore and operating at low speeds such as at the Crete and Dunkirk evacuations they were not enough to deter the RN who as the TheKiwi has said were quite pragmatic when it came to accepting losses to achieve its aims,also given the speed of a potential invasion force and the distance it needed to cover some of its journey would be at night without any air support the RN showed its self to be quite adept in night fighting .
The others pillars of an a potential German invasion were cross channel guns and mine warfare,firstly the Big guns in land emplacements were shown to be pretty ineffective even against slow moving coastal convoys and as to the mine warfare part the Germans showed their hand to early deploying their most modern types before they could produce them in significant numbers allowing the British ample time to develop effective counter measures .
A cross channel invasion wasn't an impossible idea but it would of risked huge losses with only a small chance of success the Germans must of come to the same conclusion which is why they never tried it .

[Jaguar]

What the heck was "Stalin" doing? He was supplying Herr Hitler that's what.

Like Sweden, Finland, Brazil and so on. It´s international trade. But at that time both leadership already believed that war between SU and Germany was invevitable.


In 1940, the Axis powers, with all the power of the continent and with most of their united armed forces available, were committed to an invasion of the British Isles, wanted to invade and tried to invade, but could not win the battle of Britain despite controlling half the continent. Defeated in the air and unable to make progress at sea, Germany gave up the plan to invade.

It´s disputable if Operation SeaLion was really considered feasible by Hitler and the General Staff. Nevertheless Germany never tried to invade, meaning it never send an invasion force towards Britain.


In my opinon, the first truly "decisive" moment of WWII was the Battle of Britain followed by the Battle of the Atlantic. If Britain had lost either battle then the Axis probably would have won in Russia.
The second decisive moment was (...) Midway

Your "western centric" approach is typical of most literature untill late eigthies. I grew up reading this. You know that recent, and not so recent (Erickson wrotte The Road To Stalingrad in 75) , serious research in the west have brought to light the decisive role of the Eastern Front to Germany´s demise. In the process lots of myths have been proved, well, just myths, from soviet "steamroller" tactics to P-39´s use as ground attack aircraft.


Sheer numbers of casualties do not necessarily indicate effectiveness in warfare...

I beg to disagree, if one consider effectiveness "the quality of being able to bring about an effect", that effect being the defeat of an enemy sheer numbers of casualties play a major role.


The issue on the Eastern Front was still in considerable doubt for over a year after Stalingrad.

After Stalingrad and Kursk? Just a couple of months before Operation Bagration? Simply put: no.



I was hoping for more in this line. For instance...one thing that stands out in red letters in my thesis about the Eastern Front is perhaps the true reason the Russians were able to hold out, and then gradually gain the upper hand.

If your thesys is around the "commited GDP" by the germans in the west I already discussed it.


How the heck did the USSR manage to maintain and then increase its GDP when half the country was overrun, and virtually every factory, habitable house, building was destroyed, the people slaughtered, infrastructure wrecked, roads ruined, railroads converted to western gage. The history books mention in passing the Soviets ability to move their core industries east... but they had very little warning or time to do this.

Lets hope Indiana Jones and Lokos decide to join the fun.

[eskachig]

It's very hard for me to imagine that US and UK could launch a successful cross channel invasion without German land forces being tied up and thoroughly depleted. And a few Atomic bombs would not change that IMO.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

It's very hard for me to imagine that US and UK could launch a successful cross channel invasion without German land forces being tied up and thoroughly depleted. And a few Atomic bombs would not change that IMO.

They may have slowly chipped away at the German empire instead of going for the jugular - invade Italy, re-take Norway, invade the Balkans...

[Jacknola]

It's very hard for me to imagine that US and UK could launch a successful cross channel invasion without German land forces being tied up and thoroughly depleted. And a few Atomic bombs would not change that IMO.

I cannot understand statements such as these unless they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of WWII. The war was decided by raw production power. Line up the all the divisions of the entire German Army along the coast, give the US-British-Canadian-Australian-et. al. enough time, and every one of those divisions would be degraded then destroyed by air power and/or would be unable to stop an invasion becoming lodged on the continent because of air and naval gun support.

And once the lodgement was made, the outcome was almost inevitable.

What is it about the vision of 100,000 bombers in skys totally controlled by the Alllies that is hard to understand...? The Germans never saw a single B-29... much less B-36, and their maxed out aircraft industry was overwhelmed by relatively small numbers of P-51s (small numbers compared to what COULD have been fielded with another year of war).

Add in Western Allied armies that would have considerably outnumbered the opposition, and completely outmatch them in equipment, ... especially as occupation duty would consume some of the Axis forces. Add in total control of the sea with numerous opportunities for landings?

The US had in no way maxed out its war making potential in 1945, nor had it even begun to scrape the barrel for manpower. Furthermore, the Axis forces could not hold off the Russians, a country that only marginally fielded superior economic resources ... (the closeness of that margin is one reason the human cost to the Russians was so extreme.) Why does anyone think the Axis could have held the line against the Western Allies, who had access to industrial production over three-five times greater than that mobilized by the Soviets, and who had access to manpower equal the the Soviets?

The iron laws of industrial production and economics were at work in WWII and all the sacrifice and heroism, or the "problems of three little people" (see movie, Casablanca) were basically only tragic sideshows.

Most of the posts in this line are simply opinions, or attempts to avoid the issue of industrial production.. by saying the US-British et.al. didn't have the brains (?) or the fortitude to fight it out. Believe me, they did, could and would've. No one in the US blinked an eye about nuking Japan... and they wouldn't have blinked at leveling Germany either.

Nukes or no nukes, the Western Allies were going to win... maybe not easily, maybe not quickly... but as Churchill said... the issue was settled when the US industrial powerhouse entered the War.

But again.... even if the outcome was industrially forordained (in retrospect), it does not degrade the accomplishments and sacrifice of the Soviets who made the greatest individual sacrifice, and who bore the brunt of the ground war in Europe in the war as it was actually fought ... or the contributions of the British or any of the Allies... or for that matter, the valor, skill and effort of the German Army.

The whole purpose of this line is to bring perspective to the analysis of the war because from the comments in this line, deductive analysis, and accurate historical evaluation are skills that are not universal.

[TheKiwi]

I don't disagree with you Jack as far as industrial production was concerned although your comment on the US scraping the barrel as far as man power interests me. My understanding was that once the US Army (and Marines?) had reached a strength of 90 (maybe 100 I forget which) divisions, no more were formed as it was felt that supporting more was not (easily) possible. This may have more to do with the necessity of shipping ammo, rations and replacements across the Atlantic (& Pacific) rather than manpower availability per se.

Economic power however I don't think fully equates to fighting power, nor specifically to staying power. My points earlier about the breaking point of armies mentioned three armies that were (for their time) relatively well supplied. The Imperial Russian army of 1917 no longer had any problems with assembling 1 million shells for a small offensive, nor with supplying it's troops with rifles and food. Yet it collapsed. The very same could be said for the French army of 1917, and the German army of 1918. Had the US/Commonwealth armies taken casualties in Western Europe of the levels suffered by the Red Army and the Wehrmacht on the eastern front, who is to say how long these could be taken. Luckily for us (meaning the western allies) our fortitude was never really put to the test.

[HellToupee]

You can have 10 times the industrial production means nothing if you don't have the logistics to get the product to the fight. It took them years to build up enough strength to cross the channel with the soviets help, even Normandy was dwarfed by the offensive the Soviets launched.

[TakeIt]

So with all this empty talk in here do we have the chance to see actual numbers of forces, personnell, ammunition spent on different fronts?

[T.S.C.Plage]

There are some numbers in here (some linked) and in the related thread IIRC where it all started. I forgot the topic name so search yourself.

Besides that if you don't have anything of importance to add why not simply STFU?

[Jaguar]

What is it about the vision of 100,000 bombers in skys totally controlled by the Alllies that is hard to understand...?

Well, considering that US produced 49,123 B-17/24/25/26/29s* in total and that 22,931 combat airplanes were on hand overseas in oct/44 (of them 235 B-29s; 2,735 B-17s; 3,500 B-24s; 1,367 B-25s; 1,194 B-26s; 9,031 total)**, your proposition is understandbly hard to envisage.

(*) - The Army Air Forces in World War II, Volume 6 http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/AAFaircraft.htm
(**) - Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II Table 87.

[T-5 Killer]

If you search for "Amerika-Bomber" you'll find out that there were a couple of already tested types of aircrafts like the Me 264 or the Ju 390 besides some other more or less advanced ideas.

Interesting thank you!

[Jaguar]

Economic power however I don't think fully equates to fighting power, nor specifically to staying power. My points earlier about the breaking point of armies mentioned three armies that were (for their time) relatively well supplied.

I always liked this theory.

From Keegan´s The Face of Battle

And, taking a very broad view of the war, a point was reached in every army at which either a majority or a disabling minority refused to go on. This point was reached by the French army in May 1917, when 'collective indiscipline' occurred in 54 of the 100 divisions on the Western Front; in the Russian Army in July 1917, when it failed to resist the German counter-attack consequent on the collapse of the 'Kerensky Offensive'; in the Italian army in November 1917, when the Second Army disintegrated under German-Austrian attack at Caporetto, In March 1918, the British Fifth Army collapsed, as much morally as physically, and in October the German army in the west signified to its officers its unwillingness to continue fighting. In each case, excepting Germany's, and if we count the battle of Loos in September 1915 as Britain's introduction to heavy losses, the moment of collapse occurred between two years six months and two years eleven months after the outbreak.
However, it is probably not the lapse of time which is significant, but the relationship of total casualties to the number of fighting troops engaged; a rough calculation, and anything better than a rough calculation is difficult with such notoriously unreliable statistics as casualty figures, suggests that the break came soon after the total number of deaths suffered equalled the number of fighting infantry in the divisions. Counting the fighting infantry of a division at 10,000, and the number of British, French, Italian and Russian divisions engaged against the central powers as 60, 110, 45 and 120, we get figures of 600,000, 1,100,000, 450,000 and 1,200,000 which are more or less the totals of deaths suffered by each combatant power at the moment its army underwent collapse or crisis. The German army, which certainly suffered a great many more deaths before cracking, escapes from the pattern; but it is important to recall that, almost until the end of the war, it had been fed on a diet of victory; in 1914 Tannenberg, in 1915 Gorlice-Tarnow, in 1916 the defeat of Romania, in 1917 Caporetto and the Russian armistice, in 1918 a succession of breakthroughs of the British and French fronts.
Broad views of this sort tell us nothing, however, about what did (or did not) motivate the soldier to fight in a specific combat situation in trench warfare. We have seen that on the Somme, on 1 July, there were special factors at work which were implicit in the composition and experience - or inexperience - of the Fourth Army. But over and above its cohesion, sense of mission, mood of self-sacrifice, local as well as national patriotism, there were other elements in play. Self-confidence and credulity were certainly present, and powerfully effective at persuading the Pals to jump the parapet. But to emphasize the populist character of the Kitchener armies is to minimize the importance which leadership played in taking it into battle. And arguments can be found to suggest that leadership - conscious, principled, exemplary - was of higher quality and greater military significance in the First World War, at least in the British army, than before or since.


Economic power can be decisive but it is not everything.

From Overy´s Russia´s War (I´m on a citation mood today).

When the spring thaw in 1942 turned the battleground into mud the two sides paused to draw breath after eight months of almost continuous, draining conflict. Though Moscow and Leningrad had both been saved from the annihilating fate intended for them by Hitler, the Soviet Union found itself in a position of acute weakness. In the terrible battles of attrition more than million soldiers had been captured and 3.1 million killed.1 The tank and air forces which had been available in June 1941 were severely depleted, and replacements were slow to arrive. Soviet economic strength was a fraction of what it had been the previous year. German forces now occupied the Soviet bread‐basket, the rich grainlands of the Ukraine; in 1942 bread and meat supplies were halved for the 130 million people living in the Unconquered territories. One‐third of the rail network was behind enemy lines. Soviet heavy industrial production ‐ coal, steel and iron ore ‐ was cut by three‐quarters with the loss of the Donbas industrial region. The materials vital to the production of modern weapons ‐ aluminium, copper, manganese ‐ fell by two‐thirds or more. Millions of skilled workers were killed or captured. Against an enemy with four times more industrial capacity at its disposal Soviet prospects were bleak indeed.
The most remarkable part of the story of Russia’s war lies here, in the revival of Soviet fortunes from a point of near collapse. Few would have gambled on a Soviet victory, faced with the cold statistics of Soviet decline.

[TakeIt]

There are some numbers in here (some linked) and in the related thread IIRC where it all started. I forgot the topic name so search yourself. We have a clear name for a thread here, which has deteriorated to nonsence from the very beginning. "Economic imperative" is something more than GDP, especially if we're discussing contribution to warfare during WW2. I expected to see cost of manufacture, logistics expences, daily loss and renowation in relation to individual cost and budget expences, expences on industry etc. There are so many sides to the topic which are interesting to review, yet here we are - discussing geman atom bomb and "what if"s?


Besides that if you don't have anything of importance to add why not simply STFU? Feeling arrogant, aren't we?

[Jaguar]

TakeIt, most sensible comment so far.

[L J]

The discussion is not progressing to the intellectual level I had hoped. Instead, historically illiterates are making shoot-from-the-hip posts... such as the one above. OMG... "the Allies joined the war effort after Stalin..?????" WTF? What the heck was Britain doing in 1940 while Stalin was chummy and supplying his best pal, Herr Hitler? Britain took all the the Germans could throw at her when she was TRULY alone. No Soviets, only partial US supply support.

So just when was it that Britain "joined the war effort of the Soviets....?"

DOUBLE WTF...? "The US "joined" the war effort of the Soviets...only after Stalin..." WTF was Pearl Harbor about in Dec. 1941 and WTF did it have to do with fear that Stalin would take over the world? Or does that little fracus escape mention in certain histroy texts? Jeeezzz prior to June 22, 1941, the US, not even officially in the war, was adding loads to the anti-Axis war effort. What the heck was "Stalin" doing? He was supplying Herr Hitler that's what.

Originally Posted by powerwheelie http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4513391#post4513391)
Well this whole frickin thread is about armchair generals and what ifs. It's nice that you're patriotic, but if Hitler would have directed all the effort that went into Operation Barbarossa on invading Britain instead, he would have succeeded, and then the US wouldn't have had any bomber bases in the UK, would they?

In 1940, the Axis powers, with all the power of the continent and with most of their united armed forces available, were committed to an invasion of the British Isles, wanted to invade and tried to invade, but could not win the battle of Britain despite controlling half the continent. Defeated in the air and unable to make progress at sea, Germany gave up the plan to invade.

So what the heck are you talking about... "effort that went into Barbarossa...?" WTF? In the battle of Britain, there were no "30 divisions of German planes left facing East.." unlike the reverse in Barbarrosa.

And then... when, what year, were the Germans then supposed to be able to return to the West (after hypothetically defeating the USSR), suddenly be able to out-produce both the US and Britain in airplanes (despite the Allies having close to a 3-1 advantage in industrial power, safe from bombing), capture control of the air, develop a surface navy capable of transporting heavy divisions to Britain, and then win a ground war in Britain against the massed ground forces of the US and British Empire?

In my opinon, the first truly "decisive" moment of WWII was the Battle of Britain followed by the Battle of the Atlantic. If Britain had lost either battle then the Axis probably would have won in Russia.

The second decisive moment was in a battle where a total of 4,000 lives were lost, about 400 planes and a total of 5 ships were sunk... a mere skirmish by Eastern Front casualty and material loss standards. But when the US dive bombers peeled off and dived on the top of the Japanese fleet at Midway, the issue in the Pacific was directionally settled. The ability to concentrate on Europe was able to be confidently endorsed. That battle was truly "decisive."

Sheer numbers of casualties do not necessarily indicate effectiveness in warfare...

I would place Stalingrad among the great turning points... but not "decisive" in that it sealed the course of a portion of the war. The issue on the Eastern Front was still in considerable doubt for over a year after Stalingrad. In my opinion, the defense of Moscow in the late fall of 1941 was what saved the USSR.... more so than Stalingrad. (not denigrating the heroic effort of the Russians in that campaign... but only passing judgment on the nature of the word "decisive.")


I was hoping for more in this line. For instance...one thing that stands out in red letters in my thesis about the Eastern Front is perhaps the true reason the Russians were able to hold out, and then gradually gain the upper hand.

How the heck did the USSR manage to maintain and then increase its GDP when half the country was overrun, and virtually every factory, habitable house, building was destroyed, the people slaughtered, infrastructure wrecked, roads ruined, railroads converted to western gage. The history books mention in passing the Soviets ability to move their core industries east... but they had very little warning or time to do this.

The answer to that question could well be one major (ignored for the most part in the West) key to the results of both the eastern Front and WWII. Are there any historical studies that focus on this economic aspect?Hm,not half of the country was overrun,and already before the war the Soviet industry was dispersed.
The war in the east was fighted out between 2,mainly WWI like armies . That a lot of the occupied SU was destroyed,was irrelevant:it was occupied .It was harmful for the Germans .
About the BOB :it was not very important ,I can you give 7 reasons for the impossibility for Sealion .
The Battle of the Atlantic was more important,but the German chance to win was very small.
Pearl Harbour :meaned one thing :war between the US and Japan
Stalingrad was not decisive.
What was decisive was the B ritish decision in june 1940 to continue the war .If Britain had give uo,US would not intervene in the war .

[L J]

Utter BS. Arguably the outcome of WW2 was decided in Stalingrad and preventing Germany from reaching the oil rich parts of Soviet Union circa 1942-43. Allies joined the war effort only when it became clear that if they don't Stalin will manage to cover the whole of Europe in the process of liberation from Nazis.
Stalingrad is no part of the Caucasus :cantbeli: Look on an atlas .

[L J]

No Soviet Union -> Frees up 5million soldiers for Hitler -> Germany invades UK -> then what?
Channell full dead Germans .:-(:roll:

[L J]

US & UK aircraft production so vastly outnumbered that of the Luftwaffe that any thoughts of the Luftwaffe being able to prevent total domination of the skies above Germany are pretty much "Luft46" masturbatory fantasies. 1944 for example saw more than 130,000 US & UK (and commonwealth) aircraft produced, or about 3.5 times that of Germany (without taking any account of the 40,000 or so that the USSR produced). And much of the US/UK production was of heavy bombers, so this underestimates the amount of effort put into production. German atomic research was so far down the completely wrong path, that they would have had to have started almost from scratch again after they realised that they were going the wrong way. Any tales of Germany have an atomic bomb in 1945 or 46 are likewise equally masturbatory.

Atomic weapons were being produced in low numbers (and these would have to take into account the lowering of priority post war), but by June of 1946, the US had produced 11 bombs above and beyond those used for testing and on Japan. (Source - Revolt of the Admirals pg 128). 11 cities no longer producing weapons, ammunition, rations etc, not to mention extra millions of deaths would mean that no matter how fanatical the German leaders are, the rest of the population would have had enough. And a throughly bitter and readioactive future would await us all.

Most of the figures I have seen suggest that at any one time (both before and after 5th June 1944), 70% of the Wehrmacht's divisions were facing the onslaught from the east. That these were defeated is a tribute to the Red Army's determination to crush the threat for once and for all.

Would they have been able to crush the Wehrmacht without the Lend-Lease supplies is a very good question. Without the trucks and rations and locomotives, a larger proportion of the Societ populace would have had to have been diverted from production of tanks and artillery, or removed from the front line. The Red Army would have become a horse supplied army, which is not to say that such an army couldn't have defeated Germany. After all the German army that invaded (and nearly took Moscow) was 90% horse supplied too.

The question therefore becomes how much slower would have the Red Army's advance been without the advantages of motorised transport? Could they have taken Berlin before taking enough casualties to reach the breaking point, or would they have become bogged down on (say) the Polish border? It is difficult to say when/if such a breaking point would occur, but that it could should not be up for dispute. In WW1, the Russian, French and German armies all reached such a point, with morale etc so low that no further offensive operations became possible.

My summation: Without the Red Army's sacrifices, the most likely way the western part of the alliance could have won would have been by nuking the crap out of Germany and her armies. Without the Lend-Lease supplies (and other support), the most likely way the eastern front would have ended would have been in an exhausted draw with both sides taking time out to prepare for the next round.
The red army would have become a horse supplied army:Was 'n it a horse supplied army ? Like the Germans ? 1 january 1945 :790000 horses,268000 trucks .

[L J]

Jacknola, by uising Wikipedia as a source for your "study", you fail already. Not to mention this "study" is fail by itself.

"casualties on the E.F. are irrelevant", or what did you say there ? What are you talking about ? German army was the most powerful army in the world and the BIGGEST part of it was destroyed on the E.F, also BIGGEST part "Europe Axis" resources was consumed by E.F. Sure, "GPD", "blah-blah", but the BIGGEST part of "Europe Axis" might was destroyed on the E.F., ok? Period. Maybe all those "80 %" are about "Europe Axis".

It's also foolish to underestimate the importance of Pacific Theater, for example. By defeating U.S and allies, Japan Empire could invade USSR. So U.S and allies crushed Japan Empire and USSR with some help from other allies crushed Germany in Europe. One Theater is important for another.Japan had never the intention to invade the SU,it never had the means .It also never had the means to defeat the US .

[L J]

If the Soviets were struggled with the single front against the NAZI's it would have been more serious if the Japanese were to have continued the fight in the Far East.

The Soviets were lucky that they had a damn good spy (Richard Sorge) in Tokyo posing as a Nazi journalist.


It was Sorge that informed Moscow that the Japanese were not going to attack the Soviet Union until:
Moscow was captured
the size of the Japanese Army was three times that of the Soviet Union's Far Eastern forces
a civil war had started in Siberia.
However, unlike the NAZI's the Japanese did not have the industrial output to for a prolonged fight. This is why the Allies placed a higher priority on the European Front rather than the Pacific and Burma-India-China.

In my opinion. It was a war on who can outproduce and deliver material to mitigate whatever losses incurred. If a German sub sank a single Liberty Ship, 10 Liberty ships would have reach their final destination.
Hm,the importance of Sorge is only a myth

[L J]

Heh, with that one statement above you're not doing yourself any favours. Half the male population of Germany would be about 30-40 million people.

And apparently the so-called test range within the book was tested back in 2006 with no radioactivity found.
Hm,half the male population of Germany is 20 million,but on the other hand you are right;German losses in december 1944 were 1.9 million dead and 1.7 million missing .

[L J]

So with all this empty talk in here do we have the chance to see actual numbers of forces, personnell, ammunition spent on different fronts?
What do you want ?

[Kilgor]

The Battle of the Atlantic was more important,but the German chance to win was very small.
.

Thats why Churchill has been quoted in saying it was the Battle of the Atlantic that terrified him the most. There was no certain victory. :roll:

[cbiwv]

Thats why Churchill has been quoted in saying it was the Battle of the Atlantic that terrified him the most. There was no certain victory. :roll:

I have read that some German generals said after failing to take Moscow there was no way they were going to win in the east. Anyone else familiar with this?

[L J]

Most sources quote approx 2/3rds of the Red Army truck fleet was Lend Lease sourced, but I'd be keen to see where your 19% came from.

Further cutting of rations to the non-armed forces populace is not something that can be supported long term. In my previous comment, I talked about armies (and nations) reaching a breaking point beyond which offensive operations simply wouldn't be possible. All the forces in the 1st world war reached this (with the exception of the US who hadn't yet had enough time, and the UK/Commonwealth who were on their last legs). A large factor in each of these was the knowledge of the hardships that the people back home were enduring. You are therefore running a serious risk of accelerating the breaking point of your forces. The Russian Army had reached this point in 1917/1918 despite being well enough supplied, and I can't see anything to suggest that it couldn't/wouldn't eventually happen to the Red Army. Likewise the Imperial German army of 1918 was better supplied by far than the civilians back home, and it was in large part the knowledge of this that contributed to their collapse as a fighting force. The WW1 French army (an army well known for their dedication to the offensive regardless of casualties) also reached this point in 1917. In that instance, a recognition by the front-line infantrymen that statistically they had got to the point where all units were taking 100% casualties.

Going back to the trucks, a non-motorised supplied army cannot put together an assault as effective as a motorised one. The supply lines are significantly harder to support. This is due to both the slower delivery speed of horse transport and that the feed/supply for the horses is considerably more bulky than the oil equivelent. When your offensives depend upon a million of more shells being fired to support your infantry/tank forces, you will take longer to build up stocks, allowing your opposition more time to prepare. WW1 is a perfect example of these limitations. A Red Army 2/3rds dependent upon horses rather than trucks would suffer amny of the same limitations regardless of tank numbers. This most likely means a slower advance with more casualties (or both sides but obviously in favour of the defender). More casualties and once again you are pushing towards the breaking point.
Due to the distances,the climate and the bad roads no motorised army could operate in the east :the German an Red armies were both mainly WW I like armies,depending on horses and railways.

[TheKiwi]

Due to the distances,the climate and the bad roads no motorised army could operate in the east :the German an Red armies were both mainly WW I like armies,depending on horses and railways.

The German army had no way of becoming a motorised army. They had neither the fuel nor (as Jack pointed out earlier) the industrial capacity for the necessary number of trucks. The forces that invaded the Soviet Union used 100's (yes not a typo, perhaps as many as 2,000) different models of trucks, almost none of them designed as military models, and many seized from countries Germany had invaded.

[L J]

The German army had no way of becoming a motorised army. They had neither the fuel nor (as Jack pointed out earlier) the industrial capacity for the necessary number of trucks. The forces that invaded the Soviet Union used 100's (yes not a typo, perhaps as many as 2,000) different models of trucks, almost none of them designed as military models, and many seized from countries Germany had invaded.
I think our two posts are concurring

[Hast2]

If Britain had give uo,US would not intervene in the war .

And what this would change ?

[Hast2]

And why should Hitler not declare war even if he did with Eastern Front, GB still holding ?

[L J]

And what this would change ?
No US in the war,no Overlord .Less air attac ks on Germany ,....

[L J]

And why should Hitler not declare war even if he did with Eastern Front, GB still holding ?
?????? Declare war on the US ?

[Hast2]

No US in the war,no Overlord .Less air attac ks on Germany ,....

You think that was decisive for the war in Europe ?:cantbeli:


?????? Declare war on the US ?

Yes, you said "If Britain had give uo,US would not intervene in the war .".

But Hitler declared war on US even with Eastern Front and Britain still holding. Why shouldn't he if Britain had give up?

[L J]

You think that was decisive for the war in Europe ?:cantbeli:



Yes, you said "If Britain had give uo,US would not intervene in the war .".

But Hitler declared war on US even with Eastern Front and Britain still holding. Why shouldn't he if Britain had give up?
The reason for Hitler declaring war on the US was that the US was not neutral,but was helping Britain (Lend Lease,e .o. ) If Britain give up in june 1940,no LL,thus no need for Hitler to declare war .
About the importance of the US in the war :I never said it was decisive ,but :it took three to defeat Germany,if one of these fell away (Britain,the SU,or the US )I do not think that the other two would be strong enough to defeat Hitler .
If Britain fell away,US could not intervene:no unsinkable aircraft for a build up
If the US did not intervene ,Britain would have lost the Battle of the Atlantic and could not survive .
If the SU fell away,Overlord was not possible with the bulk of the German Army and the Luftwaffe in Normandy.Thats why Hitler attacked the SU .If Barbarossa was succesfull,he had won .
In case 1 and 2 ,the SU would be alone and I don't think she would had won .
In case 1 and 2 there was no need for Hitler to attack the SU in 1941 and maybe not even later,there would be maybe a cold war .

[HellToupee]

Germany declared war because they were allied with Japan.

[Kilgor]

Germany declared war because they were allied with Japan.

FYI there was no obligation to do so. Hitler was a insane gambler and this was one of this worst decisions apart from attacking Russia. Even after PH, America was still largely divided over the war in Europe and this stupid decision by Hitler was a welcome relief to politicians torn about getting the Europe first message across.

[TheKiwi]

Correct. The agreement between Japan and Germany only applied in the event of the US attacking Japan, not Japan attacking the US.

The German's may have been encouraged to declare war though. The day before Pearl Harbor, the Chicago Tribune had published details of the Anglo-American agreement that determined to finish Germany first in the event of the US entering war. There may well have been a sense that the US were going to come in anyway, after all they were already heavily involved in the Atlantic War, escorting ships half way across.

[CPL Trevoga]

My tenet is that the emphasis on Russian contribution at the expense of the contribution of the Western Allies is false history. The belief that the USSR faced 70-90 percent of Axis forces and essentually won the war, possibly originated in Soviet propaganda during the Cold War. The believe in that fact has apparently continued post-Soviet period, because of ethnocentric issues in the Russian educational system. Such ethnocentrisms are not confined to Russia.


First, I don't think you understand what "ethnocentric" means. What is the nationality of people of USSR?

Second, your your loose use of "Russia" is common among Americans to describe anything east of Germany, but to the Europeans such details are important. So, are you talking about Russia or USSR?



I found that surprisingly, even excluding Japan, the total Axis force dedicated to the Eastern front was somewhat less than 50 percent of theoretical even its maximum in 1941-42.

German casualties (we not even counting minor Axis) on EF were 75%, you did not factor this into your calculations. Also number of divisions does not correlate to actual combat strength.



In mobile warfare, extreme casualties occur when the sides are relatively evenly balanced. When one side has overwhelming technology or application efficiency, the war is over quickly... see France 1940, or Iraq 1991 and 2003. In that case the war is Clauzwitzian in nature, and the power of the GDP does not begin to have an obvious effect.

France had very powerful, modern army in 1940. There was no "overwhelming" technological German advantage. What do you think Germans conducted in the East? They used the same tactics there, no different. The only difference was that Germans underestimated Soviet strengths and got bogged down. It's obvious now that they expected easy victory, but met far superior force than they expected. Basically, they lost the war June 22, 1941.