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.

[TR1]

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.

[TR1]

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"

[Mr.K]

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

[TR1]

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.

[Holycrusader]

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.

[TR1]

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.

[TR1]

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.

[TR1]

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!

[TR1]

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...

[TR1]

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)

[TR1]

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.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

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.

[TR1]

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)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

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 and kriegsmarine (whose manpower resources cold have been used for the Heer), and tying and combating up german divisions which could have been otherwise used against the USSR.

[ogukuo72]

Actually, we would have to consider not only those German divisions in France itself, but also those in Norway and Italy. Anyone got the figures for those?

[foxtrot023]

Actually, we would have to consider not only those German divisions in France itself, but also those in Norway and Italy. Anyone got the figures for those?

2.4 million men were in other theaters other than the Eastern Front in the beginning of 1944. Those include the ones in Western Europe, Italy, the Balkans and Norway.

[WolverineBlue]

Not to sound like a pompous ass or anything, but I commend this thread for its insightful comments/thoughts and for the rational arguments.

[Asheren]

Yes they were trained for desert warfare at last as much as it was possible in germany.

How i would transport supplies quite simple with planes most of suppiles were air transportable. How i wolud get enough planes? no battle over britan no lend and lease= total German air supperiority for a quite long time. In this no allied scernario is is very possible that Germany would be first nation making large scale sky bridges. What is very important this supplies will be far away from partisants reach.

Both sides have safe producition facilities beyond reach of enemy air force. Russians behind ural mountains, Germans in Germany and Italy. Germans will develop long range bombers and heavy transport planes befor Russians. Add to this Russian will have similiar problems like Germans to transport their supplies to the front line without lend and lease. Yes they would be able to build the vehicles but it would require materials that were used to make weapons. Especialy steel. Russians might create similiar transport system like hohiminh trail but it would require much more peoples and absence of this peoples at front lines might be another thing that would tip the scale in Germans favor.

[Musashi]

My notes:
- in 1941 the USSR's population was 180 million, not 250, Germany's was IIRC 83+ million,
- don't ask about the importance of Norway when somebody says there was a garrison of 800,000 German soldiers in this country. They could have been used against the USSR,
- Poles broke the Enigma code and Allies provided the Soviets many usefull information,
- it is true many Soviet factories were moved behind the Ural mountains, but what has it to do? The vast of Soviet population lived in the European part of the USSR, just a small percentage lived behind the Ural. So what about the conscription?
- Germans used foreign forced labourers extensively sending more troops to the front, while Soviets did not,
- the German industry reached its peak in 1944 in spite of heavy Allied bombings. What if there had been no bombings?
- there were many Soviet citizens (including even some Russians), who did not want to fight for this country. The same cannot be said about Germans and their country (at least I can't use the phrase "many Germans",
- don't compare training of a German soldier to the training of a Soviet soldier, many Soviet tank crews spent as much as 5 hours before being sent to the front, while Germans trained their crews very well, for example a gunner could be a driver, etc.
- the Wehrmacht had far better experience than RKKA in 1941,
- Germans wasted many resources for producing U-boots. They could have been used in other way,
- take into consideration how many resources the Germans used to protect their country against Allied bombers, it would have been unnecessary in case of the USSR,
- additional German troops, that were garrisoned in the occupied countries could have made a final blow in Moscow in 1941,
- the Germans developed their technology to cope with Allies mostly, they could have invented other toys for the war with the USSR. I mean for example V-1,V-2,V-3, radars, new U-boots types, supercannons, jets (completely unnecessary at war with the USSR). There would have been completely other inventions with German engineers working in much more comfortable conditions, without a risk of bombardment...

[LaoSexMachine]

The USSR needed allies without them she could of not won the war on her own let alone made it to the heart of the third reich. If the US, UK, and USSR weren't allies the Nazis wouldn't be defeated. Hitler would just settle with three different armistance with three different countries, Nazi Germany would survive to this day if they allies didn't come together. Logistics wins war more than tatics.

[Musashi]

Oh, I forgot. The USSR's manpower was not infinite. The RKKA's losses in Spring of 1945 were appalling and the Soviets had to use extensive number of children as soldiers at that time. Remember Einstein's saying about infinity p-)
They also fought against Polish partisans at that time, suffering heavy casualties.
At the end... compare how many German soldiers managed to survive the war in 1939-1945 to the number of the Soviet soldiers who managed to survive just for four years from the beginning. No other questions...

[RomanS]

Soviet Union would not loose no war. TOO STRONG!!!!

[Musashi]

Soviet Union would not loose no war. TOO STRONG!!!!
It was Überargument p-) You've convinced everybody :)

[StukaJr]

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).



Well, here is your flawed math - Soviet Union finished the war with 625 thousand trucks and Lend-Lease delivered 427 thousand throughout the war... 625,000 were in the motor pool - you are not suggesting that every single truck that Allies delivered since 1941 was operational in 1945 :)




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.


Here is where we speak of quality over quantity - Shermans did not enter combat until 1944, the rest of the tanks were far inferior, even at that time that they entered service. While they were better than nothing, 60% of these tanks that are listed lasted very short time in the service and certainly did not win the war.


My notes:
- in 1941 the USSR's population was 180 million, not 250, Germany's was IIRC 83+ million,
- don't ask about the importance of Norway when somebody says there was a garrison of 800,000 German soldiers in this country. They could have been used against the USSR,



Germany took over Norway for a good reason - it's not a game of Risk where you invade the country and then just remove all the troops and the land is still yours. Occupational Troops were in Norway for a reason.

Soviet Union had 60+ divissions on the Manchurian Border and in the East of SU preparing for the Japanese Invasion that never came -



- Poles broke the Enigma code and Allies provided the Soviets many usefull information,
- it is true many Soviet factories were moved behind the Ural mountains, but what has it to do? The vast of Soviet population lived in the European part of the USSR, just a small percentage lived behind the Ural. So what about the conscription?

People were moved with the factories



- Germans used foreign forced labourers extensively sending more troops to the front, while Soviets did not,




- the German industry reached its peak in 1944 in spite of heavy Allied bombings. What if there had been no bombings?

Majority of plants were operational up until occupation - parking lots of Me262 and new Panzer tanks with no fuel or men to opperate them is the picture.



- there were many Soviet citizens (including even some Russians), who did not want to fight for this country. The same cannot be said about Germans and their country (at least I can't use the phrase "many Germans",




- don't compare training of a German soldier to the training of a Soviet soldier, many Soviet tank crews spent as much as 5 hours before being sent to the front, while Germans trained their crews very well, for example a gunner could be a driver, etc.

Maybe in the very beginning of the war - T-34 crews were trained on BT tanks to save fuel and repair costs, but I'm not aware of 5 hour training before the front. Maybe in some cases - even US had to replace tanker losses straight out of infantry for loader, gunner positions in 1944.
I have read many biographies of and tankers which suggests that they have received addequate training - tank commanders were always officers, the other members of the crews received months of training in tank school before being handpicked by the tank corp commander personally. Some biographies indicate that tankers entering school in '41 would not see action until late 1942 or early 43 - some airmen, whom volunteered in '41 did not fly until '44.
You may refer to individual events when tankers were pushed into service in the most extreme situation



- the Wehrmacht had far better experience than RKKA in 1941,

Not against the determined enemy that RKKA represented - Wehrmacht certainly did not have any experience with getting their a$$ major kicked up until the Winter of 1941 :)


- Germans wasted many resources for producing U-boots. They could have been used in other way,

And 60 ton tanks... And weapons that shot around corners... Albert Speer would agree - German Infrustructure was very wasteful - just look at all the trinkets German uniform and weapons had.


- take into consideration how many resources the Germans used to protect their country against Allied bombers, it would have been unnecessary in case of the USSR,

Soviet Bombers could reach and did reach Berlin, even early in the war. Soviets did not see the importance of Strategic Bombing but suggestion that all of Western Airspace, Ground Defense could be left unguarded is quiestionable.



- additional German troops, that were garrisoned in the occupied countries could have made a final blow in Moscow in 1941,

Western Advance was gridlocked as is - Moscow was lost not because there were not enough troops, but because Germans stopped for the winter. More troops would do little for non-functioning weapons, lack of shelters etc.
Yes, additional Troops would probably capture Moscow before the Winter but capture of Moscow would not win the War - remember 1812.



- the Germans developed their technology to cope with Allies mostly, they could have invented other toys for the war with the USSR. I mean for example V-1,V-2,V-3, radars, new U-boots types, supercannons, jets (completely unnecessary at war with the USSR). There would have been completely other inventions with German engineers working in much more comfortable conditions, without a risk of bombardment...

V-1 and V-2 rockets had piss range and effect. I thought you said U_boots were a waste of resources? What use Uber U-boot would play in Russia? Germans had Supercannons - most in Russia and still are in Russia. Radar was copied from the British, Bazooka was copied from the US - Germans would have nothing to counter mass tank attacks that Germans could deliver.

[LaoSexMachine]

Soviet Union would not loose no war. TOO STRONG!!!!

That why it's still around to this day. :roll:

[TR1]

That why it's still around to this day. :roll:

It fell apart because of internal economic and political turmoil..not foreign intervention.

[LaoSexMachine]

It fell apart because of internal economic and political turmoil..not foreign intervention.


Not directly but it contribute to it because of economic competition by trying to compete with capitalism and political turmoil to see who can run it better so the can better deal with the west. Like I said not directly.

[VISTREL]

Soviet Union would have won although not so fast. Instead of 4 years it would have take about 8 years.

Russians never give up. Victory would have been ours one way or another.

[StukaJr]

Soviet Union would have won although not so fast. Instead of 4 years it would have take about 8 years.

Russians never give up. Victory would have been ours one way or another.

x 2

If the Soviet Union was defeated in WWII - I'd be a partisan, if I was given a chance of being born, of course ;)

Pure suggestion that Russians would live under foreign occupation is absurd - took the Golden Horde 300 years to get defeated and that illustrates the point.

[RomanS]

Get back to work Stuka! and stop proving this monkeys that we would of won against any invader. No matter who it is

[RGRBOX]

There would be a lot of people n this thread speaking German if Russia was all alone in the War... agaisnt German that is... Jawol mine furher!!!

Let's just be sort of glade it turned out the way it did...

[foxtrot023]

Well, here is your flawed math - Soviet Union finished the war with 625 thousand trucks and Lend-Lease delivered 427 thousand throughout the war... 625,000 were in the motor pool - you are not suggesting that every single truck that Allies delivered since 1941 was operational in 1945 :)



Here is where we speak of quality over quantity - Shermans did not enter combat until 1944, the rest of the tanks were far inferior, even at that time that they entered service. While they were better than nothing, 60% of these tanks that are listed lasted very short time in the service and certainly did not win the war.



Yep, there were 427,000 trucks delivered. It is thought that by 1945 half of the motor pool was american, that would place them at 320,000 trucks give or take. Still it is a very significant number.

In reagrds to the tanks, yo are also correct, their quality was poor compared with the german and soviet tanks, still.... and let us not forget the fighters, which were mainly hurricanes and kittyhawks, which were inferior to the german planes (mainly Me109) but it was vastly superior to what the soviets had in 1941 and 1942.

BTW, I am not saying that lend lease won the war, I am saying that it was a significant factor in several key areas- mainly logistical. As I said, I see this as a team work.



Soviet Bombers could reach and did reach Berlin, even early in the war. Soviets did not see the importance of Strategic Bombing but suggestion that all of Western Airspace, Ground Defense could be left unguarded is quiestionable


Please state when. Orders did go out, as early as June 22/23 but all those bombers were either shot down or returned to base (brave crews, they went at it with no fighter escort). Soviet air power became significant at 1944 onwards.

[foxtrot023]

Soviet Union would not loose no war. TOO STRONG!!!!

And Afganistan? please state facts, not opinions.

Thanks

[TR1]

And Afganistan? please state facts, not opinions.

Thanks

we could have continued the war in Afghanistan indefinitly...and the Taliban was victorious only when soviet aid for the Kabul regime stopped.

[ed316]

we could have continued the war in Afghanistan indefinitly...and the Taliban was victorious only when soviet aid for the Kabul regime stopped.

Only until 1991 when USSR collapse.

[TR1]

Only until 1991 when USSR collapse.

The Kabul regime ceased to function completely in 1994; had the soviet union not collapsed it could have been kept going...

[ed316]

The Kabul regime ceased to function completely in 1994; had the soviet union not collapsed it could have been kept going...


I suppose we can go on with the "what if's".

[StukaJr]

Yep, there were 427,000 trucks delivered. It is thought that by 1945 half of the motor pool was american, that would place them at 320,000 trucks give or take. Still it is a very significant number.

In reagrds to the tanks, yo are also correct, their quality was poor compared with the german and soviet tanks, still.... and let us not forget the fighters, which were mainly hurricanes and kittyhawks, which were inferior to the german planes (mainly Me109) but it was vastly superior to what the soviets had in 1941 and 1942.

BTW, I am not saying that lend lease won the war, I am saying that it was a significant factor in several key areas- mainly logistical. As I said, I see this as a team work.

I agree... All except Hurricanes and Kittyhawks being vastly superior to Yak-3 and 9 :) P-16 and other trainer planes that Soviets pushed into service - yes, but then the Soviets did find ingenious ways of making about anything fly and drop bombs with relatively good effect and tactics... Including the Lend-Lease obsolete transport planes converted into bombers.

American M5 half-trucks were especially popular - I believe it even saw life after WWII as BTR-152, just not sure to what extent it was modified... Soviets certainly had no analogical piece of equipment to that of the M5.

[California Joe]

Someone correct me if I heard this wrong somewhere but when they opened up a lot of the previously closed Soviet records I remember hearing historians were shocked to find that the Soviets had nearly double the casualty figures (military and civilian) then thought previously.

[TR1]

Someone correct me if I heard this wrong somewhere but when they opened up a lot of the previously closed Soviet records I remember hearing historians were shocked to find that the Soviets had nearly double the casualty figures (military and civilian) then thought previously.

somewhat true. New records show that civilian casualties were somewhere closer to 22 million, instead of the less than 15 million though before.

[VISTREL]

And Afganistan? please state facts, not opinions.

Thanks

I didn't see soviets run away in hurry afraid to be killed by mudjaheedins. Actually, USSR left Afghanistan with a full honor (music and ****) and handed over power to Afghan government. They just left - there was no reason to stay in Afghanistan.

Yes, not all rebels were killed but hey, who cares, as long as pro-russian government is in place it's all good. And it lasted, as Russian1 said, until 1994. That's 3 years after USSR collapse. We accomplished our mission there.

[California Joe]

somewhat true. New records show that civilian casualties were somewhere closer to 22 million, instead of the less than 15 million though before.

Damn that's a lot of people.

[foxtrot023]

I agree... All except Hurricanes and Kittyhawks being vastly superior to Yak-3 and 9 :) P-16 and other trainer planes that Soviets pushed into service - yes, but then the Soviets did find ingenious ways of making about anything fly and drop bombs with relatively good effect and tactics... Including the Lend-Lease obsolete transport planes converted into bombers.

American M5 half-trucks were especially popular - I believe it even saw life after WWII as BTR-152, just not sure to what extent it was modified... Soviets certainly had no analogical piece of equipment to that of the M5.

The soviets had earlier in the war vast quantities of Po-2s, I-15s, I-153s and I-16s (those were the ones I was referring to). Of the Yak 1, Lagg 3 and Mig 3 there were only 1900 by June 1941 and they were inferior to the Me109, certainly they were not much better than the kittyhawks and hurricanes. The Yak-3 and others were good planes but came in in latter 1942.

[TR1]

The soviets had earlier in the war Po-2s, I-15s, I-153s and I-16s. Of the Yak 1, Lagg 3 and Mig 3 there were only 1900 by June 1941 and they were inferior to the Me109, certainly they were not better than the kittyhawks and hurricanes. The Yak-3 and others were good planes but came in in latter 1942.

The Mig-3 was far superior to any luftawaffe plane of the time at high altitudes...but it was very difficult to fly.

[foxtrot023]

The Mig-3 was far superior to any luftawaffe plane of the time at high altitudes...but it was very difficult to fly.

that is debatible....

[TR1]

that is debatible....

not really..read some luftwaffe papaers on the Mig-3...they clearly say that it is superior at high altitude to the Me-109.
here, read this article:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/mig-3.htm

[foxtrot023]

not really..read some luftwaffe papaers on the Mig-3...they clearly say that it is superior at high altitude to the Me-109.
here, read this article:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/mig-3.htm

But was it a better fighter overall?

[TR1]

But was it a better fighter overall?
once again at high altitude yes...at lower altitudes, probably not.

[foxtrot023]

once again at high altitude yes...at lower altitudes, probably not.

from the link you provided



At least on paper the MiG-3 and Bf-109F were closely comparable fighters, with the MiG-3 having the advantage in range and level speed. The Bf 109F-4 was a very good vertical fighter with a terrific initial climb rate of 4350 feet/minute, so I suspect that the German fighter had the advantage in that important area and, because it was somewhat lighter, acceleration.
The 109F proved to be more maneuverable at low to medium speeds, particularly at low to medium altitude. The MiG had the advantage in high speed maneuverability, particularly at high altitude. In service it was found that the MiG-3 was superior above about 5000 meters (16,405 feet) and the Bf-109 superior below that altitude. As the altitude decreased below 5000 meters, the MiG-3's performance and handling characteristics progressively deteriorated. At low level the MiG-3 proved to be no match for the Messerschmitt fighter.
History records that the Luftwaffe pilots dominated their Russian counterparts during the first two years of the air war over the USSR. Why did this happen? In the past this has been credited primarily to the qualitative superiority of the German fighters, but as we have seen, in the MiG-3 the Russian fighter pilots had an aircraft equal to the Bf 109F.
Of course, most of the hundreds of fighter kills recorded by German pilots during 1942 were against Soviet fighters inferior in performance to the MiG-3. Yet, even against the MiG-3, the Germans recorded a favorable kill ratio. Much of this superiority is probably due to the superior tactics, training, and experience of the Luftwaffe fighter pilots, who were among the best in the world at that time.
The MiG-3's Mikulin AM-35A V-12 engine was optimized for high altitude performance. It was a good match for the MiG-3, designed as a high altitude interceptor and air superiority fighter. Unfortunately, the air war over the Soviet Union was primarily a medium to low altitude affair, as both sides used their bomber force primarily in direct support of their infantry and used their fighters to escort the bombers, attack enemy bombers, and for low level ground support missions.
The Germans never produced the four-engine "Ural" bomber that could have carried out high altitude strategic bombardment of the Soviet war industry, which had been moved hundreds of miles behind the lines, beyond the range of the twin-engine German medium bombers. So the MiG-3, the fighter that would have been primarily responsible for defending those targets, was pressed into service in roles for which it had not been designed and was not well suited. Essentially, the MiG-3 was forced to play the Bf-109's game.


I agree with what you said, at higher altituded, the MiG was probly the better fighter, but most engagements were fought somewhere else.

[Atlantic Friend]

not really..read some luftwaffe papaers on the Mig-3...they clearly say that it is superior at high altitude to the Me-109.
here, read this article:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/mig-3.htm

And so was the French Dewoitine 520... But the problem is, the Soviet Air Force was not made of MIG-3s, nor did it display (and that goes for the 1939 Armee de l'Air too) the same tactical expertise as the Luftwaffe. And thus it was roundly trounced.

[StukaJr]

The Yak-3 and others were good planes but came in in latter 1942.

Well, duh - but you said in 1941 and 1942. Don't mean to nitpick, but my example fits into the timeline you've set up - not sure why the retort is only for 1941 :)

First, the Lend-Lease shipments did not begin until November of 1941 - that leaves 2 months for these planes to be delivered, trained on and flown into battle - I doubt any Lend-Leased fighters actually flown in 1941 combat missions, leave alone the Winter of 1942 (since neither UK nor US volunteered the pilots for tasks other than transport). So not sure what your 1941 example has to do with anything other than pure performance as they weren't flying in SU's skies in 1941!

With that said, Lend-Lease has nothing to do with the first defeats that Axis has suffered at Moscow - period. At least, not equipment wise.

[foxtrot023]

With that said, Lend-Lease has nothing to do with the first defeats that Axis has suffered at Moscow - period.

I never said anything to deny this. The soviets stopped the germans at the gates of Moscow without any lend lease help, nor second front nor nothing.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I have no doubt that Germany, unencumbered by a Western front, would eventually have broken organized resistance in a USSR left completely on it's own. The USSR, without lend-lease would simply have been over-run by Germany's sucker-punch. It doesn't matter how strong, brave, determined, resourceful, and courageous you are if your opponent hits you in the face with a hammer while you're putting your pants on. WWII did not begin with both sides on equal footing.

A lot has been made of the fact that by '43 they were "fully mobilized" but in fact they were not. What they were, was mobilized for war with lend-lease assistance. In other words, the USSR concentrated on building those things that they were not otherwise getting from the outside. You can't convert all your locomotive factories to make tanks, unless somebody else is giving you the locomotives. You can't quit growing food unless you get it from somewhere else. You can't fly your aircraft unless you get the high-octane fuel from somewhere. They could not have converted all those factories, or even produced the materials at all, without outside help.

Nationalism aside, the people in the East were no better than the people West of them, or vice versa. All things thus being equal, one side had spent years preparing for war, and the other had not.

Interesting tidbit I discovered while looking up lend-lease data. The UK has still not repaid their lend-lease debt to the US - not due to finish it up until 31 Dec 2006. Pay up you cheapskates! :) (actually, since the interest rate charged was only 2%, they were making more money by just leaving it in the bank and drawing interest on it)

[StukaJr]

Interesting tidbit I discovered while looking up lend-lease data. The UK has still not repaid their lend-lease debt to the US - not due to finish it up until 31 Dec 2006. Pay up you cheapskates! :) (actually, since the interest rate charged was only 2%, they were making more money by just leaving it in the bank and drawing interest on it)

Russia has worked out a deal to pay off the deal - re-negotiating the amount five decades later sure has its results :D

[Midav]

My two cents in all of this is that Germany, in a fair one on one, at that time would have defeated any nation one on one.

Intelligent generals, Motivated and well trained soldiers, Fantastic military equipment and Good industry are four things that come to mind.

No other country could withstand the above.

I am not saying this to be politically correct, but it took the Allies as a whole to defeat Nazi Germany (the Axis in general). Yes, the Soviet Union took the brunt and thank god they were able to stop the Nazi's.

But in the end it took everyone and I have explained my belief multiple times on why that was.

[ed316]

Don't forget that US and UK were fighting in the Pacific AND the Atlantic.

[Mastermind]

I had a pretty good knowledge of events of this time in the world. I have read countrless histories on it. Yet, you guys have really led me on a teriffic journy of learning about some things I never even heard of. Thanks! MM

[GazB]

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

On the hole the so called wonder weapons had little real effect. A few short range interceptor rocket planes to intercept western bombers were a complete waste of resources and time. Super heavy siege guns were also another example of a waste of resources. 180 ton tanks... the list goes on. They might have been very advanced but they were a stupid waste even if they had worked straight away they were never going to get them in numbers to actually have an effect.

I don't know whether the Soviet Union would have survived but the actions of the Germans on the Eastern front ensured they were always going to lose. The Germans actually managed to make the communists look good... now that is saying something!

If they had gone in there as liberators of the various peoples of the SU and treated the locals decently as they did in western europe (to a degree) then they probably could have defeated Stalin even with the war in the west... in fact the added manpower, the selected new weapons like T-34s and Yaks, the resources of Russia and the Ukraine etc, I really think Britain would have been in serious trouble.

Fortunately we will never know. Hitler was too stupid and the German soldiers on the Eastern front were too cruel for that to ever be tried.

[GazB]

The USSR, without lend-lease would simply have been over-run by Germany's sucker-punch.

The Germans were stopped in December 1941 by the Russians. How can Lend Lease have had any real effect from the time it was aggreed to supply the Soviets with Lend lease in late August 1941? By the time they had sent the lend lease equipment, unpacked it and made the necessary adjustments (winter fighting in the Soviet union was no easier on US equipment than it was on German equipment... the US didn't design its gear for the Soviet Winter), and then got soldiers trained to use it do you really think it was in use in time in sufficeint numbers to save the Soviets? I doubt it. In fact the translation of the manuals, and of course the supply of the necessary tools and compatible ammo types probably greatly restricted their use initially. Remember the Soviets were metric and the US still uses the archaic Imperial measures. What sized metric spanner will fit a 3/4 inch bolt? Is there a metric spanner in that size?

[Kilgor]

The Germans were stopped in December 1941 by the Russians. How can Lend Lease have had any real effect from the time it was aggreed to supply the Soviets with Lend lease in late August 1941? By the time they had sent the lend lease equipment, unpacked it and made the necessary adjustments (winter fighting in the Soviet union was no easier on US equipment than it was on German equipment... the US didn't design its gear for the Soviet Winter), and then got soldiers trained to use it do you really think it was in use in time in sufficeint numbers to save the Soviets? I doubt it. In fact the translation of the manuals, and of course the supply of the necessary tools and compatible ammo types probably greatly restricted their use initially. Remember the Soviets were metric and the US still uses the archaic Imperial measures. What sized metric spanner will fit a 3/4 inch bolt? Is there a metric spanner in that size?

Once again, as I said the opponents of lend lease fail to mention the fact it was the material aid that made the difference, not the weapons.

So the germans were driven back from moscow, but they were back after winter and lend lease was happening.

[Lokos]

Okay, I'll stick around for the duration of the thread. This is my field, after all.


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.).

Numerically speaking, those divisions were brought up to strength from the accelerated Waves of the draft (men relatively unfit to be soldiers), in conjunction with liberal allotments of Hiwis. They were never up to strength in terms of artillery, motorized transport, armour etc. The German emphasis on Normandy was relatively short-lived. By October 1945, it was once again the Eastern Front that was the focus of German attentions. The imminent fall of the Silesian industrial basin, Hungary, Austria and the Vistula-Oder operations meant that Germany's heartland was under direct assault by the Soviets.

One must only look at the casualty figures for 1945, according to Rudiger Overmans (the leading German analyst of casualties sustained throughout the war):

In 1944 the Germans suffered 1,232,946 fatalities on the Eastern Front. The vast majority were incurred from 22 June 1944 until December 1944.

From June until December 1944, in the West, the Germans suffered 244,891 combat fatalities.

The Germans also suffered 278,419 combat fatalities in 'Various theaters' in 1944. Some of those were suffered in Italy - but the brunt was lost in the running battles in Yugoslavia against the Soviet/Yugoslav drive north.

Despite the discrepancy of combat fatalities in terms of theater (your 2.8m/2.4m deployment ratio would suggest different numbers, was the situation as simple as those deployments would suggest), the German strength on the Eastern Front did not fall precipitiously. The vast majority of German reinforcements were sent East. I cannot see how this can be disputed.

Source: "Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" by Rüdiger Overmans


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.


All good and well, but even taking into account the strengthening of German formations in the West, the second half of 1944 saw four times as many fatalities in the East than in the West. The Western Front was seen as secondary from October 1944 until May 1945. The strengthening took place from March 1944 until August 1945.


2.4 million men were in other theaters other than the Eastern Front in the beginning of 1944. Those include the ones in Western Europe, Italy, the Balkans and Norway.

But how many of those men were in third tier garrison formations? Most of the Balkans occupation forces were, certainly. And the Balkans came under the aegis of the 'Eastern Front' in the third quarter of 1944.


How i would transport supplies quite simple with planes most of suppiles were air transportable.

With Germany's Ju-52 fleet that did not have enough lift to supply 6th Army with minimal supplies needed to maintain basic functionality?


no battle over britan no lend and lease= total German air supperiority for a quite long time.

Is that so?

How do you figure? How many Ju-52 transport aircraft do you think were shot down in the BoB?


Both sides have safe producition facilities beyond reach of enemy air force. Russians behind ural mountains, Germans in Germany and Italy. Germans will develop long range bombers and heavy transport planes befor Russians. Add to this Russian will have similiar problems like Germans to transport their supplies to the front line without lend and lease. Yes they would be able to build the vehicles but it would require materials that were used to make weapons. Especialy steel. Russians might create similiar transport system like hohiminh trail but it would require much more peoples and absence of this peoples at front lines might be another thing that would tip the scale in Germans favor.

I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't have the time to write an essay educating you as to why that is so, in this case.


- in 1941 the USSR's population was 180 million, not 250, Germany's was IIRC 83+ million,

In 1941 it was 192 million. And Germany's population was not 83+ million. It was around 80,300,000.


- don't ask about the importance of Norway when somebody says there was a garrison of 800,000 German soldiers in this country. They could have been used against the USSR,

Yes, and Soviet Far Eastern, Caucaus and Transbaikal forces could have been used against the Germans, too - but not.


- Germans used foreign forced labourers extensively sending more troops to the front, while Soviets did not,

That is true. There were 7 million forced labourers in Germany in 1944.


- the German industry reached its peak in 1944 in spite of heavy Allied bombings. What if there had been no bombings?

The relative increase would have been small. We're talking industrial bottlenecks, here, not limitless potential minus the bombing campaign...


- there were many Soviet citizens (including even some Russians), who did not want to fight for this country. The same cannot be said about Germans and their country (at least I can't use the phrase "many Germans",

Ukrainians, Belarussians, Russians, Tartars, Chechens, Ingush and Poles served well enough.


- don't compare training of a German soldier to the training of a Soviet soldier, many Soviet tank crews spent as much as 5 hours before being sent to the front, while Germans trained their crews very well, for example a gunner could be a driver, etc.

Don't post information you can't back up. By 1943 the training norm was between two and six months per tank crew.

Infantry training was roughly two months.


- Germans wasted many resources for producing U-boots. They could have been used in other way,

Need I even list the ways in which the Russians frittered away resources? Why do you seek to skew every possible variable in the favour of the Germans?


- take into consideration how many resources the Germans used to protect their country against Allied bombers, it would have been unnecessary in case of the USSR,

Yes, I'm sure the children manning the AA defences of the Reich would have been more useful on the Ostfront. Or did you mean the flak cannons, for which AT rounds would somehow have to be found and supplied across a fragile logistical network?


- additional German troops, that were garrisoned in the occupied countries could have made a final blow in Moscow in 1941

Tell that to the STAVKA strategic reserve (numbering well over a million men by November-December 1941).


- the Germans developed their technology to cope with Allies mostly, they could have invented other toys for the war with the USSR. I mean for example V-1,V-2,V-3, radars, new U-boots types, supercannons, jets (completely unnecessary at war with the USSR). There would have been completely other inventions with German engineers working in much more comfortable conditions, without a risk of bombardment...

I'm not even going to bother with this.


The RKKA's losses in Spring of 1945 were appalling and the Soviets had to use extensive number of children as soldiers at that time.

Musashi, I respect you, but you're talking kaka, here. The 1945 recruitment class of just-turned 18 year olds was over 2 million strong. Losses in 1945 certainly did not approach 2 million fatalities. This does not even take into account men from liberated territories and returned wounded. Children were not used as soldiers.


They also fought against Polish partisans at that time, suffering heavy casualties.

Yes, the Polish partizans certainly did suffer many casualties, I agree. The RKKA, less so.


At the end... compare how many German soldiers managed to survive the war in 1939-1945

Are we counting the four million dead Soviet POWs, here?

If so, Soviet military fatalities were twice as heavy, for a population 2.5 times as large. The German military fatalities were roughly 5,318,531 dead, in comparison (including POW deaths). And I think you'll find that the percentage of German soldiers active in 1940 who were still active in 1945 is very low, indeed.


There would be a lot of people n this thread speaking German if Russia was all alone in the War... agaisnt German that is... Jawol mine furher!!!


The war, in a military sense, was quite the foregone conclusion by the concluding months of 1942 (well before Allied help became significant).


I have no doubt that Germany, unencumbered by a Western front, would eventually have broken organized resistance in a USSR left completely on it's own.

Having looked at the available data, I have extensive doubts.


The USSR, without lend-lease would simply have been over-run by Germany's sucker-punch.

This they failed to do at the height of their game, when LL was a gleam in the eyes of the politicians (October-December 1941). The Soviet Winter Offensive nearly unhinged AGC and the entire German line, even. Was the effort more concentrated against AGC (Army Group Center) itself, the war could have been decided then and there. All this, very much so without LL. And yet people persist in the belief that Soviet survival depended on Allied assistance.


You can't quit growing food unless you get it from somewhere else.

They didn't. Massive Soviet manpower was trapped in agricultural pursuits throughout the war.


My two cents in all of this is that Germany, in a fair one on one, at that time would have defeated any nation one on one.

Midav, buddy, the only reason Germany did as well as it did was because Barbarossa was the worst sort of 'sucker punch' as it has been called, here. Ten months later, and the Wehrmacht wouldn't have even breached the Dnieper. In a 'fair one on one', Germany would have been up a suspiciously brown creek, with no paddle to speak of.


So the germans were driven back from moscow, but they were back after winter and lend lease was happening.

In 1941 the Germans were able to launch an offensive across the entire front at full strength.

In 1942, they could only launch an offensive across half the front, with massive juggling of formations required to find the prerequisite combat-ready units.

In 1943, they could do no more than to attempt to pinch off a single operational salient.

Only in the third was LL a significant factor, to any great degree.

Lokos

[WolverineBlue]

Best thread ever -- kudos to Lokos and GazB and StukaJr and all of you guys

Thanks for the interesting reads.

[TR1]

Lokos,
good point about the Far Eastern forces.
If we are considering a one on one encounter between Germany and the Soviet Union, you must take into account the well over 60 divisions, 2,500 tanks, 1,600 airplanes, 94 submarines and 220 other naval craft in the far east, which would have been redeployed quickly to the west, instead of waiting out until the last moments of the battle for Moscow. These forces had battle experience, and thus would have been very helpfull in the battle.

[Lokos]

Despite the transfer of divisions from the Far East districts to Moscow, the number of Soviet troops deployed there did not decrease significantly. Local levies replaced outgoing troops, and very few tanks and aircraft were transferred along with the infantry.

Soviet commitment throughout the Transbaikal and Caucaus districts were as extensive.

[StukaJr]

Okay, I'll stick around for the duration of the thread. This is my field, after all.



please, do! :)





If so, Soviet military fatalities were twice as heavy, for a population 2.5 times as large. The German military fatalities were roughly 5,318,531 dead, in comparison (including POW deaths). And I think you'll find that the percentage of German soldiers active in 1940 who were still active in 1945 is very low, indeed.


Just wanted to add something to what Lokos have said - when tallying up the combat casualties of RKKA and the Axis, a lot of people forget that RKKA was not fighting Germany alone on the Eastern Front - the combat casualties of the Axis' Allies are very often (almost always) left out, counting only the Wehrmacht casualties. I believe that the number of fatalities inflicted on the Eastern Front alone among the combined Axis forces was somewhere about 5 million dead - I could see if I could dig up the numbers from the original source.

[ogukuo72]

On the hole the so called wonder weapons had little real effect. A few short range interceptor rocket planes to intercept western bombers were a complete waste of resources and time. Super heavy siege guns were also another example of a waste of resources. 180 ton tanks... the list goes on. They might have been very advanced but they were a stupid waste even if they had worked straight away they were never going to get them in numbers to actually have an effect. weapons like T-34s and Yaks, the resources of Russia and the Ukraine etc, I really think Britain would have been in serious trouble.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. The wonder weapons actually made little practical impact. About the only "Super Weapon" that amounted to anything was the Me-262 and the StG44. Even then, their impact were limited. The others could more accurately be considered a waste of resources. If the amount of money that had been pumped into these weapons had been diverted to - say - manufacturing Sten Guns and Panzerfaust, Allied causualties might well be much higher!

[Zero The Hero]

I'm pretty confident that the Germans could have reached Moscow and the Caucasus oil fields had they not been engaged in battle in Africa and across the english channel.
However, the key to victory over the Soviet Union would have been killing Stalin and his close proximity in the communist leadership. That would have practically deconstructed the relatively young communist governance of terror of the 20's and 30's which surpasses the Nazi regime in cruelty by a mile. Replacing the communist regime with a puppet to sign a peace treaty with, could have ended the war in the east. One must bear in mind that the communist dictatorship wasn't exactly popular among the masses and with sufficient "development aid", the germans could have easily won the hearts and minds in Belorussia, Ukraine and Western Russia.

[GazB]

Once again, as I said the opponents of lend lease fail to mention the fact it was the material aid that made the difference, not the weapons.

So the germans were driven back from moscow, but they were back after winter and lend lease was happening.!

Yeah, of course. All that material aide... but that material aide arrived slower than the weapons. Little of the material aide that arrived before the thaw in early '42 would have made much difference as many workshops were still being built by their workers after hours in the snow and rain, having just moved to beyond the Urals.

Of course that brings us to the other point... Lend Lease was PAID FOR. It was not a gift. The Soviets paid for this material. Further evidence that the US was not a friend of the Soviet Union, if any was needed.
In fact I remember reading a US General at the time suggested that Lend Lease should be offered to both the Soviets and the Germans, with supplies depending upong who was doing well at the time, the supplies going to the weaker side to further the suffering and losses of both sides.

[Lokos]

I'm pretty confident that the Germans could have reached Moscow and the Caucasus oil fields had they not been engaged in battle in Africa and across the english channel.

As a matter of fact, in practical terms, they did both. The problem was that neither situation allowed for exploitation of the fact.

[GazB]

One must bear in mind that the communist dictatorship wasn't exactly popular among the masses and with sufficient "development aid", the germans could have easily won the hearts and minds in Belorussia, Ukraine and Western Russia.

Occupied villages and cities in the east the people were treated like cattle. During the push back the Soviet units found several villages where the entire population had been herded into churches and burned to death... or worse... the people were untermention but their blood could be used to save german soldiers lives. Several documented cases show situations where all the people in a village were drained completely of blood, or as completely as the german doctors could manage, to supply blood to German army hospitals.
If that wasn't bad enough when the German soldiers had been through the SS units came through next... Surrender was not really an option either. Of the 6 million or so Soviet Prisoners of war in Germany less than 1 million were repatriated... the rest were worked to death without food.

Even in Germany itself anyone who was not "pure" was removed from the population... we always hear about the jews, but the union leaders, the gypsies, the communists, the mentally ill, anyone with a physical handicap, Catholics and Christians, the purification of the German gene pool was a serious business... keeping alive some slavs made no sense to that regime.

[foxtrot023]

Numerically speaking, those divisions were brought up to strength from the accelerated Waves of the draft (men relatively unfit to be soldiers), in conjunction with liberal allotments of Hiwis. They were never up to strength in terms of artillery, motorized transport, armour etc. The German emphasis on Normandy was relatively short-lived. By October 1945, it was once again the Eastern Front that was the focus of German attentions. The imminent fall of the Silesian industrial basin, Hungary, Austria and the Vistula-Oder operations meant that Germany's heartland was under direct assault by the Soviets.

I beg to differ. The 1ss Pz was brought up to strength by recruits, and transfers from the 12ss Pz. The 12 ssPz was draw from the HJ organization. Other divs like the 352nd was created from german recruits. Hiwis were used as general labour, but in no way were they in significant numbers, except in the static divs.

All Panzer divisions in the Normandy theatre were up to strength or close by in June 1944. We are talking about 1000 tanks or more.

And finally, in June 1944, the soviets were still fighting in the Ukraine and in Bielorussia, hundreds of miles away from Germany, but the Normandy landings, and the feared Pas du Calais landing would have placed the allies 100 km away from the industrial heartland of Germany- the Ruhr, hence it was seen with worry, and hence Hitler directed to strengthen and give priority to troops in western Europe.

One must only look at the casualty figures for 1945, according to Rudiger Overmans (the leading German analyst of casualties sustained throughout the war):

In 1944 the Germans suffered 1,232,946 fatalities on the Eastern Front. The vast majority were incurred from 22 June 1944 until December 1944.

From June until December 1944, in the West, the Germans suffered 244,891 combat fatalities.

The Germans also suffered 278,419 combat fatalities in 'Various theaters' in 1944. Some of those were suffered in Italy - but the brunt was lost in the running battles in Yugoslavia against the Soviet/Yugoslav drive north.

Despite the discrepancy of combat fatalities in terms of theater (your 2.8m/2.4m deployment ratio would suggest different numbers, was the situation as simple as those deployments would suggest), the German strength on the Eastern Front did not fall precipitiously. The vast majority of German reinforcements were sent East. I cannot see how this can be disputed.

Source: "Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" by Rüdiger Overmans

Just in Normandy, over 400,000 germans were captured, killed or wounded. Please include ALL german casualties, including prisoners. I am sure the germans incurred with a lot more casualties fighting the soviets. But the western front was by no means insignificant.


123345667788

[Lokos]

Other divs like the 352nd was created from german recruits.

From which Wave? And what was the age-group for that Wave? What were the physical standards of the Wave in question?


Hiwis were used as general labour, but in no way were they in significant numbers, except in the static divs.

Hiwis were present in significant numbers in a huge proportion of German divisions as manual labour. In Normandy, Hiwis were even employed as combat troops during the fighting on the beaches and in the immediate aftermath (no matter how ineffective they were proven to be).


And finally, in June 1944, the soviets were still fighting in the Ukraine and in Bielorussia, hundreds of miles away from Germany, but the Normandy landings, and the feared Pas du Calais landing would have placed the allies 100 km away from the industrial heartland of Germany- the Ruhr, hence it was seen with worry, and hence Hitler directed to strengthen and give priority to troops in western Europe.

Nothing in this refutes anything I said. From March until perhaps October 1944 the emphasis was more even than was usual for the war, in terms of the East/West divide. From October 1944 it switched back to an emphasis on the Eastern Front. After all, as threatened as the Ruhr was, so was the Silesian industrial basin threatened.


Just in Normandy, over 400,000 germans were captured, killed or wounded. Please include ALL german casualties, including prisoners. I am sure the germans incurred with a lot more casualties fighting the soviets. But the western front was by no means insignificant.

Are you sure you want me to?

From July until December 1944 895,946 Axis soldiers became Soviet prisoners of war. From January until June of the same year 238,116 Axis soldiers became Soviet prisoners of war.

And if I included German wounded in the fighting against the Soviets, the ratio remains the same. Any which way you slice it, the Eastern Front claimed the vast majority of German fatalities and captives, as well as the entirety of Hungarian, Romanian, Finnish and a major portion of Italian fatalities and captives.

Whilst the Western contribution was not insignificant (I have never argued it was), it is obvious that something more lurks beneath the theater deployment of Axis strength, given month-on-month strength reports and the intensity of the fighting on the Eastern Front.

Lokos

[foxtrot023]

From which Wave? And what was the age-group for that Wave? What were the physical standards of the Wave in question?

They were defined as class A. There were 18-19 year olds. For an excellent breakdown on this div read Beyond The Beachhead: The 29th Infantry Division In Normandy

Hiwis were present in significant numbers in a huge proportion of German divisions as manual labour. In Normandy, Hiwis were even employed as combat troops during the fighting on the beaches and in the immediate aftermath (no matter how ineffective they were proven to be).

True, but hiwis were not in ¨huge¨ proportions (they were mainly used as helpers, cooks, oderlies, all in all less than 10% of a rifle company was hiwi) and they did not combat, except in the static divisions, were they were grouped in ¨ost¨ batallions

Nothing in this refutes anything I said. From March until perhaps October 1944 the emphasis was more even than was usual for the war, in terms of the East/West divide. From October 1944 it switched back to an emphasis on the Eastern Front. After all, as threatened as the Ruhr was, so was the Silesian industrial basin threatened.



Are you sure you want me to?

From July until December 1944 895,946 Axis soldiers became Soviet prisoners of war. From January until June of the same year 238,116 Axis soldiers became Soviet prisoners of war.

And if I included German wounded in the fighting against the Soviets, the ratio remains the same. Any which way you slice it, the Eastern Front claimed the vast majority of German fatalities and captives, as well as the entirety of Hungarian, Romanian, Finnish and a major portion of Italian fatalities and captives.

Whilst the Western contribution was not insignificant (I have never argued it was), it is obvious that something more lurks beneath the theater deployment of Axis strength, given month-on-month strength reports and the intensity of the fighting on the Eastern Front.

I never have disputed that the soviets were the ones that engaged the majority of the german troops and that they also inflicted the greatest casualties. I am merely trying to give balance to the different view points
, like the soviet, that tends to dismiss the contribution of the western allies and tends to dimish the importance of lend lease, the bombing campaign or the Normandy landings and that of the western allies, that think that Germany was defeated by the Normandy landings, the Bulge or at El Alamein, when in reality they were drops in the bucket compared with Stalingrad or with Kursk or others. As I said before, defeating the germans was a team effort, if one of the team was missing, it would have been a lot more difficult to defeat Germany, not to mention that it would not have been assured. The soviets defeated the majority of the Heer, the w. allies defeated the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine.

Lokos


1234567890

[GazB]

Despite the fact that I believe the Soviets probably would have won on the eastern front that is not to say I am ignoring the contribution the west made to the defeat of germany... I just haven't read much about it. Strategic bombing campaigns have never been a huge interest to me. Indeed I know very little of the Soviet bombing campaign of germany that started in 1941.

[nick_ua]

I had a pretty good knowledge of events of this time in the world. I have read countrless histories on it.

From how you asked the first question it's obviuos you don't know sh*t about this events, no doubt you watch couple movies on history channel or discovery, read couple magazines the rest is doesn't exists.

The guy who has knowledge is Lokos. You have no idea

[nick_ua]

During the push back the Soviet units found several villages where the entire population had been herded into churches and burned to death... or worse
Thats happened most on Belorussia.
Overall around 3 mil people got killed only there, but hmm nobody talking about Holokust, and nobody building monumnet for them, wonder why?

[nick_ua]

However, the key to victory over the Soviet Union would have been killing Stalin and his close proximity in the communist leadership. That would have practically deconstructed the relatively young communist governance of terror of the 20's and 30's which surpasses the Nazi regime in cruelty by a mile.

yeh, thats a good idea, and kill Hitler too, and yeh let's kill somebody else, eeehhh kill of them, just for fan, and then see.
are you have some menthal problem? (just in case)

[Darth Vidar]

Germany had 300 000 troops in Norway in case of an allied invasion.

Could these troops have made a difference if they had been used on the Eastern front instead?

[asch]

the key to victory over the Soviet Union would have been killing Stalin and his close proximity in the communist leadership.

haha, new revelations, wow!!

[Lokos]

They were defined as class A. There were 18-19 year olds. For an excellent breakdown on this div read Beyond The Beachhead: The 29th Infantry Division In Normandy


Fair enough. That's... two divisions. Name others with Category A personnel being in the majority?


True, but hiwis were not in ¨huge¨ proportions (they were mainly used as helpers, cooks, oderlies, all in all less than 10% of a rifle company was hiwi) and they did not combat, except in the static divisions, were they were grouped in ¨ost¨ batallions


I'm sorry, my wording was quite clumsy, there. What I meant was that Hiwis were present in a 'huge proportion' of German divisions - not that they made up huge proportions of those divisions. And I am aware of what they were used for. However, as I said, in Normandy they were also used as combat troops - no matter how ineffectively.


As I said before, defeating the germans was a team effort, if one of the team was missing, it would have been a lot more difficult to defeat Germany, not to mention that it would not have been assured. The soviets defeated the majority of the Heer, the w. allies defeated the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine.

There is nothing there that I disagree with specifically, apart from qualifying my position by restating that the Soviet Union's survival did NOT depend on WA assistance, or even participation in the war. Victory, however, would certainly have taken a lot more time and blood without the WA. And for that, no Soviet soldier was ungrateful, to be sure.

Lokos

[ogukuo72]

Remember, in taking Berlin alone, the Red Army suffered 100,000 casualties. It was a price that Eisenhower thought was not worth the symbolic value.

[asch]

It was a price that Eisenhower thought was not worth the symbolic value.
It was a price that some other guy thought was worth the symbolic value.
;)

[Omaha]

It was a price that some other guy thought was worth the symbolic value.


Which was easily the single worse decision of the war in my opinion. They rushed for the war to end in May, a big month for the commies as I have read. Other than that, a rush to find and steal German technological documentations, and the like.

Even if they would have taken a few more weeks, they would have still gotten there before us. Hell look at a map.

Countless lives were lost unnecessarily. But, since when did that ever matter to the SU?

[Lokos]

Countless lives were lost unnecessarily.

Pray tell, how so?


They rushed for the war to end in May, a big month for the commies as I have read.

Not one single account of the strategic thinking involved in the planning of future operations by STAVKA gives any indication whatsoever that May was seen as anything but another month.


Other than that, a rush to find and steal German technological documentations, and the like.

LOL. Uhh, no.


Which was easily the single worse decision of the war in my opinion.

Of all the decisions you could have picked (the winter '41-'42 general counter-offensive, Operation Mars, letting Bagration run on into late July and August, the '42 Kharkov Offensive, the failure to properly cut off and invest Budapest, the Kerch Offensive, the conduct of the East Prussian battles etc.) you picked possibly the most strategically irrelevant one. Kudos to you.

Lokos

[asch]

Which was easily the single worse decision of the war in my opinion. They rushed for the war to end in May, a big month for the commies as I have read. Other than that, a rush to find and steal German technological documentations, and the like.

Even if they would have taken a few more weeks, they would have still gotten there before us. Hell look at a map. you are amazing, you know?

Countless lives were lost unnecessarily. But, since when did that ever matter to the SU? we are Evil Empire, remember?
huh.

edit:
yeah, yeah, sarcasm tag here.

[Pindeho]

This is a quote form my BRITISH, history book. The soviet Union "consumed 90% or German Military resources," when I read that I was like, WTF can't be true. But it said a similar thing in my other history book. "Germany losses total over 91% from military actions against the Soviet union." Different books say different things but I would say that the average from these are at least 90%.:cantbeli: There was mention or Partisan units playing an extremely large part, as their ambushes were incredible well planned and successful. They also seemed to get priority in weapons and equipment such as prototype weapons.

To conclude, If german had acquired the atomic bomb FIRST, they would have won the war. I must say The Commando operation in Rijukan had a huge significance to the outcome. Without foreign aid it would have been prolonged by X no of years, costing more men and resources.

[GazB]

Germany had 300 000 troops in Norway in case of an allied invasion.

Could these troops have made a difference if they had been used on the Eastern front instead?

If they had been sent to the eastern front then there would have been more Soviets killed and wounded and the war would have taken even longer, but the risk of the British and Americans joining together and invading earlier might have increased dramatically. Local uprisings in Western Occupied europe would also become more likely too.


It was a price that Eisenhower thought was not worth the symbolic value.

It was a price he happily left to the Soviets to pay. The allies were hardly going to stop short of attacking Berlin and just leave it at that...


Countless lives were lost unnecessarily. But, since when did that ever matter to the SU?

So you consider after all the loss and suffering the Soviet forces went through that they didn't appreciate the opportunity to level the Nazi Capital city? Sure there is the wish not to die at this point in the war, but there is also the wish for revenge. Have read articles about Soviet Soldiers entering Polish villages and thinking they had entered rich mans country. Even the farms had the areas for milking cows paved, with lots of nice furnature in the houses. These boys from poor villages in Russia where every house has a bare earth floor in every room... Thoughts like "And they stole from us..." can't really be answered. Obviously they didn't go to liberate or to pinch furnature or houses... they wanted land, and they wanted the land to be unoccupied. The reality is that the Jews were probably just practise and the Soviet people were next. In such a situation surrender is not an option. (Once the Jews got into the fighting spirit after WWII can you honestly say surrender would be considered by them to be an option too?)

To quote:

"...the scale and grandeur of the (Russian) effort mark it as the greatest military achievement in all history."
General Douglas MacArthur
Commander in Chief
Southwest Pacific Area.

[Omaha]

Pray tell, how so?

How so? How so? Christ, if you can't get around that then I need to go no further.

Not one single account of the strategic thinking involved in the planning of future operations by STAVKA gives any indication whatsoever that May was seen as anything but another month.

Oh come on. Stalin saw that very important in a propaganda point. That was the month he became the Premier of the Soviet Union, not to mention May Day.

LOL. Uhh, no.


"So what are the reasons for Stalin's hurry to reach Berlin? After all, he was happy to share the city with his western allies after the city's surrender. The traditional explanation is that it was a question of Soviet prestige and mistrust of the west. However, during his research, Beevor discovered a startling new document: 'It struck me so powerfully that the moment I started to read it I knew I had to look at a totally different aspect of Stalin's interest in Berlin.'
The document shows that Stalin was desperate to get his hands on the German nuclear research center, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the southwest of Berlin - before the Americans got there. The Soviets knew through their spies of the American atomic bomb program. Stalin's own nuclear program, Operation Borodino, was lagging behind and Soviet scientists wanted to find out exactly what the Germans had come up with during the war."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/berlin_06.shtml

One of the chief technological resources for a good 5 years after '45 for the USSR was German technology. Again, I can't believe you didn't know that. It is a well documented fact they ransacked the city looking for equipment to out right copy. Nothing wrong with that, just a matter of fact.

Of all the decisions you could have picked (the winter '41-'42 general counter-offensive, Operation Mars, letting Bagration run on into late July and August, the '42 Kharkov Offensive, the failure to properly cut off and invest Budapest, the Kerch Offensive, the conduct of the East Prussian battles etc.) you picked possibly the most strategically irrelevant one. Kudos to you.

Because it was a complete waste. There was absolutely no reason other than petty propaganda to say we got there first. If you can't see that, then I am afraid you know nothing.

Lokos

Kudos to you too.

[asch]

Omaha, just try to understand
Beevor is not a competent source.
proved 1000 times here.

[RGRBOX]

I don't think a lot of you guys are getting this. From what I understand about this exercise from Mastermind... the Russians would be at this 100% alone... the US, and UK wouldn't be involved.....

So why do everyone keep putting the US and the UK back into the equation???

It is clear from the earlier battles for example Barbarosa, that the Germans were surounding entire Russian Divisions, Army etc.. and destroying them... if the German Army had no one else to contend with, and the Russians were the only ones in the War with Germany, then this would have continued to happen. With time, the Russians coulds have moved thier facturies to Mongolia, and the Germans could have gotten to them, because they were moving at a great spend... allowing them to take more land, and more fields, etc... the Russians only became a match for the Germans once, German troops were forced to fight on other fronts, send production to these other fronts, and the allies started bombing German factories... The Germans would have had all of the local oil fields, and because of there push across eastern Europe, and into the heart of Russian, which at that time, had less people to deal with... winter wouldn't have been a problem for Germany, because then could have taken their time.. continued bombing Russin troops and cities behind the lines, and all the while the German troops waitied for the Spring thaw... Sure the war would have been a while longer, because when the UK, and the US got involved they shorten the war by half the time.... the germans were pulled in all directions, and production was brought to a stand still by the bombing... Germany was brought down by economics... they had nothing left to give in the end... the same way the USSR was brought down by the West in the Cold War... the West out spent the USSR.. and had money left in the end... the USSR was force into another revolution.. and democracy won...

end of story.....

[Lokos]

How so? How so? Christ, if you can't get around that then I need to go no further.

Here's where it gets uncomfortable for you.

Name specific situations in which the RKKA frittered away manpower in the closing month of the war.


Oh come on. Stalin saw that very important in a propaganda point. That was the month he became the Premier of the Soviet Union, not to mention May Day.

Rubbish. Stalin wanted Berlin in February - but that was not possible. He wanted Berlin in April - but that was not possible. There were negotiations in Berlin in late April over unconditional surrender that would have ended the war then and there, were it not for the unconditional surrender sticking point. The fact that the war ran on into May can be attributed to fate and circumstance to a far greater degree than to Stalin's whims.


'It struck me so powerfully that the moment I started to read it I knew I had to look at a totally different aspect of Stalin's interest in Berlin.'
The document shows that Stalin was desperate to get his hands on the German nuclear research center, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the southwest of Berlin - before the Americans got there. The Soviets knew through their spies of the American atomic bomb program. Stalin's own nuclear program, Operation Borodino, was lagging behind and Soviet scientists wanted to find out exactly what the Germans had come up with during the war."

What a load of crap. And, while Mr. Beevor was researching this fascinating fact, did he also happen to come across Soviet operational objectives in the city of Berlin? The KWI was most certainly not one of them. If Soviet troops did not have the KWI emphasised as an objective of capture at all, does this mean that it was their single greatest goal anyway, would you say? But why should you care about the practical problems of Mr. Beevor's theory? It's a sensationalist view sure to draw more attention to that journalist-***-pocketbook historian.


One of the chief technological resources for a good 5 years after '45 for the USSR was German technology. Again, I can't believe you didn't know that. It is a well documented fact they ransacked the city looking for equipment to out right copy. Nothing wrong with that, just a matter of fact.

Yes, of course, they captured the city of Berlin in order to ransack it of its technological advances. How silly of me. I mean, I've only been researching the Eastern Front for the past decade, what could I possibly have to say about all this - especially when faced with 'evidence' presented by the least respected academic historians of the period: Mr. Anthony Beevor?

His evidence of course boils down to this:

Soviet nuclear project lagging. KWI institute in Berlin. Therefore Berlin MUST be captured at any cost and at all possible speed, heedless of casualties, despite the fact that the WA had ALREADY AGREED to halt their advance WELL SHORT OF Berlin.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

Soviet nuclear project lagging. KWI institute in Berlin. Therefore Berlin MUST be captured at any cost and at all possible speed, heedless of casualties, despite the fact that the WA had ALREADY AGREED to halt their advance WELL SHORT OF Berlin.

Lokos


Stalin certainly did not trust anyone, especially the western allies. That should be obvious at daylight to someone who has "studied" soviet written history.

[Midav]

Midav, buddy, the only reason Germany did as well as it did was because Barbarossa was the worst sort of 'sucker punch' as it has been called, here. Ten months later, and the Wehrmacht wouldn't have even breached the Dnieper. In a 'fair one on one', Germany would have been up a suspiciously brown creek, with no paddle to speak of.


Heya Lokos!! Good to see you again :)

See, why I believe Germany would have defeated the USSR in a 1 on 1 is because had its military not been stretched as it was and had all its heads been involved in the attack on the USSR, the outcome, in my belief, would have been different.

I mean this against any nation now.

The blitz would have been much faster, more units involved etc...

Possibly the Kriegsmarine may have been able to land forces near Sevastopol with its ships not busy in the Atlantic.

Prince Paul's coup in 1941 caused the Nazi's to move forces involved for Barbarossa to be sent to Yugoslavia as well.

Now, counting against this, how would the Germans have fared without all the tactics and knowledge gained from fighting in the west? There were many vets that came to the east and applied their knowledge.

Granted, it was a sucker punch, but according to many, Stalin was given ample warning of the coming attack but dismissed it... a shame! It might have saved millions of lives...

Anyway, I am glad the Nazi's did not win. But my personal belief, forced on nobody, is that the Germans could have taken on and win against any nation one on one at that time.

Anyway, take care :)

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

hhhmmm this is an interesting post...my money is on SU...

the reason is that it was a war of attrition, SU didnt give a **** if the germans took moscow...ok they took moscow, so what? we still have the entire asian continent to retreat back into...i mean the russians still had the cover of the urals to push further back into...i think that by pushing further back it wouldve been to the russians advantage...pulling the germans further and further from berlin wouldve been a logistical nightmare even for nazi supermen and the SU would only be drawing the germans further into a vast unknown land with unsuitable terrain and weather. do the germans have proper winter gear for the russian winter?

the eastern parts of russia are not at all suited for the northern european plain lightning fast motorized focused nazi blitzkrieg technique...as far as technology goes who really knows the level of german advancement (good example is the US in Iraq today, we've got the best military the world has ever seen eons and eons above the germans in terms of military technology yet we havent "won" the war in Iraq even with our badass technology)...plus what qualifies as "winning the war" remember its not stratego, taking the capitol does not mean war over...

i think the russians couldve pushed further and further into their "own" territory, mind you that the country of russia is roughly 1.8 times larger than the USA in landmass (ie lots of good places to hide and attack from, lots of areas to set up counterattacks etc)...russia was ALREADY producing all of their arms east of the urals by the time the germans drew in towards the capitol...the germans simply did not have the manpower to hold such a vast land...plus must we assume that as the germans were a good 1500miles into the russian country that we wouldnt expect any sort of insurgency in occupied europe, highly doubt it, its comparable to fire ants, you get bit by one or two its an annoyance but if you get bit by several then its very painful and if they keep biting you, then youve got a problem...the partisans and underground movements wouldve been a huge hassle for the germans back in europe. are we talking about germany v. russia before or after the occupation of europe?

the germans just did not have the manpower to adequately "occupy" russian territory...the russians could always fall back and pull germans further in...remember just because the russians were right in front of you didnt mean they had to engage you. like france for example, if the french pull back a couple hundred miles then theyve got their ass to the sea and theyre screwed, like someone mentioned dunkirk, well **** if ive got germans in front and sea to my back, im screwed...the russians would not have had this problem for a couple THOUSAND miles...so the russians had plenty of breathing room to move around in. all historians do is complain about how the german supply lines were overstretched and YET the germans were still in "european" russia they had not even made it to the asian part. and the lack of long range bombers was bad as well.

also we did not answer the question of whether or not the americans were involved...

could the germans have "defeated" the russians, perhaps...could they have "won the war"...uumm no, not enough man power to hold the vast area they wouldve had to hold to "win" cause for them to win they wanted to "ethnically cleanse" the areas so that they could occupy them and give birth to the greater german race which in itself would take a minimum of 15-18 (this is very liberal age group) yrs to reproduce the next generation of german fighting men...

i just dont see it happening...were the germans the superior military, yes, could they make the impossible happen...no.

just my thoughts!

[asch]

and if Germans afraid of winter in european part of Russia, what do they say about Siberian winter? or one in Yamalo-Nenezk, for example. when petroleum freezes to jelly condition?
feel free to invade, Russia have enough place to bury everybody.
;)

[oldsoak]

Considering the size of the USSR as it was, forget occupying all of it. Too big, too huge a drain on resources. IMHO, the best the Nazis could have done would be to concentrate on the oil fields in the caucasus and attempt to sieze them without getting diverted elsewhere - ie sieze and hold part of the USSR was possible - trying to occupy all of it wasnt.

[foxtrot023]

Fair enough. That's... two divisions. Name others with Category A personnel being in the majority?

Panzer Lehr, 2 Pz, 21 Pz, 1 ss Pz, 2 ss Pz, 12 ss Pz. Both the 9ss Pz and the 10th ss Pz had sufficient personnel but were low on tanks and other vehicles. AS you are aware the SS divs still had the 3 bat per reg, unlike the regular heer units which had by 1944 2 bats per reg. Likewise units like the 352, were up to strength for a type 44 german div. which of course is very different from what a type 41 or type 42 german divsion looked like

this site gives good info on german strength on Normandy.
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/gerob/gerob.html




regards and these are good arguements!

[foxtrot023]

and if Germans afraid of winter in european part of Russia, what do they say about Siberian winter? or one in Yamalo-Nenezk, for example. when petroleum freezes to jelly condition?
feel free to invade, Russia have enough place to bury everybody.
;)

True, but Barbarrosa called the Urals as the goal for the german conquest of the USSR. I have no idea what the germans had planned if Barbarrosa had actually reached its goals.

[Freibier]

True, but Barbarrosa called the Urals as the goal for the german conquest of the USSR. I have no idea what the germans had planned if Barbarrosa had actually reached its goals.
Constant war on the Ural border to keep the population busy, pretty much like in Orwells 1984 I guess.
One of the reasons I'm glad that we lost ;)

[duck]

Considering the size of the USSR as it was, forget occupying all of it. Too big, too huge a drain on resources. IMHO, the best the Nazis could have done would be to concentrate on the oil fields in the caucasus and attempt to sieze them without getting diverted elsewhere - ie sieze and hold part of the USSR was possible - trying to occupy all of it wasnt.

Or get Turkey on the Axis side. Ribbentrop was pretty useless for any purposes.

[driver]

Difficult to say, the German war machine was on his limits for logistics, the fronline stretch over 1500 kilometers!!!
Hitlers wishes to breakup the Heeresgruppe Sud to redirect to the kaukasusen for oil was won of many mistakes.
The late in production going of new tanks (Tiger I,II) and plane's (ME262), where some of the problems that delate the war effort of Germany.
Overall the Russian army was to big in the later years of the war to have lost the war.
If the Germans had pussed on to Moscow in the early years of the war the had ma-by won the war one the Eastern front.

[Para]

If the German War Machine was not fighting in North Africa, Greece, and Yugoslavia as well have having large garrisons in Norway trying to stop the British Raids into Norway, then they might have had enough men and machines to have finished the job. When you are committed to so many fronts at one time then you are going to have weakness in your forces at some place or other and the Russian front was to large for the German Army to deal with.

[Kilgor]

True, but Barbarrosa called the Urals as the goal for the german conquest of the USSR. I have no idea what the germans had planned if Barbarrosa had actually reached its goals.

They would establish a defensive line from archangel to the mouth of the volga. The rest of the soviet industry was to be bombed into submission from these foward bases.

[wiking]

One thing that must be remembered is Hitler. His health, though deteriorating, would probably be far better in the 1944-1945 period (his mental health atleast) if the Germans weren't knocking on his bunker door with artillery p-)

But late films of him, and also medication perscribed to him in the last months of his life, shows that he was well on his way to developing full on Parkinsons. He would never have been able to remain the leader of Germany for long. And that assumes that he would have lived for that long, as the 2 assassination attempts on him by his own Generals may have succeded, and there may have been more that would have succeded.

With Hitler either dead or removed from power, Generals may have been able to atleast stem the tide. Or seek for peace. Either way, they would have lost the war against the SU, but that may not have meant total defeat and destruction of Nazi Germany.

If we assume the Germans were holding all of Europe, and were waging a air war with Britain (who would have supplies from the US in this period) the Battle of Britain would most likely have played out in the same manner as it did. With the British gaining the upper hand. This would again mean that a bombing campaign, though without the added effect of very accurate US daytime bombing, it would still have made great hit on German moral and production capacity. Then we count 325.000 + Germans in Norway alone, millions stationed all over the rest of Europe, and the rest fighting on the eastern front.

With air supperiority lost in the west, Germany would have to be forced to keep a garrison to beat back a potential invasion by or from Britain. Unlikely without US troops, but not impossible (if, say, the British abandoned the fight against Japan and left that to the US, and just buggered off from North Africa and the middle east, and put their entire armed forces into Normandy or the Pas de Calais (spelling?) Or even a invasion of Norway.

The war would have been long, but in the end the Germans would have to end it, before they lost their entire male population on the eastern front.
The most likely thing, IF the Russians would have accepted it and Hitler was not in charge, would be to pull their troops out of Russia, give them back all of what they had taken, and add a few more bits like Poland and Finland. It could have saved Nazi Germany, but would have meant a continuation of the war well into the 50's for the remaining Allies, unless the rest of Europe could have been returned to it's true masters. Even so, Germany could have remained a nazi state for a long time (though i personally doubt it, especially if Hitler had been assassinated, the anti-Nazi recentment prevalent among officers and others would have had a much greater chance of creating a non-nazi Germany.)

But of course, this is all speculation. And if the Germans had gotten a nuke first, then that's that. And most of us might be ending our posts with Sieg Heil or something of the like.

As it is, without the Soviet Union, Germany could not have been defeated. Without the US\UK Germany COULD possibly have been defeated or forced to abandon their campaigns, but a total defeat would have been near to impossible.

[Pindeho]

I think I speak for everyone that german military might was imense! But most of us are forgetting that german was allied with Italy...........Austria.........Hungary(or am I confused with WW1) Now thats a pretty unstoppable force. I remember watching a doco of Airbourne troops of the US how they were in for a shock as to the enemy they faced. Germans back from fighting in the east, vets described the enemy as highly aggressive, highly experienced and incredibly ruthless, but demoralized. They still put up a fight which Airbourne were not expecting, therefore fighting in the east turned these soldiers into killing machines, emotionless and ruthless. Eastern front combat was far more intense than that of the western front:-( . The Germans had to up their standards in order to deal with the advancing soviet armies. Characteristics they employed were basically mercyless, Aggressive and fastpaced combat without mercy. Both sides did the same throughout the war. I remember our lads raiding the airfields of NA. Who Dares Wins.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

wouldn't a good question be how would the war have been w/o the invasion of the soviet union?

even if some allied force were to have defeated the germans (US/UK) think there would not have been a "cold war" and the soviet technology would have been lagging behind...or would it have played out the same?

haha sorry im not purposely trying to thread kill here!

[Code 51 50]

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.
Lend Lease ammounted to a total of 5-10% of total Russian production. Yeah,USSR would have lost the war for sure had they not had that extra 10% resources...

[ed316]

Lend Lease ammounted to a total of 5-10% of total Russian production. Yeah,USSR would have lost the war for sure had they not had that extra 10% resources...

They wouldn't of made it to Berlin with out US/UK and vice versa plus many other factors. Like I said keep the nationalistic BS out of it.

[VISTREL]

Lend lease means sh it...One thing is to give some armor another thing is to actually use it and to go in battle! And impact of lend lease wasn't that great..

As I said before, 8 years and Russia would have kicked Hitler's ass for sure. Actually, if there was no americans/british germans would have escaped from germany to africa being scared of red army :D

[ed316]

Like I said Nationalistic BS.

[CyberSpec]

Like I said Nationalistic BS.

The same can be said about your assertion.

Nobody will ever know for sure, but considering that the USSR
wasn't "knocked out" in 1941 when conditions were just about
perfect for the Wehrmacht, a good educated guess would be that the
germans wouldn't be able to defeat the Soviets from then on.

Without lend-lease the war would've lasted longer and cost even more,
but I don't think the outcome would have been different

[Code 51 50]

They wouldn't of made it to Berlin with out US/UK and vice versa plus many other factors. Like I said keep the nationalistic BS out of it.

I'm just saying don't make out make it out as if USSR would have lost the war had it not been for the Lend Lease program. 5-10% was a help but they would've made due without it.

[Kilgor]

I'm just saying don't make out make it out as if USSR would have lost the war had it not been for the Lend Lease program. 5-10% was a help but they would've made due without it.

When you look at the numbers individually, such as alloys, copper, explosives and especially avation fuel it was more than 5-10 % .

And it made a big difference in the areas where the SU was lacking.

[ogukuo72]

I would just to raise one point: the US was the major provider of 100-Octane aviation fuel (later 110-Octane), which provided Allied fighters with a tremendous boost and advantage of their German enemies, which had to make do with 80-Octane aviation fuel. Only US refineraries were capable of providing 100-Octane fuel in WW2. This alone might have given the Soviet Union an advantage in its fighters.

[Kilgor]

Yes, from memory all of the UK's and the Soviet unions high octane fuel came from lend lease.

[Lokos]

Stalin certainly did not trust anyone, especially the western allies. That should be obvious at daylight to someone who has "studied" soviet written history.

First you cherrypick my argument (what do you think about my other objection?), and then you make the kind of generalisation about Stalin that you just cannot back up. Listen, matey, when I tell you: there is NO evidence to suggest that Stalin erased the Front boundary between Konev and Zhukov for any reason other than the speediest possible capture of Berlin. By April 1945 the Soviets wanted the war in Europe to end. They were already busy with preparations to shift some 1.7 million men to the Far East across the largest country on Earth, using inadequate infrastructual support.


See, why I believe Germany would have defeated the USSR in a 1 on 1 is because had its military not been stretched as it was and had all its heads been involved in the attack on the USSR, the outcome, in my belief, would have been different.

You see, Midav, in June 1941 the Germans had 'all [their] heads in the attack', and had mustered 90% of the combat capable Wehrmacht for Barbarossa. Yet, they failed. If they failed at the very apogee of their prowess and technical capability, how were they to succeed in later years, even had their attention been undivided? The Soviets were only improving on their capabilities and performance from 1941 onwards. The Germans, needless to say, were not.


Possibly the Kriegsmarine may have been able to land forces near Sevastopol with its ships not busy in the Atlantic.

The Soviets had the Black Sea Fleet, and any amphibious invasion would have had to cope with Maxim Gorkiy and its brothers. Suffice it to say, not a sound place to invade by sea! Sevastopol's defences were built with that exact scenario in mind.


Anyway, I am glad the Nazi's did not win. But my personal belief, forced on nobody, is that the Germans could have taken on and win against any nation one on one at that time.


I have to disagree. They made it as far as they did through tactical/operational experitse, experience, audacity, technical excellence and training. But the resources (and early total mobilization) of the Soviet Union made victory more a matter of not making gross mistakes over and over again than besting the Germans pound-for-pound.

You take care, too. :)


Panzer Lehr, 2 Pz, 21 Pz, 1 ss Pz, 2 ss Pz, 12 ss Pz. Both the 9ss Pz and the 10th ss Pz had sufficient personnel but were low on tanks and other vehicles. AS you are aware the SS divs still had the 3 bat per reg, unlike the regular heer units which had by 1944 2 bats per reg. Likewise units like the 352, were up to strength for a type 44 german div. which of course is very different from what a type 41 or type 42 german divsion looked like

Exactly! You're naming panzer divisions in the process of reconstitution. These were not representative units. From your own site, count the number of infantry divisions created in 1943 as static divisions as part of the West Reserve. Count the 700-series divisions, the 300-series divisions etc. These were not high quality infantry formations. The 1st SS Pz was transferred in April 1944 for rest and reconstitution, having been nearly destroyed in fighting on the EF. On 1 December, the 2nd SS Pz was short 8,000 men from continuous fighting on the EF, when, in February it was finally transferred to Bordeaux for reconstitution. Furthermore, on 1 May it was short some odd ~170 tanks. On 1 June, it was still short ~150 tanks.

The 9th SS Pz's armoured forces, especially the Panther battalion, were deficient in training at company level. It had 71 tanks operational in total on 1 June. The 10th SS Pz had a total of 34 tanks operational on 1 June. I don't think I even need mention the 116th Pz Div :).


Yes, from memory all of the UK's and the Soviet unions high octane fuel came from lend lease.

See, I find this interesting. Hi-octane fuel for performance fighters. Which the Soviets rarely needed from 1943 onwards, as most German fighters were used to combat the WA. When the Soviets needed air superiority, they could throw two air divisions over the deployment/battle area, and what was left of the Luftwaffe on the EF couldn't do a thing to stop them. You're making it out as if this hi-octane fuel profoundly altered the strategic situation on the EF. When, as a matter of fact, without the Luftwaffe fighter presence, hi-octane was not particularly in need. Of course, the fact that the Germans pulled back their fighters to combat WA a/c was quite strategically significant.

Lokos

[GazB]

It is clear from the earlier battles for example Barbarosa, that the Germans were surounding entire Russian Divisions, Army etc.. and destroying them... if the German Army had no one else to contend with, and the Russians were the only ones in the War with Germany, then this would have continued to happen.

First of all Barbarossa was not a battle, it was the codename for the entire german campaign on the eastern front.

Second if you look at the actual progress of the war the Soviets were first of all caught unawares, and then made the mistake of rushing men to the front line in mass frontal attacks on the germans. They lost more men and equipment CAPTURED in the first months of the war than they did for the rest of the war. It was a case of the world finding the solution to blitzkrieg. Rushing your forces to the borders with frontal attacks was the last thing you should do as the germans simply used their local concentrations, punched through the front lines and encircled units and cut them off from supply and support. The following infantry units then accepted their surender.
If they had kept doing that they certainly would have failed, and many times later in the war some stupid soviet generals reverted back to the frontal assault, but the good generals like Zhukov used tactics and defence in depth. Scorched earth where the units fall back in order with their equipment and try to delay the enemys advance. The longer the enemy advances the more stretched they are, and the more vulnerable they are to rear area attack and harrassment. The further back you retreat the closer you are to your reinforcements and supply and the further away he is. As the attacker penetrates your line of defence you fall back and join the line behind you... which makes it stronger other lines are build up as reserves arrive at sensible places like rivers etc. As the enemy break through lines of defence, more lines of defence appear with a mix of battle hardened troops and fresh troops.
Eventually you will get to the point where you can't break through. Germany reached that point in December 41 in the centre. It was their high tide.


the Russians only became a match for the Germans once, German troops were forced to fight on other fronts,

Rubbish. What difference did other fronts make? The Soviets realised they lacked the coordination of air power, artillery and soldiers, which the germans were masters of. To compensate they lured the Germans to fight in cities... where forces are mingled and mixed up and air power becomes useless. Without their air support it was rifle against rifle... it became even.
After '43 the Soviets had gained air superiority as well.


send production to these other fronts, and the allies started bombing German factories...

The Russians were bombing Germany from 41 too you know?


the germans were pulled in all directions, and production was brought to a stand still by the bombing

Production increased under western bombing. They targetted civilians in the hope of demoralising the German people... a total and utter failure.


Germany was brought down by economics...

Germany was brought down because the Allies brought it down. It was tanks rolling into germany that stopped the war, not factory workers beyond the urals or safe and sound in america and canada or under bombing in the UK.


they had nothing left to give in the end...

So the Soviet soldiers killed in Berlin were from car accidents?


the same way the USSR was brought down by the West in the Cold War...

The USSR brought itself down.


the USSR was force into another revolution.. and democracy won...


Since when has communism vs democracy had anything to do with the cold war? This was a war between two powerful rivals... the US and the Soviets... two empires. How else can you explain the US's continued most favoured trading nation status it gives to Communist China?


The document shows that Stalin was desperate to get his hands on the German nuclear research center, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the southwest of Berlin - before the Americans got there. The Soviets knew through their spies of the American atomic bomb program. Stalin's own nuclear program, Operation Borodino, was lagging behind and Soviet scientists wanted to find out exactly what the Germans had come up with during the war.

They already knew the Americans had the lead in nuclear technology. America had scientists from the commonwealth and many european countries working for them. There was no question the US was ahead. And Stalin already had his spies.


Granted, it was a sucker punch, but according to many, Stalin was given ample warning of the coming attack but dismissed it... a shame! It might have saved millions of lives...

The Soviets were already in the middle of reorganising their forces to take into account lessons learned from German activity in western europe.
Their main problem was their equipment replacement stage was really awkward. Very simply they had fighter planes and tanks that were excellent 5-10 years before 1940. They had more tanks than any one else, but they needed replacing, as did their fighters. The old Polikarpovs in the early thirties were fast monoplanes with excellent gun and cannon armament, but they were hybrids... biplanes with one wing. The next step was the Hurricane, BF-109, Yak-1, LaGG-3, type aircraft which had only just entered service... with the Spitfire, late model Bf-109/Fw-190, Yak-3/-9, La-5FN/La-7 the tantalising
next evolutionary step. Unfortunately during the surprise attack the I-16 and I-15 were the majority, which were a generation behind the BF-109 and it showed. Same with tanks... T-26s and T-32s to T-34s and KV-1s. On paper the KV-1 is very comparable to a Tiger in many respects except for armament.


Considering the size of the USSR as it was, forget occupying all of it. Too big, too huge a drain on resources. IMHO, the best the Nazis could have done would be to concentrate on the oil fields in the caucasus and attempt to sieze them without getting diverted elsewhere - ie sieze and hold part of the USSR was possible - trying to occupy all of it wasnt.

It is my understanding they just wanted to the Urals. They probably would have left the Pacific area to the Japanese. Of course when the Japanese found out about Rippentrops secret agreement with the Soviets they decided to use the Germans but never trust them. They battles in Mongolia against Zhukov made them look south for the oil and resources they needed instead of to the Soviet Union.


The rest of the soviet industry was to be bombed into submission from these foward bases.

The way the US and UK bombed Germany into submission? I doubt the Soviets would have been any more likely to give up than the German people were, and I doubt the Soviet people would have suffered thousand bomber raids.


As it is, without the Soviet Union, Germany could not have been defeated. Without the US\UK Germany COULD possibly have been defeated or forced to abandon their campaigns, but a total defeat would have been near to impossible.

Didn't Churchill once say " When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union I knew we wouldn't lose the war. When Hitler declared war on the US I knew we would win the war."


But most of us are forgetting that german was allied with Italy...........Austria.........Hungary(or am I confused with WW1)

The Germans were very well equipped and were very well trained, but their allies were much less so. In fact the only Russian victories in the east in WWI were against non-german forces. In WWII German allied forces tended to be used as flank protection and were generally crushed. Not only were they not as well equipped or as well trained as the germans... they often really didn't want to be there in the first place. (and I don't blame them).


wouldn't a good question be how would the war have been w/o the invasion of the soviet union?

even if some allied force were to have defeated the germans (US/UK) think there would not have been a "cold war" and the soviet technology would have been lagging behind...or would it have played out the same?


Personally I think Germanys best chance to win the war would have been to invade the Soviet Union with the express purpose of defeating communism. If they had treated the locals with respect I think you would probably find a lot of Soviets treat them as liberators. If the "revolution" was quick enough and again the SS could refrain from their ****, then Germany would have all the oil and resources and manpower they wanted. They could open up Siberia for resources for Japan in a trading relationship...

Of course their ideology got in the way.

As I have mentioned Stalin was in the middle of reshaping his armed forces, introducing new tactics and new weapons that were superior in many ways to foreign weapons. If Germany had tried to invade the UK I think he would have been attacked from behind in about 43 or 44.


They wouldn't of made it to Berlin with out US/UK and vice versa plus many other factors. Like I said keep the nationalistic BS out of it.

Lend lease was not charity. It was merely the Soviets (and others) buying military material from a neutral country. The US wasn't involved in WWII when Lend Lease started for the SU. There is no reason to think that even if Pearl Harbour never happened or if it did Hitler never declared war on the US and they never entered the European theatre of the war that lend lease would have stopped.


When you look at the numbers individually, such as alloys, copper, explosives and especially avation fuel it was more than 5-10 % .

And it made a big difference in the areas where the SU was lacking.

Which is why they BOUGHT it.

Are you saying that all the wool and meat and butter and eggs and other supplies New Zealand sent to Britain is the reason Britain won the Battle of Britain? I mean without clothes and food... how could they have kept fighting?

It would be insulting to suggest that Japanese money Won Desert Storm for the allies.

Was it French Chau Chauts Rifles sold to the US that won WWI?

I am sure it was lend lease that helped the people of Leningrad survive a 900 day siege... hundreds of thousands killed defending the city, hundreds of thousands starved to death, hundreds of thousands evacuated. I am sure it was... will I surrender today and let it end... no... I'll keep surviving for spam. :rolleyes:


Yes, from memory all of the UK's and the Soviet unions high octane fuel came from lend lease.

The Mig-3 was already faster than German aircraft before lend lease. The most effective Soviet planes definitely weren't their fastest.


The Soviets were only improving on their capabilities and performance from 1941 onwards. The Germans, needless to say, were not.

Many German generals blamed their failure to win in the east on poor decisions by Hitler... like Stalin never made mistakes...

[lzdbb]

the road would have been difficult and hard, but no doubt the SU would have won..after many many many years of war.
I think SU did the most during the wwii.

[foxtrot023]

First you cherrypick my argument (what do you think about my other objection?), and then you make the kind of generalisation about Stalin that you just cannot back up. Listen, matey, when I tell you: there is NO evidence to suggest that Stalin erased the Front boundary between Konev and Zhukov for any reason other than the speediest possible capture of Berlin. By April 1945 the Soviets wanted the war in Europe to end. They were already busy with preparations to shift some 1.7 million men to the Far East across the largest country on Earth, using inadequate infrastructual support.

and also the soviets were reaching the end of their seemingless never ending manpower source. By 1945 the SU was sensitive on loses (not as much as the germans or the UK)



You see, Midav, in June 1941 the Germans had 'all [their] heads in the attack', and had mustered 90% of the combat capable Wehrmacht for Barbarossa. Yet, they failed. If they failed at the very apogee of their prowess and technical capability, how were they to succeed in later years, even had their attention been undivided? The Soviets were only improving on their capabilities and performance from 1941 onwards. The Germans, needless to say, were not.

75% of the Heer faced the soviets in 1941 (plus allied countries like Romania, Finland, etc.)



The Soviets had the Black Sea Fleet, and any amphibious invasion would have had to cope with Maxim Gorkiy and its brothers. Suffice it to say, not a sound place to invade by sea! Sevastopol's defences were built with that exact scenario in mind.

In regards to the SU fleets, you know that they pretty much were used as a source of manpower for the formation of naval brigades. The fact is that the germans controlled the black sea and the baltic sea till almost the end of the conflict.

I have to disagree. They made it as far as they did through tactical/operational experitse, experience, audacity, technical excellence and training. But the resources (and early total mobilization) of the Soviet Union made victory more a matter of not making gross mistakes over and over again than besting the Germans pound-for-pound.

That and the fact that the strategic direction of the war was much more clear in the SU, once Stalin backed off and let STAVKA manage the war. On the other hand the german strategic direction of the war became worse and worse as Hitler kept putting his hand in the planning



Exactly! You're naming panzer divisions in the process of reconstitution. These were not representative units. From your own site, count the number of infantry divisions created in 1943 as static divisions as part of the West Reserve. Count the 700-series divisions, the 300-series divisions etc. These were not high quality infantry formations. The 1st SS Pz was transferred in April 1944 for rest and reconstitution, having been nearly destroyed in fighting on the EF. On 1 December, the 2nd SS Pz was short 8,000 men from continuous fighting on the EF, when, in February it was finally transferred to Bordeaux for reconstitution. Furthermore, on 1 May it was short some odd ~170 tanks. On 1 June, it was still short ~150 tanks.

The 9th SS Pz's armoured forces, especially the Panther battalion, were deficient in training at company level. It had 71 tanks operational in total on 1 June. The 10th SS Pz had a total of 34 tanks operational on 1 June. I don't think I even need mention the 116th Pz Div :).

Yep but by the time they were engaged they were up to strength (july 1944). The series 700 divs were static divs with poor equipment, training and undermanned. The 300 series did produced some outstanding units and were formed from some of the last classes of 18-19 year olds that germany could produce at that stage of the war.



See, I find this interesting. Hi-octane fuel for performance fighters. Which the Soviets rarely needed from 1943 onwards, as most German fighters were used to combat the WA. When the Soviets needed air superiority, they could throw two air divisions over the deployment/battle area, and what was left of the Luftwaffe on the EF couldn't do a thing to stop them. You're making it out as if this hi-octane fuel profoundly altered the strategic situation on the EF. When, as a matter of fact, without the Luftwaffe fighter presence, hi-octane was not particularly in need. Of course, the fact that the Germans pulled back their fighters to combat WA a/c was quite strategically significant.

Quite the contrary, Till the later half of 1944, the Luftwaffe would usually enjoy superiority when present of the battlefield. The problem of course is that as was progressed they were less and less present.



12345667890

[foxtrot023]

I think SU did the most during the wwii.

In the European theatre yes, but overall the US did the most in my opinion, as on one hand they mainly defeated the Japanese by themselves, and on the other they were the third largest contributor in manpower to defeat the germans (after the SU and the UK and commonwealth).

By 1945 the US had an standing armed forces of 12 million men, compare to the SU of 7-8 million men, the germans 9 million men and the UK´s 4-5 million men.

[Lokos]

75% of the Heer faced the soviets in 1941 (plus allied countries like Romania, Finland, etc.)


90% of the combat capable Wehrmacht is what I said, though.


In regards to the SU fleets, you know that they pretty much were used as a source of manpower for the formation of naval brigades.

The Black Sea Fleet remained active throughout the war, and did mount operations when it was seen to be neccessary. Nonetheless, the presence of Maxim Gorkiy and Co made any potential amphibious operation an exercise in futility. That's what those guns were designed to repel.


That and the fact that the strategic direction of the war was much more clear in the SU, once Stalin backed off and let STAVKA manage the war.

Stalin certainly gave STAVKA greater operational control over the war effort, but it should be noted that all decisions went through him, still, and that, for example, the premature offensive against Budapest was decided on by him, regardless of STAVKA's opposition.

It should not be inferred that he was somehow removed from the war effort. Not by any means.


Yep but by the time they were engaged they were up to strength (july 1944)

The 9th SS was not. Equipment was chronically short for the Pz divisions. Especially motorized.


The 300 series did produced some outstanding units and were formed from some of the last classes of 18-19 year olds that germany could produce at that stage of the war.

I think we both know the key word there is 'some' :).


Till the later half of 1944, the Luftwaffe would usually enjoy superiority when present of the battlefield.

No they couldn't. As early as 1942 the VVS could contest air superiority for lengthy periods of time (the Stalingrad aerial defensive operation, for example). At Kursk, they certainly did. Furthermore, even when they did achieve air superiority, it was over tiny tactical strips of territory for very short periods of time. The concentrated application of VVS strength, even in the 2nd quarter of 1943, could and often did break up Luftwaffe efforts in the contested air space.


compare to the SU of 7-8 million men

You are mistaken. Most often seem to confuse the RKKA's field army (6.5 million men) with the RKKA as a whole (12.5 million men). Even the Wehrmacht mustered 9 million men in 1944. The Soviets had the lowest combat/support personnel ratio of any WW2 belligerent. Support personnel were very low in number, especially in front line infantry divisions.


but overall the US did the most in my opinion, as on one hand they mainly defeated the Japanese by themselves,

The Soviets took three quarters of a million Japanese prisoners and inflicted upwards of 80,000 KIAs and several hundred thousand other casualties in Manchuria, at the cost of 13,000 dead in two weeks. Their effort is often forgotten. Besides, why are you placing so much emphasis on the Japanese? They had one of the poorest land armies of any WW2 belligerent (comparable to Italian, Hungarian and Romanian formations) and were strategically impotent. And the US certainly did not win the Pacific War by itself. The Commonwealth pulled its weight. And, like I said, 30% of Japan's 1945 military was destroyed by the Soviets in the space of two weeks.

Lokos

[ed316]

The same can be said about your assertion.

Nobody will ever know for sure, but considering that the USSR
wasn't "knocked out" in 1941 when conditions were just about
perfect for the Wehrmacht, a good educated guess would be that the
germans wouldn't be able to defeat the Soviets from then on.

Without lend-lease the war would've lasted longer and cost even more,
but I don't think the outcome would have been different

If you read my other post I said that US/UK/SU needed each other. Without them comming together Nazi Germany wouldn't been defeated and they would just sign three different armistance with three different countries. Logistics win wars not tatics.

[foxtrot023]

90% of the combat capable Wehrmacht is what I said, though.

Ok we can agree on that, but only for 1941-2 p-)


Stalin certainly gave STAVKA greater operational control over the war effort, but it should be noted that all decisions went through him, still, and that, for example, the premature offensive against Budapest was decided on by him, regardless of STAVKA's opposition.

It should not be inferred that he was somehow removed from the war effort. Not by any means.

No (you can also use the 1941 offensive as an example), but he interfered a lot less than hitler did, and that was an advantage to the USSR



The 9th SS was not. Equipment was chronically short for the Pz divisions. Especially motorized.

But much less so for the SS divs



I think we both know the key word there is 'some' :).

Aye


No they couldn't. As early as 1942 the VVS could contest air superiority for lengthy periods of time (the Stalingrad aerial defensive operation, for example). At Kursk, they certainly did. Furthermore, even when they did achieve air superiority, it was over tiny tactical strips of territory for very short periods of time. The concentrated application of VVS strength, even in the 2nd quarter of 1943, could and often did break up Luftwaffe efforts in the contested air space.

I disagree. The germans had superior tactics and did enjoy superiority whenever present until the last 2 years of the war



You are mistaken. Most often seem to confuse the RKKA's field army (6.5 million men) with the RKKA as a whole (12.5 million men). Even the Wehrmacht mustered 9 million men in 1944. The Soviets had the lowest combat/support personnel ratio of any WW2 belligerent. Support personnel were very low in number, especially in front line infantry divisions.

Numbers given by Istorya say differently. But i do agree about the ratio of support/combat personnel.


The Soviets took three quarters of a million Japanese prisoners and inflicted upwards of 80,000 KIAs and several hundred thousand other casualties in Manchuria, at the cost of 13,000 dead in two weeks.

All of this happened the last 2 weeks of the Pacific conflict, when the screaming was all but over. At that time the Japanese had been defeated by the yanks.

Their effort is often forgotten. Besides, why are you placing so much emphasis on the Japanese? They had one of the poorest land armies of any WW2 belligerent (comparable to Italian, Hungarian and Romanian formations) and were strategically impotent.

Yet they had the 2nd best fleet of WW2 (only the US fleet was more mighty) and a very good air force. The Pacific war was fought on the sea in the air and by amphibious operations

And the US certainly did not win the Pacific War by itself. The Commonwealth pulled its weight. And, like I said, 30% of Japan's 1945 military was destroyed by the Soviets in the space of two weeks.

No, but the US was by far, the largest contributor to the Japanese defeat. And no, 30% of the Japanese Armed forces was not defeated by the soviets. You only defeated the Army in Manchuria. In the last two weeks of the war.

Lokos

regards, 1234455

[Durandal]

Lend lease means sh it...One thing is to give some armor another thing is to actually use it and to go in battle! And impact of lend lease wasn't that great...

I do not think anyone is arguing whether the armor the Brits and the Americans sent to Russia helped, but the aircraft and most importantly TRUCKS, were a savior till Russia was able to get onto its feet proper.

Lets be honest, the U.S. pretty much gave RUSSIA the necessary trucking ability to move its armies...no would of, could have, should have.

Its all about the trucks. The trucks to haul food, the trucks to haul men, the trucks resupply ammo, and the trucks to ferry gasoline.

This is a fact, regardless on how you want to spin it.

[ogukuo72]

And don't forget communications gears. In the early phase of the war, the Red Army had few radios in their tanks and aircraft, and commanders at all levels had to use alternate means such as flags and hand signals (at the combat levels) and couriers (at the field levels) to signal their commands. This made it impossible to fight the German army, who, of course, had radio.

Indeed, one of the things that impressed the Red Army the most about the P-39 and the western tanks was their radio communications!

Part of the reason why the Red Army became increasingly combat effective and capable of large scale maneuvres was because of the provision of large numbers of radio sets, communications wires, and field telephones by the US.

[Leftcoaster]

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

I agree with this take.

Even if Germany had made war on no nation other than the Soviet Union, unless Germany had been less ambitious initially chosen to adopt a more concentrated assault strategy, assimilating what they wanted in chunks rather than trying to swallow an unforgiving mass approaching continent scale in one bite, the Soviets would have prevailed eventually.

Across the board, Germany would appear to have the overwhelming advantage; the main things going for the Soviet Union was time, weather, manpower, and the fact that they were defending their homeland. They had their back to the wall, realized collectively that they were indeed playing for their existence more so than I figure the typical German invader did.

Whether they fought as patriots or because of a helpful submachine gun prompt forward they were more tenacious.

If the Soviets had invaded Germany instead of the other way around the Soviet Union would have been a memory in short order. Fighting for what is rightfully yours is a distinct mental advantage.

[ogukuo72]

If it were just Germany and Russia, we might well have a scenario similar to that of Iran-Iraq. Two powers bashing at each other for over eight years, and finally one of them dropping not because it was defeated, but from sheer exhaustion.

[GazB]

Logistics win wars not tatics.

Great theory, but not always true in practise. If logistics really did win wars then Israel probably wouldn't exist, as the Arab states almost always had well stocked armouries. If tactics and training... and guts didn't come into it then Leningrad, going through 900 days of siege should have fallen. It didn't.


I do not think anyone is arguing whether the armor the Brits and the Americans sent to Russia helped, but the aircraft and most importantly TRUCKS, were a savior till Russia was able to get onto its feet proper.

Lets be honest, the U.S. pretty much gave RUSSIA the necessary trucking ability to move its armies...no would of, could have, should have.

Its all about the trucks. The trucks to haul food, the trucks to haul men, the trucks resupply ammo, and the trucks to ferry gasoline.

This is a fact, regardless on how you want to spin it.

The Soviets could make trucks. By being able to buy them via lend lease they could concentrate production on other items like tanks. If they didn't have trucks they probably could have done some things and not others, but they wouldn't have collapsed without trucks. For the wet times like after the rains and after the thaw sledges were actually better anyway. The vast majority of German units were horse drawn... it was no great disadvantage for the Soviets to be horse drawn too.


Indeed, one of the things that impressed the Red Army the most about the P-39 and the western tanks was their radio communications!


Except the sophisticated jamming and interception of radio by the German forces largely negated the advantage of a few units being equipped and hand signals were more commonly used for signalling.

[Lokos]

No (you can also use the 1941 offensive as an example)

I was using the example of Budapest to show that Stalin interfered regularly even as late as 1944/45.


But much less so for the SS divs


As always.


I disagree. The germans had superior tactics and did enjoy superiority whenever present until the last 2 years of the war


Kuban?


Numbers given by Istorya say differently. But i do agree about the ratio of support/combat personnel.

Umm... I'm using the STAVKA numbers. 12.5 million men in all branches of service, including support personnel.


All of this happened the last 2 weeks of the Pacific conflict, when the screaming was all but over. At that time the Japanese had been defeated by the yanks.

The Japanese were not a significant player in the Second World War. The destruction of the 7th and the 24th divisions by circa 1939 Soviet forces at Nomonhan is indicative of the relative capability of Japanese formations, when faced by forces with superior armoured and artillery forces. The Germans and the Japanese, practically speaking, were waging two very different wars.


Yet they had the 2nd best fleet of WW2 (only the US fleet was more mighty) and a very good air force. The Pacific war was fought on the sea in the air and by amphibious operations

Their air force was built on a very strange model. Pilots would fly until they died. Veteran/elite pilots were not withdrawn to provide training to new recruits. Most of the pilots that made the IJ naval aviation a force to be feared died in the Fluke of Midway.

The problem I have with your position is that you stated 'the US beat Japan, as well as helping beat Germany, and therefore the US was more important than the USSR in the Allies winning WW2'. This is simply not true. Japan =/= Germany. We are talking about two entirely different levels of capability. The Soviet Union also defeated Romania, Hungary, Italian forces, Spanish forces, Slovakia, Estonian/Lithuanian/Latvian forces etc - but I do not count these as particularly significant factors in WW2's outcome.

Do you see what I mean?


And no, 30% of the Japanese Armed forces was not defeated by the soviets. You only defeated the Army in Manchuria. In the last two weeks of the war.

1) 30% of the 1945 IJA, certainly. Not Japanese Armed Forces. Imperial Japanese Army forces.

2) I hope you're not under the impression that I'm Russian, or a former Soviet (because of the 'You' thing)! I am not.

Regards,
Lokos

[Kilgor]

On lend lease.

1/3 of soviet explosives,
4/5 of copper
328k tons of aluminum vs (283k) was produced in the SU mostly between 44/45
409k vehicles vs 265k produced by the SU
43% of tires
56% of rails for railway
1900 locomotives vs 92 produced by the SU
And enough canned food to provide a soviet soldier a meal a day.
35089 radio stations
380,000 telephones
5,900 radio receivers
approx million miles of telephone wire.

anyone who claims lend lease wasnt important or of even minor importance is clearly kidding themselves.
it was vital in the obvious areas above.

"the dictators- richard overy"

[ogukuo72]

And that, as they say, is that!:)

[Lokos]

Someone hasn't been reading GazB's posts.

Lokos

[asch]

Kilgor, i recommend you to read not some randomly chosen posts, but entire thread.
:cantbeli:

[foxtrot023]

I was using the example of Budapest to show that Stalin interfered regularly even as late as 1944/45.

But you must agree that he did interfere a lot less than Hitler did

Kuban?

I think we will have to disagree on this point

Umm... I'm using the STAVKA numbers. 12.5 million men in all branches of service, including support personnel.

Weird that 2 soviet sources give different numbers.

The Japanese were not a significant player in the Second World War. The destruction of the 7th and the 24th divisions by circa 1939 Soviet forces at Nomonhan is indicative of the relative capability of Japanese formations, when faced by forces with superior armoured and artillery forces. The Germans and the Japanese, practically speaking, were waging two very different wars.

Land wise I would agree, but they did have the second best fleet and a fair air force. I would not dismiss them out of hand, the soviets certainly didn´t. As you said the Japanese fought mainly an air-naval war, while the GErmans fought a climatic land war.

Their air force was built on a very strange model. Pilots would fly until they died. Veteran/elite pilots were not withdrawn to provide training to new recruits. Most of the pilots that made the IJ naval aviation a force to be feared died in the Fluke of Midway.

Not really, they died over Guadalcanal, but I agree that it was a weird model. They thought of pilots being kind of Samurais, they were expertly trained, but Japan only started the war with about 3000-4000 pilots. Since it took a long time to train them up, once those veteran pilots were consumed, the quality of the IJN and IJAF piltos went down the drain (circa end of 1943)

The problem I have with your position is that you stated 'the US beat Japan, as well as helping beat Germany, and therefore the US was more important than the USSR in the Allies winning WW2'. This is simply not true. Japan =/= Germany. We are talking about two entirely different levels of capability. The Soviet Union also defeated Romania, Hungary, Italian forces, Spanish forces, Slovakia, Estonian/Lithuanian/Latvian forces etc - but I do not count these as particularly significant factors in WW2's outcome.

I am not trying to diminish the role the USSR had. The USSR certainly played the major role in defeating Germany, however I think the US did contributed a tad more overall.

And about defeating spanish troops, you well know how that went, bud p-)


1) 30% of the 1945 IJA, certainly. Not Japanese Armed Forces. Imperial Japanese Army forces.

Even 30% is a bit too high. The major japanese troop concentrations were at the home islands and China.

2) I hope you're not under the impression that I'm Russian, or a former Soviet (because of the 'You' thing)! I am not.

Sorry, it is a form of speech. I know you are aussie by way of the balkans

Regards,
Lokos

Regards as well Lokos. I hope you participate more in this debates.

[Durandal]

On lend lease.

1/3 of soviet explosives,
4/5 of copper
328k tons of aluminum vs (283k) was produced in the SU mostly between 44/45
409k vehicles vs 265k produced by the SU
43% of tires
56% of rails for railway
1900 locomotives vs 92 produced by the SU
And enough canned food to provide a soviet soldier a meal a day.
35089 radio stations
380,000 telephones
5,900 radio receivers
approx million miles of telephone wire.

anyone who claims lend lease wasnt important or of even minor importance is clearly kidding themselves.
it was vital in the obvious areas above.


What's interesting also is the amount of nuclear research and development material we sent Russia. Not so smart a decision on our part. p-)

[Kilgor]

Someone hasn't been reading GazB's posts.

Lokos

I have been reading gazb's posts. But those figures speak for themselves, and not someone trying to deceitfully word the significance of lend lease to a minor role.

[Kilgor]

Great theory, but not always true in practise. If logistics really did win wars then Israel probably wouldn't exist, as the Arab states almost always had well stocked armouries. If tactics and training... and guts didn't come into it then Leningrad, going through 900 days of siege should have fallen. It didn't.

Logistics do win wars, especially the massive distances that needed to be travelled on the eastern front. No so much for smaller very localized war. The comparison is with Israel vs arabs is pointless, the distances where just not there.




The Soviets could make trucks. By being able to buy them via lend lease they could concentrate production on other items like tanks. If they didn't have trucks they probably could have done some things and not others, but they wouldn't have collapsed without trucks. For the wet times like after the rains and after the thaw sledges were actually better anyway. The vast majority of German units were horse drawn... it was no great disadvantage for the Soviets to be horse drawn too.

Yes, the soviets could make trucks, but without lend lease soviet transportation would have been yet another crisis sector. The SU was remarkable at taking manpower and economic losses, but just how many areas of crisis do you think they could have taken ?

American lend lease tanks where *censored**censored**censored**censored*. No doubts about it, but the trucks and jeeps were excellent and prized by the red army. It gave them a level of mobility and pace that could not be sustained if they had to flog hundreds of thousands of poor horses. Without such mobility, the advance to berlin would have been consideribly slower and logistically troubled. No doubt you have read about the problems the germans had bringing supplies and especially fuel to the front because of the lack of motors. Im sure the soviets were glad not to have this level of trouble.




Except the sophisticated jamming and interception of radio by the German forces largely negated the advantage of a few units being equipped and hand signals were more commonly used for signalling.

Pointless arguement. As another so called "historian" of the red army, you would know that part of the problem with its fighting ability early in the war was the lack of co-ordination and communications. Few tanks and aicraft had radios which brought things back to world war 1 standards of operation. The communications provided gave the red army much needed cooperation between units that was sorely lacking. To say radios were pointless because the germans "jammed' them is just plain childish and baseless. Please provide me with a source documenting that soviet radio communication on the eastern front was rendered impotent via german jamming and not via jaded views about lend lease.

So whats next, the soviet soliders aparently threw away the tins of spam because they didnt like the taste ?

The plain simple fact is without lend lease, so many more areas of soviet production would have been near crisis and breaking point. Like I said before, the ability for the soviet economy to take damage was amazing but dont think it could have kept being pounded forever.

[ed316]

I see no point to debate this. The Nationalism is making some poeple here blind to facts and what Ribbentroff(sp?) himself said lead to the Nazi's defeat.

*Soviet Anthem playing*

[StukaJr]

I see no point to debate this. The Nationalism is making some poeple here blind to facts and what Ribbentroff(sp?) himself said lead to the Nazi's defeat.

*Soviet Anthem playing*

Quite an echo in here, huh? If you are ignored the first 5 times - perhaps your point ain't worth posting the sixth. I believe the general opinion is that Germany lost the WWII when they overextended their effort and crossed into the Soviet Union - the memoirs of many German aces and tacticians begin to see the fundamental flaws within the first months of Opperation Barbarossa.

Your behaviour is not constructive and maybe you should keep to History - Cold War is over everywhere else in the world.

[ogukuo72]

Logistics is not the only factor in winning wars, but it's very very important, and often very much under-rated. This is the reason why the Germans never won in North Africa and Russia, and lost so badly against the Allied counter offensives in the West and East.

[Kilgor]

I cant remember the saying but its something along the lines of "armchair generals talk about tactics, real generals talk about logistics " ?

[Midav]

Logistics is not the only factor in winning wars, but it's very very important, and often very much under-rated. This is the reason why the Germans never won in North Africa and Russia, and lost so badly against the Allied counter offensives in the West and East.

True. I looked at is as an only Germany vs Soviet war, without the Germans fighting all the Allies. I respectfully disagree with some, because my earnest belief is that the Germans were the foremost military power at that time and had they been able to use all assets, not spread out or shot down over Great Britain, or in Africa and here and there etc, they could have taken on anyone and been victorious.

I was not taught that when I went to school in Germany, but just from what I have read. They had good NCO like schools, good leadership, good morale, good support, good production and on...

They just took too big a bite and chocked on it.

[duck]

Logistics is not the only factor in winning wars, but it's very very important, and often very much under-rated. This is the reason why the Germans never won in North Africa and Russia, and lost so badly against the Allied counter offensives in the West and East.

Well, let's say the Germans hadn't considered all Slavs subhumans who were only good enough for medical and ****** experiments and slave labour. Do you think it would have made any change?

[Thor]

The germans lost because they ended up fighting just about the whole world. The prospects for success are kind of limited then.

As for Germany vs. Soviet Union, I think it for a long time would have been a huge freaking slaughter with no decisive battles.

The germans were closer to Moscow but it's hard to say if the fall of the capital would have a caused a soviet system breakdown or not.

[GazB]

But you must agree that he did interfere a lot less than Hitler did


After one of his purges before the war of 25 high ranking officials in one branch of their military (I think it was AF but not sure off the top of my head) 3 were to survive. What sort of mentality do you think that promoted in the Russian Army? He might not have told generals to do this or that, but you can be sure those generals would make sure they kept Stalin happy...


What's interesting also is the amount of nuclear research and development material we sent Russia. Not so smart a decision on our part.

It was the spies that did the most damage.


But those figures speak for themselves, and not someone trying to deceitfully word the significance of lend lease to a minor role.

So take away 1/3rd of the Copper Germany used during the war and Germany would have not even bothered to fight? It is not rocket science. If you don't have copper, then you don't design things that need a lot of copper to make or use. It is not the case as you suggest that if you lack sufficient supplies of copper you surrender to the enemy.


Logistics do win wars, especially the massive distances that needed to be travelled on the eastern front. No so much for smaller very localized war. The comparison is with Israel vs arabs is pointless, the distances where just not there.


Logistics are very important and become more important with how far your forces are spread, but in many cases it is technology that creates that problem. The Soviets used plenty of horses... as did the germans. A horse can't carry as much as a truck, but a horse is powered by stuff that grows on the ground. When a horse fails at least you can eat it.
Needless to say if you fully supplied the Italian army of WWII and reduced or cut the supplies of German forces, which do you think would win in combat more often on the eastern front? The Germans didn't lose on the eastern front because they didn't have enough bullets or enough tanks. They lost because the Soviets wanted them out. The Soviets didn't kick the Germans out of the Soviet Union because they had lots of trucks... the only difference the large number of trucks made was it enabled the Red Army to take eastern Europe quicker.

But again... I guess Britain Germany won desert storm because US jet engine technology is largely based on German and British designs, and the US main battle tank had British designed armour and a German gun and M1A1s made up the majority of US tank units and all of the US jets had US jet engines...
Should we ignore the fact that the US paid for that technology, either directly or indirectly?


Yes, the soviets could make trucks, but without lend lease soviet transportation would have been yet another crisis sector.

Rubbish. They built trucks themselves and used them and lend lease trucks for things they could have used other methods for... rocket artillery was almost exclusively mounted on trucks, but could just as easily been fitted to the rear of light tanks... the Soviets had tens of thousands of those.


It gave them a level of mobility and pace that could not be sustained if they had to flog hundreds of thousands of poor horses.

Yet the German army got by on substandard trucks that were next to useless in the winter conditions and managed with large numbers of horses.


Without such mobility, the advance to berlin would have been consideribly slower and logistically troubled.

Yes, not getting into Berlin quickly would have completely cost them the war. Of course if the US and UK hadn't gotten involved, there was no D-Day then what would have been the hurry?


No doubt you have read about the problems the germans had bringing supplies and especially fuel to the front because of the lack of motors. Im sure the soviets were glad not to have this level of trouble.


Indeed. But it is hardly something that would effect the Soviets in the parts of the war where survival was balancing on the edge of a knife. Rather that is important in the finishing off of the enemy and capturing new territory in Europe.


Few tanks and aicraft had radios which brought things back to world war 1 standards of operation.

Yes, that is the propaganda. The reality is that every commanders tank had a radio and every other tank had a receiver to hear the commanders commands. In some aircraft there were recievers only and in others there was no radio at all to reduce weight. In either case they had only just converted to concentrating tanks into tank units and using tanks enmass instead of as a support for infantry units. As such fitting every vehicle with a tranceiver radio would not have greatly helped as coordination is more than just having a radio.


So whats next, the soviet soliders aparently threw away the tins of spam because they didnt like the taste ?


No. They resented being told lend lease won the war... they thought the blood they were bleeding on European soil was what was dealing to the germans. An attitude Reinforced by D-Day not occuring till 44 when the germans were basicaly in reverse and European territory was coming up for grabs.


Logistics is not the only factor in winning wars, but it's very very important, and often very much under-rated.

Certainly, but that does not mean it should be overrated and that claims like logistics win wars should be made. Even if one side is very well equipped it doesn't mean it will win a battle let alone a war.


I cant remember the saying but its something along the lines of "armchair generals talk about tactics, real generals talk about logistics " ?

But the nature of the talk would not be "we are well supplied with weapons, ammo and equipment... we will win."

[ogukuo72]

Well, let's say the Germans hadn't considered all Slavs subhumans who were only good enough for medical and ****** experiments and slave labour. Do you think it would have made any change?

Logistics is an important factor, but only one of them.

Yes, the German treatment of conquered people was a major contributing factor why it lost the war. In particular, the slavic people probably did more than any other occupied people to contribute to German defeat.

Another factor was Germany's failure in intelligence and technology development.

[Kak]

The USSR would have prevailed in the end.

[high psi]

Hitler was overconfident and thought he could sweep through Eastern Russia and into Moscow before the winter, leaving his troops unsupplied for the winter months. The very wet fall weather produced transportation problems for the German soldiers and slowed them down as well. During the Battle of Kursk, the Allies landed in Sicily which caused Hitler to draw some of his force towards Italy. Hitler did sweep through the Soviet Union easily in the first part of Operation Barbarossa. The purges left the Red Army with no leadership. They had poor communication, supplies, etc. The wet fall and cold cold winter that fell upon the unprepared German army helped the Red Army immensely.

Basically, Hitlers crazy attitude, weather, and poor planning caused the eventual defeat for the German army. Hitler too, had the "Stand or Die" order causing even more German casualties. Soviet tanks were a lot more mobile than German tanks and German horses couldn't cope with the cold Soviet weather. A major mistake is the ill-equipped troops not prepared for the winter. The fast German offensive caused problems with supply, since the poor Soviet roads and different railrays allowed for slow transportation of critical supplies such as fuel. Partisans of the Soviet Union also could have joined with the German army, but they were to be executed as ordered by Hitler. After losing the key Battle of Kursk Hitler lost confidence even more in his commanders and took more control away from them. This wasn't good, considering Hitler was already insane... On the other hand Stalin gained more trust from his commanders and allowed them more flexibility and control...

The German army did have 4/5 of their army in Russia, but Russia did have a huge army...

Without lend lease, the Allied distraction in North Africa and later Italy and the second front.. the Soviet Union may not have been conquered, but the Soviet Union would have been hurting pretty damn bad. With more German strength focusing on the Soviet Union, critical battles such as Stalingrad and Kursk could have been won. The Soviet Union would have been vastly destroyed. I think the main German plan to take out the Soviet Union was based on speed and a certain time frame. They didn't make this time frame and the Soviet Union was able to mobilize and go on the counter offensive.

[Lokos]

But you must agree that he did interfere a lot less than Hitler did

After the winter of 1941, yes.


Weird that 2 soviet sources give different numbers.

I'm using numbers from the RKKA archives. *shrug*


Land wise I would agree, but they did have the second best fleet and a fair air force. I would not dismiss them out of hand, the soviets certainly didn´t. As you said the Japanese fought mainly an air-naval war, while the GErmans fought a climatic land war.

The strategic impotence of the Japanese position rendered them a relatively second-rate (on the same level as Britain) player in the Second World War. Considering their limited objectives and means, I would go so far as to say that the Pacific War wasn't directly a part of the World War, per se.


Not really, they died over Guadalcanal

We'll have to disagree, here. At Midway the Japanese lost the very cream of their pilot corps. Three fleet carriers' worth of the most experienced fighter pilots in the IJN aviation. They never recovered from this catastrophic loss.


I am not trying to diminish the role the USSR had. The USSR certainly played the major role in defeating Germany, however I think the US did contributed a tad more overall.

I disagree.


Even 30% is a bit too high. The major japanese troop concentrations were at the home islands and China.

Manchuria was, nominally, a part of China. Only in 1944 did the Kwantung Army lose significant assets to other fronts that rendered it a relatively secondary front for the Japanese. Even as a 'secondary' front, it still deployed 34 infantry divisions, 2 tank brigades and 12 independent infantry brigades. As well as 13 cavalry and 8 infantry divisions of auxiliaries, and 14 infantry cavalry brigades (Manchukuoan and Korean). The combined total is 993,000 Japanese and 214,000 auxiliaries. What portion of the IJA would you say that this is, then?


But those figures speak for themselves, and not someone trying to deceitfully word the significance of lend lease to a minor role.

You may want to re-read them, then, Kilgor. Look for something very specific.


I cant remember the saying but its something along the lines of "armchair generals talk about tactics, real generals talk about logistics " ?

You're not a real general.


In particular, the slavic people probably did more than any other occupied people to contribute to German defeat.

Not all Slavic people were conquered! Some did the conquering. p-)


Basically, Hitlers crazy attitude, weather, and poor planning caused the eventual defeat for the German army.

LOL. I'm almost tempted to donate some books to lift that veil of ignorance.


and German horses couldn't cope with the cold Soviet weather.

Is this where you tell me that Soviet horses were more weather resistant?


With more German strength focusing on the Soviet Union, critical battles such as Stalingrad and Kursk could have been won.

Is that so? *rolls eye*

Lokos

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The strategic impotence of the Japanese position rendered them a relatively second-rate (on the same level as Britain) player in the Second World War. Considering their limited objectives and means, I would go so far as to say that the Pacific War wasn't directly a part of the World War, per se.

Kidding right? Britain a second rate player?

Just because the numbers of the war in the Pacifc were lower then in Europe, one must take a look at the terrain involved. We are not talking about huge cities and huge areas of land to fight on.

Japanase had very clear objectives that fitted into the combined war effort of the Axis partners. Deliver a crippling blow to the US to draw America away from Europe, gain valuable oil and rubber suppies, sever the communication lines between the US, UK and Australia. And eventually link up or at minimum provide a trade route to Germany.

If you look at the strategic position. It is very clear what Germany and Japan were trying to do. Rommel takes Suez, Japanese take India, the British don'thave the fleet to combat the Japanese in the Indian Ocean.

Guess what. Germany gets another reletivly safe oil and rubber source. And Russian supplies via lend lease stop. Not as if the British would of been able to get supplies through Iran with Japanese control of the Indian Ocean and German control of Suez.

[Atlantic Friend]

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

I think there shouldn't be any debate here : without the prospect of fighting this war with Allies, the Soviet Union offers to surrender as soon as autumn 1941. Historically, in autumn 1941 the Politburo was in deep panic mode, and Stalin did make quiet overtures to Nazi Germany through the Bulgarians at that time.

The question at this point would be : does Germany take the olive branch and do the reasonable thing, which is to settle down and transform a hidgepoedge of conquered countries into some kind of German Greater Empire with allied states, or does Hitler decide, as he did in autumn 1941, that the peace overtures are a sure sign that the SU will collapse soon ?

[ed316]

To answer that criticism RFE/RL contacted World War II historian Joe Maiolo, at the Department of War Studies of King's College London. He says the under-reporting of Stalingrad and other battles on the Eastern Front is in part a legacy of the Cold War. Soviet textbooks followed a mirror format, emphasizing Eastern Front battles while giving short shrift to the Western offensive. But Maiolo says current textbooks are more balanced.



For Maiolo, debates about who sacrificed more in which battle mean losing sight of the forest for the trees: "Any comparison is difficult and has to be made in the context of the wider war. You have to ask the broader question: why did the Allies win? And the Allies won because they fought together, maintained political unity and outproduced, outfought, and outstayed the Axis powers."
The fact, as Eisenhower noted in his announcement on D-Day, is that the war and ultimate victory over the Nazis was a collaborative effort whose individual actors and components cannot be seen in isolation. Unlike later conflicts, there was no one dominating actor. America's Lend-Lease program contributed to the Soviet war effort on the Eastern Front, but it was Soviet bravery and manpower that carried the day there. British and American victories in the West and North Africa were equally essential to bringing about Hitler's demise.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/06/9eb2d301-a9e0-4939-8512-d3aefc50e332.html