Could The Soviet Union Have Won Against Hitler's Germany Without Allied Help

[Mastermind]

We have speculated all kinds of possible outcomes of WWII. I am wondering what the possibilities are that the Soviet Union could have won against the German onslaught of 1941 if it were not for the Western Allies efforts. Imagine if after Dunkirk, Britian, alone, sued for peace and the Germans had departed France, leaving only a small "police" force to ensure the terms of the armistice were met...turned all her strength against the Soviet Union and had the dreamed of "One Front War". If Hitler had refrained from declaring war on the USA, and thus had kept the Americans out of the conflict, could it be the American business lust would have revelled in supplying both sides with war materials and equipment? Would Britian have honored her "Neutrality" after the armistice of Dunkirk and thus have prevented any massing of bases to launch against Germany even if the USA had ultimately declared war?

In essence, what if Germany and The SU had gone at it alone? What would the world be like today?

[Jani.R]

Germany would have won.


1. no bombing of German industries.

2. more manpower.

3. ALOT more planes/equipment.

4. no lend-lease to the russians.

What about Pearl Harbor, does it happen?

[evanfitz]

German would have probably wiped out the Soviet Union.

Much more spending on research and development

the above post basicly says it all.

[thegman]

Germany would have won.


1. no bombing of German industries.

2. more manpower.

3. ALOT more planes/equipment.

4. no lend-lease to the russians.

What about Pearl Harbor, does it happen?

More man power? The Russians had more man and woman power than any other country in the war. They won battles by just throwing man after man into the line of fire. They had more men then guns, and that says something. Pearl Harbor was goin happen anyway, the Japanese thought the US was waging an undelcared war against them. And the numerous embargos placed on the Japanese by the US "forced" (in the Japanese mind set) the Japanese to fight out and strike the US.

The Germans could have won, but they would have to battle the winter and the Russians. The winter stopped Napoleon, who was kickin some ass back in the day. The Germans did have the armor and air power but during and after the winter these assests were almost taken out of the picture. What really hurt the Germans was the winter, which grounded planes and the tanks got stuck in the ground. The Germans also were hurt by their rapid advance which strung out their supply lines. They also had to face the overwheling amount of men and mass proudecing tanks the Russians had. This was other thing Hitler did wrong, he didnt have the men to tank ratio that the Russians had.

Hilter was dumb enough to try to fight a two front war, which drained his men men and materials. This helped the other Allied nations, and ended up in Germany's defeat. Without the other Allied nations the war on the eastern front would have been long and bloody. But its hard to say who would have won, the Germans were winning but then the winter hit; but Russia had the man power and will power to fight to the last man. So it would end up as a close Russian win or a North Korea ending with no winner and a never ending war.

edit- spelling, god i hate grammer.

[evanfitz]

^^

He ment the Germans would have more soldiers to fight with, considering their was no Western Front.

[TheRussian1]

the road would have been difficult and hard, but no doubt the SU would have won..after many many many years of war.

[thegman]

^^

He ment the Germans would have more soldiers to fight with, considering their was no Western Front.

Yea, but the amount of soldiers the Russians had was far greater than the Germans. The Russians would have taken men from the smaller countries around them.

[TheRussian1]

the SU faced most elite german units in the war, and did fine. For example, in 1944, when the Allies faced about 35 German Divisions, the REd Army faced over 240, including 24 panzer and motorized.

[CyberSpec]

^^

He ment the Germans would have more soldiers to fight with, considering their was no Western Front.

It would have ended in a stalemate.

About 70% of the german manpower was already committed to the eastern front anyway. For example, at the time of the Normandy landings the allies faced 1/2 as many germans than did the Soviets at the same time, when they launched "Operation Bagration"

[koutch]

Keep in mind that nazi germany had a lot of little helpers from the european countries. I think the SU would have won nevertheless, lots of place to retreat, partizans, the weather, and so on. If they have lost, the nazis would have used the remaning manpower and the natual resources to annihilate the UK and then the rest of the world.

[Bombtrack]

Pyrrhic victory for the commies

[asch]

:)
They won battles by just throwing man after man into the line of fire. They had more men then guns, and that says something
man, with all respect, too much computer games and hollywood films for you.
;)

[ElHombre]

SU all the way. the germans didn't have the logistical support needed to win the war. they were still using horses to haul supplies, for cryin' out loud. nor did the germans have the long-range bombers needed to hit russian industry. now add stalin's ruthless efficiency compared to hitler's just-plain-ruthlessness.

[Omaha]

the SU faced most elite german units in the war, and did fine. For example, in 1944, when the Allies faced about 35 German Divisions, the REd Army faced over 240, including 24 panzer and motorized.


Did you forget for the first three years the Germans did what ever the hell they wanted to do, all up and down the east front?

There isn't a question in my mind, the Germans were faster, better equipped, better supplied, and better trained. If it was just Germany and the Soviet Union, there wouldn't be a SU anymore.


Given the time (which is all Hitler ever needed) he could wait out the winters (Russia's only real defense) and run up and down the Volga in the Spring and Summer. Not to mention the air superiority.

It would take time, certainly, but it would be only a matter of time.

[Kilgor]

:)

man, with all respect, too much computer games and hollywood films for you.
;)


No, its not from enemy at the gates.

The willingness of soviet commanders to throw their troops into hopeless battles was well written about at the time by german commanders, officers and soldiers.

Though of course this changed as the war went on, the red army became far more better organised as the war progressed.

(and there is no doubt that penal battalion soldiers were chewed up in this way)

[Rictor]

Actually, when you take a look at all the crazy technology the Nazis had in the works, it seems they were just a few years away from making a huge technological leap ahead of all their opponents. Jet planes, rocket technology, hell they even had a space shuttle in the works. If they had commited all their forces to the Eastern Front, normally I would say that the Soviet Union would win after a lengthy war. After all, even if the Nazis reached Moscow, that's still in the far western part of Russia, it's a big country and the Soviet Union had enough people and fallback territory to continue a guerilla war for a long time.

However, that's assuming the technolgy level stayed the same for the entire length of the war. Even a delay of a few years would likely have allowed Hitler to aqcuire technologies that would have turned the tide, perhaps with a nuclear weapon or simply more advanced versions of existing technolgies. The same would have happened if the Allies had fought alone. Needless to say, if the Soviet Union had not entered the war for whatever reason, the Allies would likely have faced massive casualties and a far larger number of German soldiers.

The fact that German scientists and engineers were considered such a huge asset by both the Allies and Soviet Union after the war should tell you something about their potential for advancing the Nazi war machine.

[towelie]

Id say that the SU would have won anyways. I mean most of the stragetic battles were fought before the Normandy landings and the allies only faced some 30% of the German Army and it wasnt the most elite and battle hardened forces either.

[CyberSpec]

Did you forget for the first three years the Germans did what ever the hell they wanted to do, all up and down the east front?

There isn't a question in my mind, the Germans were faster, better equipped, better supplied, and better trained. If it was just Germany and the Soviet Union, there wouldn't be a SU anymore.


Given the time (which is all Hitler ever needed) he could wait out the winters (Russia's only real defense) and run up and down the Volga in the Spring and Summer. Not to mention the air superiority.

It would take time, certainly, but it would be only a matter of time.

The crisis period for the USSR was 1941/1942 which they managed to survive at a horrible cost.

By the second half of 1943 they were fully mobilised, their industry was beyond german reach and were already out-producing Germany...I can't see how Germany could've won...at best they might have managed to stabilise the front line and achieve some sort of stalemate and end up with a situation similar to 1914-1918

Now if we bring "wonder" weapons in the scenario there's too many variables that can't be predicted

[TheRussian1]

Did you forget for the first three years the Germans did what ever the hell they wanted to do, all up and down the east front?

There isn't a question in my mind, the Germans were faster, better equipped, better supplied, and better trained. If it was just Germany and the Soviet Union, there wouldn't be a SU anymore.


Given the time (which is all Hitler ever needed) he could wait out the winters (Russia's only real defense) and run up and down the Volga in the Spring and Summer. Not to mention the air superiority.

It would take time, certainly, but it would be only a matter of time.

whatever they wanted- yes the wanted moscow and stalingrad but didn't get either. And saying that the winter is Russia's only defense is offenisve to the millions of soviet citizens who died to prevent fascism from erradication non-germans from the rest of the world.

[toad]

There are some folks, even soldiers from Russia, who would agree that they did hit thier production stride in late '43, and produce a lot of war material. But the lend-lease equipment was what got them through the critical 1942.

I'm just saying that... to look back at the war and make an analysis, you would have to take away the thousands of tanks, airplanes etc... supplied to the Russians by the allies. As someone already said, the germans would have probably pushed much farther, faster. Would it have been enough to cause a collapse of the Russian Gov't ?? I wouldn't know.

I would think that when the protracted war ground to a halt the Germans would have been sitting on a large chunk of Russian territory. Maybe given enough time, after reorganizing and rebuilding arms the Russians would have taken that territory back... but IMO it would have taken years...

I cannot see a scenario where the Germans would have lost ground in a one-on-one (without the allies pumping lend lease). I think that is too easily discounted.

I know everyone has a different view of lend lease, but here are some sites which touch on the amounts and effects. You pick.
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9941_roosevelt.html

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm

http://www.geocities.com/unclesam12_99/tables/Lend-Lease.htm

http://www.o5m6.de/sources.html

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/lldocefx.asp



Its not tanks and planes that the allies shipped that turned any tide or won any battle, but the influx of raw materials and equipment during a critical time that made an impact. If you discuss a one-on-one of Germany VS the Soviets in WWII you have to factor that the large numbers of t-34 tanks were made with 2.3 million tons of allied steel...

5.5 million pairs of combat boots
1,000 locomotives
520 ships
245,000 wireless radios
23 million yards of cloth

476,000 tons of super critical AV gas
400,000 trucks

then add the thousands of tanks, 4.5 million tons of food, farm tractors etc...

Take away all the lend lease that started in oct 1941 and hit its stride in the summer of 1942.........and then discuss how 1943 would have went for 1943???



Quote:
"The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR was all but done for without Lend Lease. Quoting Zhukov: "Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries." Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and 1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs in 1963: "It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

[caridon]

IMHO the soviet union would have won but it would have been a pyrric wictory.

The germans would have gotten MUCH mote teretory but would be defeted by the need to hold the concuered teretory in the face of more and more experienced partizans.

Germany simply dont have the manpower for that type of job and they would NOT have won hearts and minds enough to replace their army with local conscripts.



/C

[pathfinder82]

I dont see how anybody could say the the Soviets would have come out on top. Is anyone forgetting how close they were to Moscow while fighting on 2 fronts. That horrible winter also played a huge part along with Hitlers ever declining sanity.

In a lot of ways the German war machine was the most impressive fighting force ever given the time period. They revolutionized how a war was fought. It was no longer 1 dimensional but a 3D aspect to war. Their tactics were sound to say the least, their leader was not.

Its one thing to be able to throw man after man at the problem. Equiping and training them is different. Home armies are great when your up against a weakend starving enemy. They would have been no match for the Germans in that situation though.

I think folks are not understanding that nobody in their right mind would try to occupy all of the Soviet Union, it would be impossible obviously. What they would have done was taken the big cities that mattered and that would have crippled the Soviets completely. Time is then on your side. You take those cities and you can move farther in over time.

[asch]

man, Moscow is at far western end of mother Russia.
;)
do not underestimate size of our country.

and by the way, almost 3/4 of all industrial complexes were at Siberia and in Ural regions.

[pathfinder82]

Right, but you do understand that they were within what, 40 miles of Moscow.

Doesnt matter if all their industrial might was in Siberia and the Urals. Take the main cities of power and thats that. They could build tanks all day but without a funtioning goverment the game is over.

They would have just hopped from airfield to airfield to launch bombing raids father and farther into Soviet territory. Its not some impenetrable fortress. You simply use the enemies infrastructure against them.

[toad]

man, Moscow is at far western end of mother Russia.
;)
do not underestimate size of our country.

and by the way, almost 3/4 of all industrial complexes were at Siberia and in Ural regions.

having said that...if most of the industry is in siberia, would russia have been able to get supplies to the west, into the fight, if the allies had not supplied 1000 locomotives, gas, and 400,000 trucks? It wouldn't have done much good, to have artillery you can't transport or load with shells...

[Kilgor]

And with the loss of the Ukraine, a vast supply of food was lost, the soviet unions breadbasket. Plus if the germans did manage to block of baku, the the oil supply would be in deep trouble. Yes, industry was evacuated, but many key supplies could not be held or were in big trouble.

[CyberSpec]

I dont see how anybody could say the the Soviets would have come out on top. Is anyone forgetting how close they were to Moscow while fighting on 2 fronts.

What 2 fronts are you talking about in June-December 1941?

And everyone seems to exagarate the importance of the Lend Lease program, while no one mentions that the Germans had a whole bunch of Allies who were contributing to their war effort: Italy, Hungary, Romania...and a host of various pro-fascist volunteers from all over Europe.

[InetWarrior]

SU would win... Hitler was to stupid to beat Stalin that old dirty bastard

[liberation]

Right, but you do understand that they were within what, 40 miles of Moscow.

Doesnt matter if all their industrial might was in Siberia and the Urals. Take the main cities of power and thats that. They could build tanks all day but without a funtioning goverment the game is over.

They would have just hopped from airfield to airfield to launch bombing raids father and farther into Soviet territory. Its not some impenetrable fortress. You simply use the enemies infrastructure against them.

Its not likely that the Soviets would have chucked in the towel if Moscow had been over run by the Nazi's. Hitler had a genocidal hatred of the slavs,so Soviet military commanders had little reason to compromise with Berlin.

The Russian people would have fought on simply because they had no choice.

[sergey31]

Lets go back and see how German troops stopped before Moscow and what stopped them.....After that it was downhill for the Nazis.
Soviets had better and more mobile tanks in the beginning and even trough the war.
Soviets has faster and BETTER weapon production factories. Germans could never amount to ingenuity of Russians and their simple and mass production weapons.
Small arms fire is also in favor for the Soviets, PPSH 41 is a good example, twice the firepower & twice the ammo.
Not to forget the hatred and determination of Soviets toward defeating Germans, Nazis just could not fight as determined as Soviets did. For them (occupiers) it was fight for survival and command but for the Soviets it was a fight for the a country as whole and sacrifice of their own lives if need be for this cause.

ETc etc.

[jamaKinson]

It would be longer and would be won by the one who comes up with a nuke first.

[Mastermind]

Thanks everyone for such great comments and insight.

1) Yes...Pearl Harbor happens right on schedule in my exercise. But, Hitler refrains from declaring war on the USA, reading his treaty papers to the letter (Via Ribbintrop, of course) in that Japan attacked the USA..the treaty read that they would come to each other's aid only if ATTACkED themselves by another country.

2) Don't forget the USA "business before country" attitude that often happens. Even in the American Civil War, many tons of supplies were shipped directly to the south via overland rail almost to the end (illegal of course) and in early days, even after Pearl Harbor, WWII, German U-boats were being resupplied in Mexican ports and on the high seas via Standard Oil and ESSO tankers.

3) Yes, suddenly, North Africa was not an issue...held by Italians, French forces and garrisoned British in Egypt (in this little fantasy history)...Greece and the Balkans are no longer a drain on German manpower, either...thus no diversion of forces to the south.

4) Hitler remains in power throughout (Altghough I personaly feel he would have died in 1945 or 46 regardless due to his sphylitic condition and his personal physician giving him quack remedies for his stomach and bowel conditions). His mental deterioration and growing paranoia continue apace.

5) Stalin stays in power throughout.

[U-S-S-R]

The Soviet-Union would have won, ofcaurse. The 'allies' killed only 10% of the German soldiers, the SU had to do the heavylifting. The war would take longer, millions more lives would be lost but there is simply no way Hitler could have won.

In fact, it was in American advantage to make a beachhead in Normandy. The war was lost for the Germans after '43, nobody except Hitler had doubt. That exactly why the gallant and brave allies tried to occupie as much land as possible after it was clear Hitler simply could not have won the war and no negotiations with him would take place in cafe of a Nazi-victory.

There is no altruïsm in the world and especially not in WWII. The Allies did what they did not because it was a good thing, it's because they profited from it. Let's not forget that Hitler declared war on America and not the other way around. America got a huge market to sell it goods on after the WWII. It created a socalled 'defensive' organisation' (NATO) with itself as it's leader, leading the most powerful countries in the world.

[U-S-S-R]

Did you forget for the first three years the Germans did what ever the hell they wanted to do, all up and down the east front?

There isn't a question in my mind, the Germans were faster, better equipped, better supplied, and better trained. If it was just Germany and the Soviet Union, there wouldn't be a SU anymore.


Given the time (which is all Hitler ever needed) he could wait out the winters (Russia's only real defense) and run up and down the Volga in the Spring and Summer. Not to mention the air superiority.

It would take time, certainly, but it would be only a matter of time.

German army was halted at Leningrad and Moscow. German superiority was lost during the Battle for Stalingrad. And after the tankbattle near Kursk Germany depleted too much of it's resources and from then it it was a defensive battle for Germany and an offensive one for SU. Only after the battle was fought, the Allies joined in to take a slice of the cake.

Ofcaurse all the respect to the Allied soldiers that lost their lives in Europe. Ofcaurse their sacrifice had an impact on the outcome, but they contributed to Hitlers demise, not caused it.

[ed316]

Could The Soviet Union Have Won Against Hitler's Germany Without Allied Help

No. Because Hitler could of concentrate most of his troops to the east instead of fighting on two fronts.

[foxtrot023]

the SU faced most elite german units in the war, and did fine. For example, in 1944, when the Allies faced about 35 German Divisions, the REd Army faced over 240, including 24 panzer and motorized.

Over all, what you are saying is correct. The SU faced anywere from 75% to 60% of the Heer. However there were in Western Europe, at the moment of Normandy landings, 68 german divisions covering the atlantic wall, some of them were elite divs like the 1ss Pz, 22ss Pz, 12ss Pz, 10th ss Pz, 116th Pz, Pz Lehr, etc.

edit- to reply to the question raised by the post. I think the USSR had it in itself to beat the germans, but it is by no means assured that that would have happened. In any case it would have been a bloody and looong conflict.

[U-S-S-R]

No. Because Hitler could of concentrate most of his troops to the east instead of fighting on two fronts.

He did concentrate it on Russia and gave all that he could give and asked the germans for more. But when the altruist defenders of freedom landed in Normandy, Hitler was already fighting a defensive war while Russia re-organized it's army into an unbeatable machine. Nothing could stop the endless waves of the T-34's. The big party was already fought, the allies only got in time for the afterparty.

[ed316]

altruist defenders of freedom landed in Normandy.

You crack me up.

[U-S-S-R]

You crack me up.

- nvm -

:)

[JVeld]

USSR....simply because it was too many people to fight against, once they got the war machine industry going, it was unstopable and too vast of a country to try to occupy !
but let's forget this for a minute and think of What would have really happened if Germany hadn't invaded the USSR or even better, if they would have fought togheter ???? my guess is we would all be typing this in either German or Russian ,...........

[U-S-S-R]

USSR....simply because it was too many people to fight against, once they got the war machine industry going, it was unstopable and too vast of a country to try to occupy !
but let's forget this for a minute and think of What would have really happened if Germany hadn't invaded the USSR or even better, if they would have fought togheter ???? my guess is we would all be typing this in either German or Russian ,...........

Impossible. Hitler invaded USSR because he was convinced it was run by jews as the communist party was established by jews in the civil war. That was the ideological reason. The more tactical reason was because he was under the impression that Stalin had plans to attack Germany. Some documents show that this might have been true, but it's highly controversial and let's not start this discussion here. No long-term collaboration between the 2 would be possible.

He could have succeded in his missionif he treated the population better and restored Tsarism / Kingdom.

But imagine Russia with German pragmatism and inginuity... Unbeatable.

[Asheren]

You all forgot about one very important fact no allied= no africa. No africa =no africa corps. They could use their resouces for making africa corps to create similiar combat force developed to fight in russia. (Hmm Winter corps)
Without africa they can use italian army in eastern front and what is most important they can use italian industry to supply their war machine. They would have Rommel on eastern front and assuming that he will develop similiar deep encircle tactic they could start similiar race to that one in africa aiming at caucasian oil. If they reach it well it is game over. If germany in mean time develop long range bomber. It is more than possible they will have to develop long range transport plane anyway. It will be propably game ove for Russians. There are many other factors like German nuke ending stalingrad siege. Russians had no idea how to make one till after war. I think that chances are 7:3 for Germans.

[JVeld]

Impossible. Hitler invaded USSR because he was convinced it was run by jews as the communist party was established by jews in the civil war. That was the ideological reason. The more tactical reason was because he was under the impression that Stalin had plans to attack Germany. Some documents show that this might have been true, but it's highly controversial and let's not start this discussion here. No long-term collaboration between the 2 would be possible.

He could have succeded in his missionif he treated the population better and restored Tsarism / Kingdom.

But imagine Russia with German pragmatism and inginuity... Unbeatable.
I agree with you, but dont forget one thing.....they were allies at first ! Stalin provided Hitler with materials, oil and some equipment at first that Gemany wasn't allowed to build or have under the treaty that ended WWI ......and yes Russia with German pragmatism and inginuity... Unbeatable.

[foxtrot023]

You all forgot about one very important fact no allied= no africa. No africa =no africa corps. They could use their resouces for making africa corps to create similiar combat force developed to fight in russia. (Hmm Winter corps)
Without africa they can use italian army in eastern front and what is most important they can use italian industry to supply their war machine. They would have Rommel on eastern front and assuming that he will develop similiar deep encircle tactic they could start similiar race to that one in africa aiming at caucasian oil. If they reach it well it is game over. If germany in mean time develop long range bomber. It is more than possible they will have to develop long range transport plane anyway. It will be propably game ove for Russians. There are many other factors like German nuke ending stalingrad siege. Russians had no idea how to make one till after war. I think that chances are 7:3 for Germans.

Numbers wise, the afrika korps was a drop in the bucket compared to the forces used in Op. Barbarrosa

[JVeld]

True that !

[Asheren]

Yes but Africa corps were trained specialy for conditions in Africa and they were an elite unit. If they make similiar force for Russian condtions it would be invaluable asset to German combat force. Especialy that it would alow them to make equipment and gear designed for harsh Russian conditions.
In 1940 Italy had ~40 divisions (don't remember exact number now). I don't ecpect that they would fight well on Eastern front still they will provide additional fire power.

[foxtrot023]

Yes but Africa corps were trained specialy for conditions in Africa and they were an elite unit. If they make similiar force for Russian condtions it would be invaluable asset to German combat force. Especialy that it would alow them to make equipment and gear designed for harsh Russian conditions.
In 1940 Italy had ~40 divisions (don't remember exact number now). I don't ecpect that they would fight well on Eastern front still they will provide additional fire power.

They had an army (20th mountain)that fought on Finland specially trained for winter warfare, but it still did them no good.

[TheRussian1]

Yes but Africa corps were trained specialy for conditions in Africa and they were an elite unit. If they make similiar force for Russian condtions it would be invaluable asset to German combat force. Especialy that it would alow them to make equipment and gear designed for harsh Russian conditions.
In 1940 Italy had ~40 divisions (don't remember exact number now). I don't ecpect that they would fight well on Eastern front still they will provide additional fire power. Italy's contribution would make nothing good for the Germans- the history of ww2 showed the Italians to be less than reliable soldiers. The roumanians were more effective soldiers.

When Italy just entered the war, and Mussolini wanted some of the spoils from France, approx 32 Italian divisions attacked the French across their common border. They were easily held by 4 French divisions, despite the fact that the French had no air of heavy artillery support, and were probably demorilized from the events on the GErman front.

[California Joe]

These threads always descend in to some sort on nationalism after a while. We'll never really know. I would think that the lack of US and British bombers pounding the hell out of Germany on a daily basis might have helped quite a bit on the German side.

[ed316]

To the people that think Russia could of held her own. Look at the lend lease policy FDR had for the Soviets you think without it the Soviets would be fine? Stop your nationalistic BS and look at the whole picture.

[Rifleman]

Lend-Lease was very important for the SU and cannot be understated. Allied pressure in Africa and Italy and in 44 D-day has been mentioned.

So take away;
1. Lend-Lease
2. Africa
3. Italy
4. Normandy

and you free up a lot of German men and material. This still leaves an uncertain outcome IMO.

But... Consider the USAF, this is the "heavy lifting" of the allies. Without the USAF I give the nod to Germany....for a few years.

Hitler planned to stop at Moscow, even he knew he could not take all of Russia. This leaves Russian industry intact and as someone else pointed out the A-bomb would be a factor.

Today there would be 2 countries in the world, the Soviet Union and the United States. No France, Iraq, Africa, Brazil, Cuba or Canada just the US and SU.

[RomanS]

No, its not from enemy at the gates.

The willingness of soviet commanders to throw their troops into hopeless battles was well written about at the time by german commanders, officers and soldiers.

Though of course this changed as the war went on, the red army became far more better organised as the war progressed.

(and there is no doubt that penal battalion soldiers were chewed up in this way)
yeah tell us about it
you were there

and than you wrote books about it

[RomanS]

At the the end Soviet Union would of made Germans go back home.

But Kalashnikov was very close on coming out with a new assualt rifle. he had it in mind long before 1947.

But what would kill germans is the partizan war, winter, dedication of Russians, and the bravery.
Germans would of had enough after a while.

[foxtrot023]

At the the end Soviet Union would of made Germans go back home.

But Kalashnikov was very close on coming out with a new assualt rifle. he had it in mind long before 1947.

But what would kill germans is the partizan war, winter, dedication of Russians, and the bravery.
Germans would of had enough after a while.

That´s very nice and all Roman, but it does not explain how would it happen. Could the SU won on its own? possibly, but by no means it was an assured thing. At the end the german defeat was due to being outnumbered and outproduced by the allies. It remains to be seen if the SU could have done it on its own

[Sten3]

... in an ONE FRONT WAR....

with out "insane Genaral Hitler" the Soviet Union had only one canche: GENERAL WINTER!

[pathfinder82]

I would think that the lack of US and British bombers pounding the hell out of Germany on a daily basis might have helped quite a bit on the German side.

Youd better believe it. I think when people choose to look at the whole picture there is only one logical outcome really. It may be hard to swallow for some but its fairly obvious.

[Abolith]

the SU faced most elite german units in the war, and did fine. For example, in 1944, when the Allies faced about 35 German Divisions, the REd Army faced over 240, including 24 panzer and motorized.



Bzzzzzt nice try. there were 60 (static) german divisions stationed in france alone.


besides this is all conjecture anyways, history happened as it did and thats the way it is. Germany lost and the allies won...end of story.

[TheRussian1]

Bzzzzzt nice try. there were 60 (static) german divisions stationed in france alone.


besides this is all conjecture anyways, history happened as it did and thats the way it is. Germany lost and the allies won...end of story.

no there weren't. Not according to most of my ww2 history books(Russian and western).

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

Army Group North was stopped at Leningrad in September 1941.
Army Group Center was stopped at Moscow in November 1941. People like to blame this on the weather, but somehow this news about the bad weather didn't reach the Red Army as in December they managed a series of counter-attacks, the most successful of which pushed the front over 100km west.
Army Group South was caught in Sevastopol in October 1941 and then Stalingrad in August 1942.
By Spring 1942, large-scale partisan actions were already being carried out in German-occupied territories, without any outside assistance.
The Lend-Lease act wasn't extended to the USSR until late November 1941. Most of the Lend-Lease materiel was delivered in late 1942/early 1943, when the Soviet counter-attack was already in full swing.

I think what would have happened is the war would have been extended by another two or three years, with Germany ultimately capitulating and ceding all territory east of anywhere from Germany's pre-war border to Poland.

[ed316]

The Lend-Lease program began in March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March) 1941 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941)


Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies) in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), particularly in the early years when the United States was not directly involved and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations), and after June 1941 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941) the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union). Although Pearl Harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor) and the German Declaration of War brought the US into the war in December 1941 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941), the task of recruiting, training, and equipping US forces, and then transporting them to the war zones could not be completed overnight. Through 1942 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942), and to a lesser extent 1943 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943), the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting, and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success. In 1943-44, about a fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft comprised about one fourth of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles, and ships.
Even after the United States forces in Europe and the Pacific began to reach full-strength in 1943 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943)–1944 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944), Lend-Lease continued. Most remaining belligerents were largely self-sufficient in front-line equipment (such as tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank) and fighter aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft)) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including trucks, jeeps, landing craft, and above all the Douglas DC-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3) transport aircraft) were of enormous assistance.
Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back on production of nonessentials severely, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military/industrial economy.
For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army) tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1944 nearly half the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge) 3/4 ton and Studebaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker) 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front). US supplies of waterproof telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical.


The list 1 below is the amount of war material shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program. It is the total amount of matériel from the beginning to September 30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_30), 1945 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945).
Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

[StukaJr]

Hitler was planning to end his "conquest" at the Ural Mountain ridge - even if the Axis advanced as far, their lines would be incredibly stretched, half of the Axis troops would be on Partisan detail

Allied bombing did not begin full scale until late 1942, did not begin to bear results until late 1943 and finally did not stop the production until the boots hit the ground in 1945 - Axis ran out of men, not the machines. While the Allied Air Campaign did play an important role in the war with the Axis - the first defeats like Moscow, Demyansk and Stalingrad showed the inability of the Axis to capture all that it set out.

Simple Math - the intended conquest of SU would take Axis all the way to the Ural Ridge - area more than double the size that it conquered. Nothing suggests that SU would be out of the fight - with most of the production and majority of the factories relocated well in advance. 3/4 of the German troops were fighting on the Eastern Front - simple Algebra suggests that Axis would need double the manpower to control double the area, common sense suggests that Partisan Activity would be more prominant in the areas yet to be conquered.

UK would still be hardpressed to supply SU with aid - unless this scenario suggests that Axis never attacked the UK, nor France... Which is bullocks. With UK's faith uncertain with fall of SU - goods from US would still be pouring into UK and find the way into SU. UK not fighting in Afrika? Then I'm sure neither UK nor US worried about Nazi Middle East but my books suggest otherwise.

What if China stopped importing its goods into US? Does the American Household, relying on 90% of its products made in China, collapse without China pumping in cheap goods? Idiocy indeed. Lend-Lease was offered - if it wasn't offered by US and UK, someone else would have filled the void - some of the richest Billionaires in the world made their first hundreds of millions by dealing with SU before the war. Economics 101 - demand and opportunity, for all I care, supply of SU would have been done by private parties, like it was before the War.

[ed316]

Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:
Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508901.stm

[foxtrot023]

Bzzzzzt nice try. there were 60 (static) german divisions stationed in france alone.


besides this is all conjecture anyways, history happened as it did and thats the way it is. Germany lost and the allies won...end of story.

No there were not. The germans had 68 divisions in the area of France, Belgium and Netherlands.

[TheRussian1]

No there were not. The germans had 68 divisions in the area of France, Belgium and Netherlands.

In late 1944, no they didn't.

[StukaJr]

The One flaw of these What If scenarios that renders it to the level of idiocy, is that it's a human nature to substitute when something is missing. Like if I eat McDonalds for a week - "What if there were no McDonalds?" thread would suggest that I would be suffering from malnutrition.
Same with History - yes, Soviet Soldiers ate American Corned Beef, rode in Studabeckers and Jeeps... All of those aided their life in the field and the supply of the troops... Take away the two and one would think that Soviet Soldier would starve and not get to the frontline, because apparently - human beings just can't move from point A to point B without a jeep.

As for:

Tanks.................................7,056

I LOL'ed :D The first tank that could be called tank did not enter service until 1944

As for the rest of the Lend Lease - very impressive numbers... Unless you divide them over the period of 4 years - more delivered in the last two, than first. And calculate in the goods that came into Soviet Ports, Not Left American Harbors... For the country of 250 million... With Armed Forces that saw at least 30 million men in uniform in those 4 years!

I'm not acting "ungrateful", but jesus - give some credit to the SU for actually grinding down the best units Axis had to offer! I'd like to think that canned meat and trucks defeated the Axis, but then I know better.

P.S. And Russia is kicking Canuckian arse!

[TheRussian1]

here are some more numbers:

The Red Army detsroyed, captured and disbaled what ammounted to 607 Axis divisions. The western allies destroyed 156. And that includes all of the GErmans who practically surrendered to the advancing allies in late 1944 and 1945, while the Red Army still faced heavy resistance.

and we beat canada just now...

[TheRussian1]

In the beggining of 1945, the German armies were reduced to less thn 30 division in the west, while in the east theys till maintained as many as 214 divisions, including 34 panzer and 15 mototrized.

[ed316]

Without Allies the SU would of not made it to Berlin. Same goes for the Allies. The Allies needed each other. If the allies didn't come together Nazi Germany would not be defeated and would probably exist to this day.

[StukaJr]

A good number of the best divisions that were in the West at the time of the D-Day were there for re-fitting or re-forming, most of these were completely destroyed on the Eastern Front and were deemed unfit for combat.

If one goes through condition of the divisions on the Western Front, one will quickly realize that even the 1 to 3 (Western to Eastern Fronts) ratio is purely nomenclature.

Without Allies the SU would of not made it to Berlin. Same goes for the Allies. The Allies needed each other. If the allies didn't come together Nazi Germany would not be feated and would probably exist to this day.

Something we should all just agree on - x2

[foxtrot023]

In late 1944, no they didn't.

First 5 months of 1944 they did

[foxtrot023]

Without Allies the SU would of not made it to Berlin. Same goes for the Allies. The Allies needed each other. If the allies didn't come together Nazi Germany would not be defeated and would probably exist to this day.

Amen! that is the truth. It took the combined effort of the USSR, US and UK (the 3 Us) to defeat Germany

[foxtrot023]

Army Group North was stopped at Leningrad in September 1941.
Army Group Center was stopped at Moscow in November 1941. People like to blame this on the weather, but somehow this news about the bad weather didn't reach the Red Army as in December they managed a series of counter-attacks, the most successful of which pushed the front over 100km west.
Army Group South was caught in Sevastopol in October 1941 and then Stalingrad in August 1942.
By Spring 1942, large-scale partisan actions were already being carried out in German-occupied territories, without any outside assistance.
The Lend-Lease act wasn't extended to the USSR until late November 1941. Most of the Lend-Lease materiel was delivered in late 1942/early 1943, when the Soviet counter-attack was already in full swing.

I think what would have happened is the war would have been extended by another two or three years, with Germany ultimately capitulating and ceding all territory east of anywhere from Germany's pre-war border to Poland.

By parts-

Army Group North was not stopped by the soviets. It had its panzer group routed south for the Moscu offensive.

I agree that Army Group Center was stopped by the SU.

Army Group South was never ¨caught¨ in Sevastopol. They were stopped, but only till the 11th army conquered it in early 1942. BTW Army Group South was never caught in Stalingrad, since Operation Blau used Army Group A and B, which replaced South.

Most of the Lend Lease materiel was given in 1943 and 1944. Tomorrow I will post amounts per year. Almost all soviet trucks were american lend lease. Most experts agree that without those trucks the offensives of 1943 and 1944 couldn´t have been as successful.

[foxtrot023]

In the beggining of 1945, the German armies were reduced to less thn 30 division in the west, while in the east theys till maintained as many as 214 divisions, including 34 panzer and 15 mototrized.

Number wise the germans had 2 million men on other teathers other than the East and 2.4 million in the East. The number of divisions you name, while close to reality do not reflect the state in which they were i.e.- Mostly repleted (thanks to the SU, of course)

[TheRussian1]

Number wise the germans had 2 million men on other teathers other than the East and 2.4 million in the East. The number of divisions you name, while close to reality do not reflect the state in which they were i.e.- Mostly repleted (thanks to the SU, of course)


not at all. In terms of manpower and equipment the wermacht on the east had far more men. They could afford to launch a lot more counterattacks- such as the lake balton offensive.
The three U's defeated Germany together, lets leave it at that. And eternal glory to the sodliers who fought against the third reich.

[StukaJr]

Most experts agree that without those trucks the offensives of 1943 and 1944 couldn´t have been as successful.

No - a lot, but not most. While most of the Soviet Union produced trucks were copies of Fords and Chevys - the end of the war saw US and Brittish produced trucks at about 30%, with the rest being Soviet Produced.

Finally:

Lend-lease aid amounted to approximately 10-12% of the total Soviet war production effort. While this does not seem like a significant amount, having 10% more key supplies available could make the difference between holding the line to going on the offensive.

10% is not exactly make it or break it, as far as WWII is concerned.

Source: http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

[foxtrot023]

No - a lot, but not most. While most of the Soviet Union produced trucks were copies of Fords and Chevys - the end of the war saw US and Brittish produced trucks at about 30%, with the rest being Soviet Produced.

Finally:



10% is not exactly make it or break it, as far as WWII is concerned.

Source: http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

As I said, tomorrow I will have those figures for you.

[StukaJr]

As I said, tomorrow I will have those figures for you.

Cool - these are my figures:

http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

:)

[Kilgor]

yeah tell us about it
you were there

and than you wrote books about it

Guderian for a start, in his biography so ive read.

[Kilgor]

As for lend lease, it wasnt so much the completed equipment that made the difference.. it was the raw food stuffs, high octaine avation fuel, metals and explosives and especially communications equipment. The main opponents of the lend lease arguement love to focus only on the tank/aircraft/truck figures because it is clearly misleading.

So many pieces of soviet tanks and aircraft where crippled tactically because they lacked radios. The arrival of radio sets revolutionized the fighting ability, along with the millions of metres of water proof telephone wire.

Yes, the Russians also defeated most of the german army. But what do you expect. Hitler launched a war against the soviet union, it was his main target!

It amazes me some can claim moral victory over hitler, but im IMO its two vicious bullies beating the crap out of each other.

[StukaJr]

Guderian for a start, in his biography so ive read.
It is often said that Germany lost WWII but won the Historian's War - for that very reason.

As beneficial as German Generals' memoirs maybe, their accounts are not the best source of historical information. First - they lost the war, second - they lost it against the sub-class. Finally, the Prussian Aristocracy that mainly made up officer core is far without a chip on their shoulder.

I've personally read Manstein's memoirs and found about half of it useless personal attacks on his opponent's tactics... I think he spent more time combating liver parasites with vodka on the Eastern Front than commanding - at least as far as his memoirs are concerned.

Guderian is a great tactician, however, he did not command reserves necessary to put his tactics in practice - the best he did, was quip about what he would have done if he had the logistical support and tanks available to his Soviet Counterparts... And are you talking about "Achtung! Panzer" or "Panzer Commander"?

[StukaJr]

Yes, the Russians also defeated most of the german army. But what do you expect. Hitler launched a war against the soviet union, it was his main target!


USSR had to be defeated before Hitler could deal with UK - Hitler wanted to pre-empt SU from going through the modernization of its armed forces and production. Suggestion the Soviet Union was a main target or the final target is inane.


It amazes me some can claim moral victory over hitler, but im IMO its two vicious bullies beating the crap out of each other.

Yes, Opposition of Communism let totalitarian dictatorships attain the power - and visa versa. And there were more than 2 bullies, what's new? Post WWII, saw the struggle of old Imperial Powers try and regain lost colonies and put them under the boot - I'm sure that's the basis of Democracy and good living. Fear of Nuclear Annihilation is synonymous with freedom as well. 20th Century is equivalent of dark ages, by many standards.

[Kilgor]

It is often said that Germany lost WWII but won the Historian's War - for that very reason.

"?


And would you agree that since the Soviet Union and Stalin won the war, the propaganda state could write history the way it wanted, and any critics crushed by the newly imposed stalinist terror ?

[Kilgor]

USSR had to be defeated before Hitler could deal with UK - Hitler wanted to pre-empt SU from going through the modernization of its armed forces and production. Suggestion the Soviet Union was a main target or the final target is inane.

.


No, anyone could tell you Hitlers main goal was the crushing of the soviet union. It was the last remaining threat to the conquest of the entire european land mass.

[StukaJr]

And would you agree that since the Soviet Union and Stalin won the war, the propaganda state could write history the way it wanted, and any critics crushed by the newly imposed stalinist terror ?

No, the recently opened archives provide the most accurate information in regards to the events - certainly more reliable than German General's personal accounts. I don't hold the latter as reliable nor accountable, apart from understanding the person whom wrote them - that is the only thing I've said.

With Post WWII world being what it was - there were enough lies passed as History on both sides, doesn't mean one can trust one side religiously but not the other.

[StukaJr]

No, anyone could tell you Hitlers main goal was the crushing of the soviet union. It was the last remaining threat to the conquest of the entire european land mass.

??? European Land Mass? Ummm... I thought that's what was already achieved prior to '41 - unless Hitler wanted to re-conquer the European Land Mass all over again :D

UK was the last remaining piece - the rest of the landmass would be Allies and the Franco's Spain - which Hitler was only interested in having as an Ally, not a conquered state. Vichy South France was as good as German anyhow...

I study both sources when it comes to WWII - I don't discredit German sources even if I have a strongest aversion to Nazism... I'm also anti-Communist yet I recognize their bookkeeping to be rather top notch.

[Omaha]

At the the end Soviet Union would of made Germans go back home.

But Kalashnikov was very close on coming out with a new assualt rifle. he had it in mind long before 1947.

But what would kill germans is the partizan war, winter, dedication of Russians, and the bravery.
Germans would of had enough after a while.



The STG 44 was the first assault rifle. Drop the crap. The Nazis would take the SU in a heart beat.

They we faster, BETTER TRAINED, better equipped, etc. The winter is what stopped the Nazis from taking Moscow. Simple as that. If time would have held off for another summer, I can't see anything other than a fall of Moscow it self.


And what makes you think the Germans would have kept any soviets around to fight once they were disarmed? They got pretty good at killing a bunch of unarmed people...

[Kilgor]

??? European Land Mass? Ummm... I thought that's what was already achieved prior to '41 - unless Hitler wanted to re-conquer the European Land Mass all over again :D

UK was the last remaining piece - the rest of the landmass would be Allies and the Franco's Spain - which Hitler was only interested in having as an Ally, not a conquered state. Vichy South France was as good as German anyhow...

I study both sources when it comes to WWII - I don't discredit German sources even if I have a strongest aversion to Nazism... I'm also anti-Communist yet I recognize their bookkeeping to be rather top notch.

Fine.. how about "eurasian" land mass ?

You think the soviets never lied about figures ?
Just how many germans did stalin say they had killed in the first speech after the war started ?

[toad]

WWII logistics are huge in scale, but I think that people are too quick to discount lend lease. Mainly because it came at a critical time. the summer of 1942 it hit its stride and it made a difference in the war in 1943 and on.

Imagine Pattons dilema if he did not have the trucks to move men and supplies (like during the bulge). Imagine the British during the battle of britain not having enough AV gas. Rommel in N. Africa with not enough ships to resupply, not enough planes for aircover, not enough shells for arty....

Logisitics for WWII were a big deal, they were huge by todays standards., But in any army, in any era, the supply of raw materials & finished goods at the critical times made a big difference.

[ogukuo72]

Toad is right on both counts.

Germany's weakness is not in the quality of its weapon - it has excellent weapons. But Germany could never turn superior weapons into war winning weapons. One reason is because the Germans were weak logistically compared not only to the US, but to the Soviet Union.

The Germans relied overwhelmingly on rail. Its enemies did not. It had believed that the damage to French rail would impede Allied reinforcements and resupply as much as it had the German army. This was not true because of the trucks.

The German wonder tanks were too heavy to road-march. They relied on rail to transport from point to point. Even in the closing days of the war, the Germans had to load their tanks onto rail to bring them along the front. The T-34 and Sherman tanks road-march very well, and did not need rail to transport them. This freed up precious rail capacity.

The Germans never worked out an efficient logistics system. It had always failed because of its logistics weakness. It failed in Dec 1941 in front of Moscow. It failed again in 1942 at Stalingrad. It failed in North Africa, and it failed in Normandy. An interesting point is that it never laid a pipeline from its Hungarian and Romanian oil fields to the front, but relied on - you guessed it - rail to transport fuel. This was inefficient and vulnerable to interdiction.

And the Germans did not have enough trucks. The Germans could not believe how fast the Red Army could resupply and launch new offensives. It could not believe how it could launch offensives along the whole front. It consistently underestimated the Red Army because its intelligence underestimated the Red Army's logistical strength. Simply put, it could use its huge fleet of trucks to keep up with the sharp end of the spear and rapidly resupply its soldiers.

Too many people had been blinded by the quality of the German armies fighting on the defensive. But defense was the superior form of fighting. The Red Army also fought superbly in Stalingrad, and the British (particularly the Aussies and the paratroopers) were stubborn defenders. The Americans also demonstrated on several occasion that they could defend superbly (at Mortain and in the Ardennes).

It was only the Allies that could sustain offensives on a broad front over a long period of time to completely crush the enemy. The Germans never achieved this, not in Europe and not in North Africa.

[StukaJr]

Fine.. how about "eurasian" land mass ?

You think the soviets never lied about figures ?
Just how many germans did stalin say they had killed in the first speech after the war started ?

I'm not famililar with that speech in its exactness other than knowing that he was in distress and all of the public announcements were handled by Molotov - well into two weeks of the attack.

You must have misunderstood me - I'm refering to modern and recently opened old Soviet and KGB archives - I find that data extremely reliable and painstakingly exact. You should know that, since you've often posted old Soviet documents that became open to the public. As for old age propaganda - it's very essense is to provide misinformation and hide the real figures - it's important for historians to cut through that instead of trumpeting the same misinformation 60 years later.


The Germans relied overwhelmingly on rail. Its enemies did not. It had believed that the damage to French rail would impede Allied reinforcements and resupply as much as it had the German army. This was not true because of the trucks.


Not to mention, that Heavy German tanks required special tracks while mounted on rail cars. In 1941, T-34's force marched 300-400 kilometers and went directly into battle - in the beginning of the war, many T-34's suffered from transmition failure since its crews were trained on older BT tanks. I believe German tracks would last for 500 kilometers before needing replacement, Soviet tanks 1000-1500 kilometers and Shermans marched as far as 5000 kilometers.


The Germans never worked out an efficient logistics system. It had always failed because of its logistics weakness. It failed in Dec 1941 in front of Moscow. It failed again in 1942 at Stalingrad. It failed in North Africa, and it failed in Normandy. An interesting point is that it never laid a pipeline from its Hungarian and Romanian oil fields to the front, but relied on - you guessed it - rail to transport fuel. This was inefficient and vulnerable to interdiction.

And the Germans did not have enough trucks.


Germany relied heavily on synthetically produced gasoline out of coal and one can't synthesize diesel fuel - even if Germany could produce enough trucks to replace its 80-120 thousand horse army, it couldn't supply it with enough crude oil for lubricants, motor oil and other nesessities that require crude oil

[StukaJr]

Another new forum member asked me to post this - I think he is waiting for his account to be authorized... I don't know the whole extent but I'll comply:

He asks to excuse his English so bear through to the point.

Zad:

Hi, I have been reading all those post with lot of interest, and I my opinion I must say that I think that we are forgetting the most importat thing, the surprise factor as the main factor that puts germans at Moscow gates.

We have been talking about the supplies help that allies send to SU, about war in africa, italian and french fronts, even the effects of allies bomber raids, but in my opinion we have been forgetting the main point, the first germans victories in east front were posible in great part to the fact that Stalin was 200% sure that germans will not attack SU until they will have defeat UK, Stalin was absolutely sure that germans and allies (uk and commonwealth in that phase of the war) will destroy themselves, then a modernized soviet army will defeat the survivors. That made that in the first hours, even days of german invasion, soviet troops didn´t have clear orders of attack or deffend
of germans attacks, they were not even sure about what the hell was going on, the HQ in Moscow were giving confusing orders, troops were not ready for the war, planes were on the airfields, soldiers were not in the logic places to front a german invasion because Stalin was sure that there will not be
a german attack yet, and he didn´t want to make germans to think that SU was holding beligerant actitudes.

but in the exact moment that uk will leave the war, in that moment, Stalin and soviet generals will know, will be 100% sure that they will be the next country to be attacked by germans forces. So, in the moment of german attack, all soviet forces will be placed to fight back that attack,
soviest planes will be on the air, soviet forces will be in their trenches in the fronters, all country men will be movilized and send to the front lines, all civilians will start to make trenches and garrisons, all fields and roads will be mined, that millions of soldiers that were catch by surprise by the german attack will be aware of the attack, german advance will be stopped or at less
will be less faster, germans forces will gain less territory, and their losses will be much bigger they will never get close to Moscow so fast, they will be probably stopped inside Ukranian borders, soviet forces will not lost so many men, tanks, guns and planes that if they were cautgh by surprise,
in that situation, the victory of SU will not be a chance, it will be a certain fact, they will not stop at Berlin, they will continue the fight until conquer the whole Germany, France, and probably the rest of Europe,

in short, if SU will have to fight alone the germans, they will not be surprised by the attack, they will be waiting their attack, their generals, trops and armys will have clear instructions about what to do and german advance will be soon stopped with much less losses for soviets and a
much higher number of casualities for germans.

[Kitsune]

I'm refering to modern and recently opened old Soviet and KGB archives - I find that data extremely reliable and painstakingly exact.

That statement is...odd. You "find" that data exact? Your gut says they are correct or what?

Please, the Soviet state had developed lying to an art form. (Actually, this was inherent to communism from the start. Already old Marx version of dialectic aimed basically at presenting his theories in a way that he could always say afterwards that he had predicted the outcome whatever happened.) Wether it's their description of WWII, or how they presented about everything else like economic performance, the space program, the war in Afghanistan, Tshernobyl - take what you want - it's disinformation to make them look good. Wherever their self-presentation can be checked with knowledge from this different, "western" world, it shows that the Soviets were remarkably uninhibited by reality (as westerners understand the term - don't get into a discussion with a hard-core communist, you might end up hopelessly confused).
That does not mean that their were no real "neutral", unbiased numbers and statistics, used for administrative purposes. But it is simply impossible to say today how many facts that weren't fitting into the picture of history the Soviet state wanted to paint were destroyed. They were the keepers of their own secrets with unlimited access, after all. It's even impossible to say how much of the Soviet papers we have today is a forgery. Big style falsification of historic facts was by no means beyond the realm of imagination for the Soviet system and the KGB sure knew how to forge Soviet forms.

For the Soviet state the question wether the UdSSR would have won the war against Germany without American help is no question. The very notion that the Sovietunion could have lost is ridiculous. (Or possibly traitorous - "You are under arrest, Comrade...").
When socialists fight fascists the fascists lose. Because Socialism is inherently superior. Period. Therefore no help was needed in WWII. And certainly not from decadent, corrupt and capitalist America. End of story.

[StukaJr]

You can't tell the difference between the information that is released to the public (aka - press release from Glorious Comrade Stalin) and the exact description of the event, viewed by the select few and locked away in the vault for 60 years, only openned with the fall of the governmental system it represented? Nice retort to something I did not state! You can choose not to trust it, but then you can't provide any better proof nor a source.

I'm talking about recently (late 90's) de-classified NKVD documents and other archives that were closed with the exception of the privileged few. The carefully guarded archives provide detailed information in accordance to bureaucratic state that former USSR was - a big contrast to hearsay of a few witnesses multiplied by random statistical figures that was Western History until these archives were open.

But to entertain you, Soviet "Propaganda" paints a more truthful picture of the Eastern Front than Western Historians' portrayal of the same events - my opinion. Like the American History is not full of omissions and falsifications or Uber PanzerWaffe that has been inflated with the help of some "historians".

When socialists fight fascists the fascists lose. Because Socialism is inherently superior. Period.

You are an idiot.

There are dozens of Socialist countries in the World that do well and the citizens have more freedom than Americans or Germans... Any Fashist countries you would like to point me to? What was the good of Fashism? I can point out dozens of life improvements that Socialism brings into Democratic society and is part of about any Democratic Nation today.

I'm going to disregard that statement as a temporary lapse of judgement.

[Kilgor]

Id have to agree wit Kitsune, if you look at some of the alligations made against people caught up in the great purge or the moscow show trials, some of it was so laughable by todays standards, but back then it was taken as gospel.

I think the soviet tank theorist (similar to Guderian) was denouced by a man who had been dead for 20 years or something equally absurd.

[Minardiau]

Even with Allied help, Germany should of defeated the USSR. It's not a question "could they have defated the USSR" It's "They should of bloody well defeated the USSR"

The Germans made some really stupid decisions based on idealogical reasons.

For starters I'm sure the 40 odd million Ukranians would of thrown their lot in with the Germans in exchange for "independance" even as a puppet state. Same goes with Poland to a lesser extant.

Keeping 800,000 troops in Norway.

Refusing to issue a strategic defeat at Stalingrad.

With or withour Allied help. USSR SHOULD of been defeated.

[StukaJr]

Id have to agree wit Kitsune, if you look at some of the alligations made against people caught up in the great purge or the moscow show trials, some of it was so laughable by todays standards, but back then it was taken as gospel.

I think the soviet tank theorist (similar to Guderian) was denouced by a man who had been dead for 20 years or something equally absurd.

I'm a little confused that you would take that position - you've posted many of the same documents as proof of your points on here before.

I'm talking about the Official Classified documents - the kind that get filed in fat binders, put in filing cabinets and then the slow camera pan reveals a werehouse like in the "Raiders of the Lost Arcs". I'm not talking about "Show Trials" or what was released in Kruschov Era - I'm talking about reproductions of Classified documents. The ones I've read were in regards to "Zagraditelniye Battallioni" and performance of NKVD troops in Stalingrad - the papers contained exact reports of men detained, released, sent to straf batallions or summary executed. Comparing the exact reports to the general idea of blood thirsty killers shooting their own men, as portrayed by Western Historians and Hollywood, I see a vast diffirence in Historical truth and fiction.

There is little proof that the NKVD/KGB Archives are fake - in 1991, I personally saw these archives being attempted to transport out of Moscow during the failed Coup. Quit a bit was destroyed too. Faking werehouse full of 50 year old documents? Not all russians are masochists :D

[StukaJr]

Even with Allied help, Germany should of defeated the USSR. It's not a question "could they have defated the USSR" It's "They should of bloody well defeated the USSR"

The Germans made some really stupid decisions based on idealogical reasons.


Stalin and his chronies made 10 to 1 bad desissions compared to Hitler and OKW... If anything, Germany had a Good Luck run up until Winter of '41 and then patches of good luck in '42 - Furher's inane desissions should have ended his domination in '39. The diffirence between Stalin and Hitler was that Stalin listened to his commanders at the time of impeding doom and left the desission making to them.


For starters I'm sure the 40 odd million Ukranians would of thrown their lot in with the Germans in exchange for "independance" even as a puppet state. Same goes with Poland to a lesser extant.

A lot of them did - a lot of them fought and very bravely. A lot of Poles chose to fight on the side of the Soviets despite ideological reasons - extermination of 1/3 of Poland's population could have been one reason. Western Ukranians did meet Germans as their liberators - many swinging from gallows two weeks later actually still kept the Western Ukraine very pro-German and hard for partisans to oppeate.


Keeping 800,000 troops in Norway.


Cough... British... cough! Should I remind you of importance of Norway? Cough ... Heavy... Cough... Water!


Refusing to issue a strategic defeat at Stalingrad.

Stalingrad was lost because there were no readily available reserves and Germany relied heavily on weaker Allies to plug the lines - An Army that cannot man its lines should not attack! Stalingrad was far from the first defeat - Moscow, Demyansk and few other smaller precursors began as early as Fall of '41


With or withour Allied help. USSR SHOULD of been defeated.

I never had much respect for your opinions and now you've added one more. You give wunderwaffe kids a bad name. But then nobody tried to call you a sub-human, call your land "Living Space for the Supperior Race", now did they?

[Kitsune]

Like the American History is not full of omissions and falsifications or Uber PanzerWaffe that has been inflated with the help of some "historians".

That is a good example. The Uber-Panzerwaffe. Who has created that image of the gargantuan German Panzerarmy?
The reality: when the German armed forces invaded the Sovietunion in summer 1941, they had 3500 tanks. Abount 650 of them were Panzer Mk IV, the others Mk III (not very impressive) or Mk II (downright weak).
The Red Army on the other hand had 24.000 tanks - at least 18.000 in the west. Among them big, heavily armored KV type tanks which German panzers could not destroy and (not in the west) 1650 T-34's, which were superior to any German tank at the time. (German forces would first contact T-34's one and a half months into Barbarossa). Even the Panzer Mk IV version that was used back then could only destroy a T-34 from behind and was inferior in armament and mobility.
Also, the Soviet forces had four times more artillery and planes than the Germans. Overall their army was larger in manpower, the Red Army numbered around 5 million soldiers (some say 5.5 million), whereas the invading German + auxiliaries force was 3.5 million strong.
Within the first half year of the war the Soviets would loose around 4.6 million soldiers and nearly all of the tanks, planes and guns mentioned above. This was not achieved through German material superiority (not even through technical one as many came to believe nowadays, Germans were only somewhat ahead with their planes and downright inferior as far as tanks were concerned, as said), but through tactical superiority. In other words, the Red Army had their main force postioned close to the borderline and the Wehrmacht could essentially use their Deep Penetration Tactic to full effect. The Soviet Forces were effectively thrown into confusion and disarray, cut off and surrounded in pockets, then neutralized.
The point is, it were the Soviets who deliberately helped to create the story of the almighty Panzerwaffe. It explained their devastating defeats in 1941 too well. And the extend of Soviet armament was continously downplayed...it would have just given rise to odd questiond like: "Can it be that the Sovietunion was not such a peaceful state at all?" (For instance, the speed of armament is telling: in 1940 the Soviets build nearly 1000 tanks per month...the Germans 50 to 60. The UdSSR spend forty-two percent of its budget on military stuff without being in a war, far more than Germany who was. For 1942 they planned to have 35.000 tanks ready. For what? Defense? Of course, what else?)
In the end it often comes down to the classical propaganda version of the massive German invasion force with its countless mighty tanks, against which stood surprised Soviet peasants with improvised equipment. It was not the Germans which created this but the Soviets themselves. Others fell in line. The Nazi juggernaut stomping over Europe explains the German successes quite readily. It also helped the American government to mobilize the American people ("we have to stop them before the Germans invade us as well" and such reasoning)
The truth is however that Nazi Germany was by no means a super-militarized society, on the contrary. Actually it was a nation largely unprepared for war, with an unexperienced all-new army (which was however completely underestimated by French, British, Polish...and Soviet military experts) and a population that was largely unwilling to go to war.

[ogukuo72]

Not to mention, that Heavy German tanks required special tracks while mounted on rail cars. In 1941, T-34's force marched 300-400 kilometers and went directly into battle - in the beginning of the war, many T-34's suffered from transmition failure since its crews were trained on older BT tanks. I believe German tracks would last for 500 kilometers before needing replacement, Soviet tanks 1000-1500 kilometers and Shermans marched as far as 5000 kilometers.

That was my point exactly.:)

This is not a point often brought up when the relative merits of tanks were discussed. Too often, we would just look at the size of the gun and the thickness of the armor, and say that the Tiger and Panther tanks were the best. This was hardly so when we consider that armor warfare is not only about firepower and armor, but about mobility as well!

To bring the discussion back to the thread, Germany really only had one chance to defeat the Soviet Union, and that was in the summer and autumn of 1941. After that, there was no chance it could accomplish this.

Op Barbarossa destroyed much of the Red Army's war making capability, gave Germany much of the Soviet Union's important population and industrial centres (with the important exception of Leningrad/St Petersburg and Moscow). Important raw material such as iron ore mines also fell into German hands. Indeed, some estimates that between Jun 1941 and Dec 1941, the Soviet Union lost as much as 80% of its manufacturing capability.

Having said that, a lot of the loss was not permanent and was self-inflicted. As the German war machine came close, the Soviets tore up many of their factories - including those manufacting tanks and aircraft - and transported them away to the Urals. By spring 1942, these factories (and their personnel) had been re-established and were producing ever more weapons. This was a remarkable feat of organisation and transportation, but rarely mentioned by historians. It was this gigantum move, together with the aid of lend-lease that allowed the Red Army to rapidly rebuild itself in 1942 to finally crush the German armies at Stalingrad.

I am sympathetic to the Russians on this issue. Too often, the Red Army and the organisational and logistical abilities of the Soviets had been ignored or down played, and that of the Germans overhyped. If you looked at their achievement in the winter of 1941, it is nothing short of remarkable.

[Limeyfellow]

The lend lease programme was one of the greatest successes of the war, you must admit that. It put so much money and gold in the coffers it turned the US into a true super power and ended Britain as one.

In my opinion the Soviet Union would still have won the war against Germany. It would have just taken a little longer.

They would have gone and taken Japan too for us also. I doubt the US would have had much to do on there but they surrendered before it could happen. At least the nuclear bomb deterred the Soviets to carry on regardless and go around the world.

[Kilgor]

.

There is little proof that the NKVD/KGB Archives are fake - in 1991, I personally saw these archives being attempted to transport out of Moscow during the failed Coup. Quit a bit was destroyed too. Faking werehouse full of 50 year old documents? Not all russians are masochists :D

Yes, how i forgot.

I have posted numerous times stalins "not one step back order" because the certain people on this board totally deny that blocking units were used.
In this order he EXPLICITLY orders the use of them. And a order from Stalin was not some abstract concept, it was to be followed to the letter or you risked being shot.

[TheRussian1]

Yes, how i forgot.

I have posted numerous times stalins "not one step back order" because the certain people on this board totally deny that blocking units were used.
In this order he EXPLICITLY orders the use of them. And a order from Stalin was not some abstract concept, it was to be followed to the letter or you risked being shot.


nobody denies that. However, no body with a sane mind can believe that the Red Army was Stalingrad by human wave tactics with no weapons for some of the attackers.

[StukaJr]

Yes, how i forgot.

I have posted numerous times stalins "not one step back order" because the certain people on this board totally deny that blocking units were used.
In this order he EXPLICITLY orders the use of them. And a order from Stalin was not some abstract concept, it was to be followed to the letter or you risked being shot.

Used but not in the effect that some believe. The documents I've read, detail them as NKVD units, sometimes aided by regular frontline troops - their detail included detaining and checking documents of any personel in the rear. Their actions required them to return deserters into their units - similar to any MP unit. Despite what you may think, the summary executions were rare and were only given to officers fleeing from their units and spies. The numbers I've read, would have less than 3-5% of detained AWOL executed, 10-20% sent to Strafbattalions and the rest, back to their units - a stark diffirence between that and NKVD officers shooting soldiers falling back from failed attack. These actions took place tens of miles in the rear btw and they did weed out a lot of saboteurs and deserters.

In battle for Stalingrad - these same "Blocking Battallions" fought side by side with regular troops - some suffering 90% combat losses in a single week. I believe one of the NKVD divisions even got the name "Stalingradskaya" in 1943 for its actions in the defense of the City. Once again, it's starkly diffirent from what some suggest "Zagraditelniye Otryadi" means.

As for "Not one Step Back" - German bullet, Russian Bullet, so what's the diffirence. True, some commanders got executed for saving their men, some ran and left their men behind. The hatred for the invaders united the nation a lot better than love for the leader - Russians were never trustworthy of their leaders, my generation or the generation of my Grandmother. It was never as sick as propaganda suggested - Communists represented less than one percent of Russia's population and I'm not even talking about sattelite republic. I've read countless memoirs of the veterans that suggest that Party Doctrine was practically absent from the trenches - just like Nazism was despised by many Axis frontline troops.

[Kilgor]

You would have to agree that many men died unfairly because of very cruel coercion practises. Not at all disimilar to when the germans started shooting their own men for "cowardice".

I am not suggesting at all that soviet soldiers fought only because guns were pointed at their backs, the majority did it because they simply wanted to kill germans. But the fact remains that the often denied methods of the soviet command were extremely bloody.

And the greatest crime being liberated POW's being taken out of one concentration camp and being thrown in another (gulag)

[Minardiau]

I never had much respect for your opinions and now you've added one more. You give wunderwaffe kids a bad name. But then nobody tried to call you a sub-human, call your land "Living Space for the Supperior Race", now did they?

Ahm well I am descendant from Australian Aboriginals. At one stage my mothers family was down to 2 living members. Your point being?

I agree with alot of your points Stuka in why the USSR eventually defeated Germany. I merely disagree with the fact that they would of won anyway.

[Lokos]

The return of Lokos, by special request, for one post...

***

No. Because Hitler could of concentrate most of his troops to the east instead of fighting on two fronts.

In 1941, 90% of Germany's combat capable units were poised to strike on the Eastern Front. Until late 1942 (as the Stalingrad debacle entered its terminal stages), this would remain true. My point is that Hitler DID concentrate most of his troops in the East. It is a myth that, were the Western Allies out of the fight, there would suddenly be no need for garrison troops in France, the Low Countries, Yugoslavia, Greece and Norway. These second line troops were, in any case, very much so unfit for combat duty on the Eastern Front, being short of heavy weapons, training and faced with extensive logistical failure of the OKH on the Ostfront.

The SU faced anywere from 75% to 60% of the Heer. However there were in Western Europe, at the moment of Normandy landings, 68 german divisions covering the atlantic wall, some of them were elite divs like the 1ss Pz, 22ss Pz, 12ss Pz, 10th ss Pz, 116th Pz, Pz Lehr, etc.


Foxtrot:

You know that those divisions were there for purposes of recouperation, having been badly mauled on the EF. German reinforcements, after August 1944 and the subsequent failure of the Ardennes Offensives, flowed East. The entire 6th Panzer Armee (the armoured heart of the strategic reserve) was rerouted into Hungary to cut through to Budapest (which it failed to do). From October 1944 until May 1945, the vast majority of German combat fatalities were accumulated in the East.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the Waffen SS remained on the Eastern Front throughout the war. The Soviets also had to contend with the satellite forces of Romania, Hungary, Italy and Finland.

They could use their resouces for making africa corps to create similiar combat force developed to fight in russia. (Hmm Winter corps)

Two panzer divisions, an infantry division and a light infantry division? The Soviets would have been quaking in their boots, to be sure.

they can use italian army in eastern front and what is most important they can use italian industry to supply their war machine.

I could remind you of what happened to the Italian 8th Army on the Eastern Front. And it would still have been the German controlled logistics network that would have had to make use of all that excess industrial might - supplies don't magically transport themselves to forward bases. This same logistical network was unable to fully supply even the hitherto deployed Axis formations on the EF.

They would have Rommel on eastern front and assuming that he will develop similiar deep encircle tactic

Are you suggesting that Rommel was the sole practitioner of double envelopment ('deep encirclement' is something out of your imagination)? How, exactly, do you think the Germans won their crushing victories against the SU in 1941? And, just FYI, Rommel was a capable divisional commander. He was already hitting above his weight as a Korps kommandant. How would he have turned the war around, by his lonesome?

Yes but Africa corps were trained specialy for conditions in Africa and they were an elite unit.

No, they weren't.

Especialy that it would alow them to make equipment and gear designed for harsh Russian conditions.

?

The Germans had this equipment before Barbarossa. Long before. They just rarely had enough of it.

I don't ecpect that they would fight well on Eastern front still they will provide additional fire power.

And who would be supplying these extra 40 divisions? Would magical sky rails be utilized? Or did you have beam transporters in mind?

Could the SU won on its own? possibly, but by no means it was an assured thing.

The only question is: could the SU have won by May 1945 on its own? After the failure of Operation Blau (without heavy LL assistance, or WA involvement in the war itself), I would think that there was little doubt as to the outcome of the conflict. Victory had become utterly impossible for the Germans.

.. in an ONE FRONT WAR....

with out "insane Genaral Hitler" the Soviet Union had only one canche: GENERAL WINTER!

Do the Soviets get to have a 'ONE FRONT WAR', too? What if the Romanians, Hungarians, Finns and Italians didn't send various formations to aid the Germans? What if the Soviets were free to utilize their Far Eastern armies, their Caucaus armies, their Transbaikal armies? Why do these 'what ifs' always seek to skew every possible variable to Germany's favour?

Youd better believe it. I think when people choose to look at the whole picture there is only one logical outcome really. It may be hard to swallow for some but its fairly obvious.

The precision of WA bombing left a lot to be desired until well into the terminal phase of the war. The mass destruction of certain German cities did not do as much as one would hope to aid the war effort itself. Production, under Speer, grew by leaps and bounds, month on month, finally reaching its apex in November-December 1944. I do not see the bombing campaign as meritous as you do.

And would you agree that since the Soviet Union and Stalin won the war, the propaganda state could write history the way it wanted, and any critics crushed by the newly imposed stalinist terror ?

You make a serious, and a quintessential error - as always, Kilgor. You confuse what the Soviet state told the populace, with what it told itself (in terms of internal documents). Soviet archives are notoriously complete when it comes to WW2. Military science demanded it. The Soviets did not use propagandized versions of events when it came to operational analyses and academic staff training.

The Nazis would take the SU in a heart beat.

They failed to do so at the height of their prowess in 1941, with 90% of the combat capable Heer committed to Barbarossa. How, pray tell, would they be able to do so in subsequent years - having incurred ~900,000 casualties (302,495 KIA) in the six months of 1941 alone - as their relative advantages declined?

The winter is what stopped the Nazis from taking Moscow.

Indeed? Or perhaps it was the presence of a copious Soviet strategic reserve? Coupled with the effort to eliminate the Kiev cauldron, naturally. Perhaps you should back your opinions up with fact, before offering them up?

If time would have held off for another summer, I can't see anything other than a fall of Moscow it self.

Come again? Do you mean, if winter had helf off for a month or two more, or what?

You're aware that the December 1941 Soviet counteroffensive came to within a hair's breadth of caving in AGC? If Stalin hadn't insisted on a general offensive across the entire front, the war might have turned into a rout for the Germans by February 1942...

And what makes you think the Germans would have kept any soviets around to fight once they were disarmed?

Your extreme lack of respect shines through brilliantly. When you don't know a damned thing, just shut your trap. I guess you probably didn't know that, of the 3 million Soviet POWs of 1941, 2 million were dead by mid 1942. That of the Soviet Union's 27 million fatalities, 18 million were civilians killed in the occupied territories.

That statement is...odd. You "find" that data exact? Your gut says they are correct or what?

What makes German data correct? Your gut feeling?

Glantz, House, Wheatcroft and Erickson find Soviet data to roughly correlate directly to German data. Furthermore, the Soviets were not lying to themselves. Why should they have been? These documents were for internal use, not for public consumption.

Please, the Soviet state had developed lying to an art form. (Actually, this was inherent to communism from the start. Already old Marx version of dialectic aimed basically at presenting his theories in a way that he could always say afterwards that he had predicted the outcome whatever happened.)

Kitsune, here you are plainly mistaken, without a question of degree.

The Marxist military science demanded exactness and thoroughness in collating military data for use in tactical, operational and strategic analyses and studies. Kilgor and a number of other posters (yourself included, seemingly) consistently make the mistake of equating Soviet public documents with those never intended to leave the safekeeping of the RKKA and, later, Soviet Army archives. The latter were not censored, nor were they propagandized.

Refusing to issue a strategic defeat at Stalingrad.

1) Paulus did not have the fuel to break out, by the time the encirclement was complete.

2) Manstein did not have the strength to break in, by the time the encirclement was complete.

3) The two, in dual effort, did not have the means to link up, by the time the encirclement was complete.

Your suggestion would be to do what, exactly?

With or withour Allied help. USSR SHOULD of been defeated.

I unequivocally disagree. The Axis attacked at the best possible time, with the best possible army, had regional allies with significant forces, faced a Red Army bereft of adequate leadership at senior levels and still failed to conclude a war, having achieved numerous strategic victories (debacles for the Soviet Union). The ability of the Soviet state to centralize and translocate means of production, coupled with the pool of twelve million trained reservists that could be drawn upon to generate and regenerate combat formations meant that it was a miracle the Germans did as well as they did, not the other way around.

The reality: when the German armed forces invaded the Sovietunion in summer 1941, they had 3500 tanks. Abount 650 of them were Panzer Mk IV, the others Mk III (not very impressive) or Mk II (downright weak).
The Red Army on the other hand had 24.000 tanks - at least 18.000 in the west. Among them big, heavily armored KV type tanks which German panzers could not destroy and (not in the west) 1650 T-34's, which were superior to any German tank at the time. (German forces would first contact T-34's one and a half months into Barbarossa). Even the Panzer Mk IV version that was used back then could only destroy a T-34 from behind and was inferior in armament and mobility.

Kitsune, I have dealt with this argument in the past. You could not answer my rebuttals then - why are you presenting it once more?

Lokos

[ogukuo72]

I unequivocally disagree. The Axis attacked at the best possible time, with the best possible army, had regional allies with significant forces, faced a Red Army bereft of adequate leadership at senior levels and still failed to conclude a war, having achieved numerous strategic victories (debacles for the Soviet Union). The ability of the Soviet state to centralize and translocate means of production, coupled with the pool of twelve million trained reservists that could be drawn upon to generate and regenerate combat formations meant that it was a miracle the Germans did as well as they did, not the other way around.

Well said Lokos. That is the bottomline.

[Supe]

Logistics, materiel and production are for me, the key issues. Had there not been any US/commonwealth bombing raids then production of equipment would not have been affected, fuel situation would have been considerably eased, logistics in a quiet occupied countries could have been funnelled to operations in the East, manpower could have been moved back to Germany, allowing for reserves (and those at the front to be more frequently rotated for R&R)

Bombing exacted a heavy toll on German war production, sucking up tremendous resources to combat in terms of Luftwaffe fighters, Anti-aircraft batteries, munitions - all of which could have been used in the East. Then there were the factories that had to be rebuilt/relocated, infrastructure (bridges/railroads/communication nodes) restored. Don't underestimate the effectiveness of the allied air campaign over Germany.

I think the Germans could have nudged their way to victory.

[Kilgor]

Well said Lokos. That is the bottomline.

Lokos might be suprised, but I agree also. In richard overy's book comparing the too dictatorships, this is the exact reason he gave for the soviets victory. The war economy was so much better organised and planned compared to germans war production which was a mess and never at the proper levels of production. From day one the soviet union threw every hand into the battle or the tool, and this is something germany did not do until it was too late.

[RGRBOX]

I think that there are too many factors to be entered to complete this exercise. If the US wasn't in the fight with Germany, who's to say they and the UK wouldn't have joined in with them. Many people were simpithetic to Germany, and also remember that a large population of Americans at that time were of German desent. And the threat of communisium was also a threat... which you could see after the war... so my guess is becuase of the desire for more wealth, and the blood relations of the US and the UK with Europe, that this could have been a completely different battle faught... with the US making, and selling arms to Germany for lots of Gold, and maybe even getting involved to stop the flow of communisium towards the west... would have been a different world from what we live in today if that would have happened.

[Mastermind]

I think that there are too many factors to be entered to complete this exercise. If the US wasn't in the fight with Germany, who's to say they and the UK wouldn't have joined in with them. Many people were simpithetic to Germany, and also remember that a large population of Americans at that time were of German desent. And the threat of communisium was also a threat... which you could see after the war... so my guess is becuase of the desire for more wealth, and the blood relations of the US and the UK with Europe, that this could have been a completely different battle faught... with the US making, and selling arms to Germany for lots of Gold, and maybe even getting involved to stop the flow of communisium towards the west... would have been a different world from what we live in today if that would have happened.

I suggested that the Franco-British alliance was put on permanent (for the then-forseeable future) hold by an armisitce with Germany...the terms might have been as gollows: The hostilities woudl stop immediately, there would be a conditional withdrawal of German troops from France and the low countries, Germany would cease all attempts at invading British Isles, Germany would be allowed to emplace (through her embassy in Britian) observers to ensure compliance with the terms, There would be a return to diplomacy betwen the warring factions in the west, there would be a re-engagement of trade, German ports would be releived of blockade and German ships, including warships, would not be harrassed on the high seas.

There would likely be a certain economic value to Germany and with "open" communications, the propaganda would have certainly lessened against Germany. I even imagine a much increased technological exchange, much like what was going on before hostilities, between France, Germany and Britian. Certainly, LL would have stopped as regarding Russia...no tanks, planes and AC flowing in from the west in such quanity. I imagine the USA would have gladly continued trading with Russia...but with Britian enforcing the terms of the Armisitice, no trade through Archangle and Japanese hostilities in the east would have largely nixed any trade on the Pacific coast. Russia would have certainly been at a tremendous disadvantage in that scenario.

Terriffic insight guys...keep it up.

[foxtrot023]

Lokos,

Welcome back! To answer your point, yes some divs were in France recuperating, but they were also up to full strength for the Normandy landings (per example the 1ss Pz.).

At the begining of 1944, there were 2.8 million men in the Eastern Front and 2.4 million men on other fronts (reference- Org-Abt Gen Std H 1/527 Fr. Heere Ost 81 and Kriegstagebuch des OKW, Vol 3). The Eastern theatre had 195 german divisions. Remember that Hitler in his directive 51 ordered the strengthening of german formations (which until then had been in dismal order, short of men and weapons) in the West, in order to oppose the expected allied landings.

For Stuka,

As promised here are the lend lease figures-

Tons per year

1941- 360,778
1942- 2,453,097
1943- 4,794,545
1944- 6,217,622
1945- 3,673,819

Among the good delivered were 427,000 motor vehicles (mainly trucks) out of 625,000 trucks that the Red Army had. That makes aprox 2/3 vehicles in the red army to be of american origin. Take that plus the 1900 locomotives and 11,000 railway trucks (flats) and it gave the Red Army a large strategic mobility (even Stalin boasted that he could move 60 divs from theatre to theatre for the 1943/44 offensives). Without this mobility, the Red Army would have been harder press to launch the successful 1943/44 offensives (btw, it does not mean it could not have won the war, but it is 100% guaranteed that without Lend Lease those victories would have taken more years to accomplish, with greater bloodletting).

Other significant help to the russians include 10,000 tanks (10% of total tank production by the russians), 18,700 fighters (about 13% of total fighter production by the russians) and 2.6 million tons of oil refined products, which was often compared by the soviets disparangly, and specially Stalin, liked to compare that amount to the 30 million tons of output produced by the USSR. However, what is often left out is that those 2.6 million tons are of high octane fuels used mainly for fighters, of which the USSR was unable to produce in significant quantitites on its own.

sources-
Istoriya, Vol. 6, pp. 48, 62, and 72
Jacobsen, Der Zweite Weltkrieg, p.568
Deane, the Strange Alliance, pp. 86-103
Stettinius, Lend Lease
Werth, Russia at war, pp. 624-8

Final words-

Defeating Germany took the combined effort of the 3 allies (USSR, UK, and US). If any of those 3 had been missing, it would have made a german defeat all that much difficult, and by no means it would have been a sure thing. The USSR has the credit of defeating the main strength of the Heer, with materiel help from the allies. The Western Allies have the credit of defeating the german Luftwaffe