How we didn't win the war . . . but the Russians did

[A_V_8_R]

Interesting Article. Should inspire some debate. ;)


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2437544,00.html

[TR1]

old news to everyone in Eastern Europe.

[NixXxoN]

Some nice parts in there:


I was accosted by an angry young British historian. “Don’t you realise that we were pinning down 56 German divisions in France alone,” he said. “Without that the Red Army would have been heavily defeated.” What is less acknowledged is that without the Red Army pulverising 150 divisions, the allies would never have landed.


Proportions, however, are crucial. Since 75%-80% of all German losses were inflicted on the eastern front it follows that the efforts of the western allies accounted for only 20%-25%. Furthermore, since the British Army deployed no more than 28 divisions as compared with the American army’s 99, the British contribution to victory must have been in the region of 5%-6%. Britons who imagine that “we won the war” need to think again.

It would have been hard to beat the nazis until mr retardo(Hitler) chose to start a two front war. Luckily for us he did.

[John Crighton]

I wouldn't say that the Russia "won", but they did more than their own fair share of the bleeding. The west is now opeing its eyes to this.

[stonecutter]

Everything is relative. Perhaps too much credit has been claimed, but certainly some is deserved.
Doesn't matter if the Brits didn't singlehandedly "win the war". Unlike the French, who at the time were sadly suffering from shell shock and incompetent generals with WWI mentalities, our friends the British gave a bloody good account of themselves in that conflict. While the magnificent French Navy was hobbled by politics and sadly chose to sit in port and do nothing, the Brits were out there sinking the Bismarck.
While only a handful of Dewoitine D520s were able to meet the Luftwaffe in the skies, the Brits had foresight and were cranking out Hurricanes and Spitfires. etc etc etc.
Of course it also helped that they had a 50 km wide moat that panzers couldn't cross... :)
Nos amis anglais n'ont rien a craindre, ils se sont bien comportes.
Our English friends have nothing to worry about, they handled themselves well.

[Hullebullen]

The British main contribution was that they held out during the first year/years and didn't back down and signed a separate peace treaty, IMO.

[Hunterhr]

I have yet to read a convincing argument that any one Allied power 'won' the war.

[mas-36]

Everything is relative. Perhaps too much credit has been claimed, but certainly some is deserved.
Doesn't matter if the Brits didn't singlehandedly "win the war". Unlike the French, who at the time were sadly suffering from shell shock and incompetent generals with WWI mentalities, our friends the British gave a bloody good account of themselves in that conflict. While the magnificent French Navy was hobbled by politics and sadly chose to sit in port and do nothing, the Brits were out there sinking the Bismarck.
While only a handful of Dewoitine D520s were able to meet the Luftwaffe in the skies, the Brits had foresight and were cranking out Hurricanes and Spitfires. etc etc etc.
Of course it also helped that they had a 50 km wide moat that panzers couldn't cross... :)
Nos amis anglais n'ont rien a craindre, ils se sont bien comportes.
Our English friends have nothing to worry about, they handled themselves well.

I know there are many Americans and Brits who love nothing more than to hear a Frenchman piss on his own war dead, but I do recall reading that over 92,000 of your countrymen paid the ultimate price in 1940 alone. I for one, marvel at how the French put up a fantastic defense of Lille and Dunkirk while the Brits evacuated.

Hunterhr sums it up well. Every Allied contributed to the victory in some way. I can't stand it when some brag about how they spilled more blood than others. In the end it's still blood, and thats what counts.

[Kilgor]

Very good article, its hard to disagree with it.

[johanness]

x2

1234

[CPL Trevoga]

Interesting Article. Should inspire some debate. ;)


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2437544,00.html

He's talking about the war like it was a football match. The Allies were reluctant engaging in war with Hitler and 1944 landing was politically motivated, Germany was already bled white by then, and they did not want Stalin overrunning the whole Europe. To be fair, I'm sure Stalin would have done the same, if USSR was separated from Germany by an ocean. Anyway, Allied effort was significant enough, making Hitler's defeat easier.

[chaseballs]

i agree that everyone played an important part, but i've heard a saying that sums up the war in one sentence: the americans provided the material, the british provided the time, and the russians provided the blood.

Britons dont get pissed, by that i mean you guys held out long enough for the US to get in the war. i know GB fought very hard. however, i don't think the US would put up with the losses needed to fight the nazis without the russians fighting in the east.

[stonecutter]

I know there are many Americans and Brits who love nothing more than to hear a Frenchman piss on his own war dead, but I do recall reading that over 92,000 of your countrymen paid the ultimate price in 1940 alone.

Relax, I do nothing of the sort. Visiting the Unknown Soldier's grave beneath the Arc de Triomphe is always a most solemn occasion for me. Nobody questions the value of France's soldiers, apart from those of low educational backgrounds who are ****e to believing their government's libelous smear campaigns that formed part of the propaganda attempts used to justify an absurd invasion.

Rather, I piss on the French High Command, who after the war should have been tried for high treason and hung from lamp posts in Paris. If De Gaulle (who ironically wrote the book on Blitzkrieg warfare) had been in charge of the French military in the 1930s, la debacle never would have happened.

All this to say, the English may claim a bit much in relation to what the Soviets accomplished, but whatever. They fought a good fight, and have earned the bragging rights over beers afterwards. I don't think anybody has ever seriously denied that the Soviets, like the French in WWI, didn't pay the heaviest penalty and didn't do the most to break the Germans' backs in WWII.

[ex Strathcona]

Nerver underestimate the contribution the Axis powers made towards their own defeat as well.
Germany opening up a second front against Russia and not providing any winter kit, Japan bringing the US into the war and not suporting the Germans with an attack on Russia, freeing up the Siberians to fight the Germans. The Italians... ah i'll leave them alone poor guys just got picked on by both sides.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I know there are many Americans and Brits who love nothing more than to hear a Frenchman piss on his own war dead, but I do recall reading that over 92,000 of your countrymen paid the ultimate price in 1940 alone. I for one, marvel at how the French put up a fantastic defense of Lille and Dunkirk while the Brits evacuated.

The British Army had to evacuate from France in 1940 because it was cut off when the French army on the right flank of the BEF completely COLLAPSED allowing the Germans to reach the coast south of the Pas de Calais. If the French couldn't be arsed to fight for France in 1940 then why should the British have tried to carry on doing so?
Many British Army units (especially Territorials) were sacrificed in the retreat so that others (including 100,000 French) could escape from Dunkirk. My great uncle's unit (2nd Bn Coldstream Guards) was in the rearguard - only a third of them survived.

[Thor]

About the article. Is this really news to anyone...?


Regarding Dunkerque, Hitler ordered a halt and what's notable is that Sepp Dietrich for a period of time refused to acknowledge it. He was quite some character, skills, balls, and stupidity mixed into one.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Had the US or UK been fighting on their own soil, as the Soviets and later the Germans were, the fighting would have been fought even more bitterly. The air campaign commonly known as the Battle for Britain was just a taste of the fury the Germans would have met had they attempted a land campaign in Britain. The US and UK fought clever. The Russians fought for their lives and then for vengeance.

I give credit were credit is due to the Russians, but having spent much time with them, I am pretty sick of all their boastful claims ranging from inventing the lightbulb to winning the pacific war as well.

Without the North African campaign led by the British and the European campaigns in France and Italy in '44, not to mention the systematic destruction of the Luftwaffe and the complete annhilation of Germany's ally Japan, the Russians would have been facing an entirely different German foe.

Who won the war? We all did.

Unless of course you are German. Then you lost. :)

[TR1]

I give credit were credit is due to the Russians, but having spent much time with them, I am pretty sick of all their boastful claims ranging from inventing the lightbulb to winning the pacific war as well.


obviosuly you have yet to spend any time with any actual Russians.

[oldsoak]

I dont know of anyone who thinks we we won by ourselves. Nicely timed article, mr pressman btw - good one, just before we hold remembrance day, lets belittle ourselves and the dead. Lets be honest - we didnt have the manpower or the industry in the UK that the USSR had. A look at the map will tell you why. But we did fight, and without us as a launch pad, the ETO would have been an alternative history discussed at military academies, much along the lines of what if the Brits won the AWI. I think the historians miss one point completely - in 1940, we could have negotiated a peace with the Nazis. We were pretty much in the corner. And it was a possible course of action. We didnt. Thanks to our own bloody mindedness, a memory of WW1 and the fact that the commonwealth downed tools and mucked in , we kept the wolf at bay for the critical period before the ROW joined in. Russia was did not join us until the Nazi invasion of the USSR. Until then, who was fighting ? the UK and the Commonwealth. Make no mistake, the USSR contributed vastly to the defeat of the Axis and they suffered terribly. IMHO, the fact that the Russians entered the war made a negotiated end to the war in Europe unlikely because the allies could now feasibly defeat the Axis. The arrival of the US made it an absolute certainty. Without Russia or the US, we might have been tempted to compromise.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Why do people forgot there was also a war going on in the Pacific?

For sure the casaulties are not their. But you kinda have a limit on how many soldiers you can put on some island.

England, Australia and the US were fighting on 3 fronts. The sheer scale of the logistical effort involved in supporting forces in Europe, Africa/Italy and the Pacific is often ignored.

The British had troops defending the British Isles, fighting in Africa and later Italy and holding their own in Burma/SE Asia

Australia had troops in Africa, it's airforce in the UK, and was trying to withstand the Japs in SE Asia and the Pacific.

US virtually had to rebuild it's entire Navy, Army and Airforce from scratch and had it's forces in similar dispositions to Australia.

The Western Powers didn't have slave labour camps, in many cases they had hostile union movements, we had to transport everything by sea. The sheer scale of the operation is crazy.

Besides that. The war was lost for Germany the moment the tanks rolled into Poland. Even without the intervention by the US and or Russia. The British would of simply choked the life blood out of the German Economy. It would of ended up very similar to Japan in ww2 or Germany in WW1. In both cases they were simply starved out of the war through a lack of food and resources.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Russian1:

Plenty of time with Russians... am in Moscow every 2nd month. "Winning the Pacific war "was even in some outdated Russian history books. I am a big fan of Russian military history, but they sure do spit out some crap when their nationalist spirit begins to cook up.

By the way, I don't think a one-sided view of historical events is an inherently "Russian" problem... but since we are talking about how the Russians supposedly "won the war"...

[Friendly Fire]

I dont know of anyone who thinks we we won by ourselves. Nicely timed article, mr pressman btw - good one, just before we hold remembrance day, lets belittle ourselves and the dead. Lets be honest - we didnt have the manpower or the industry in the UK that the USSR had. A look at the map will tell you why. But we did fight, and without us as a launch pad, the ETO would have been an alternative history discussed at military academies, much along the lines of what if the Brits won the AWI. I think the historians miss one point completely - in 1940, we could have negotiated a peace with the Nazis. We were pretty much in the corner. And it was a possible course of action. We didnt. Thanks to our own bloody mindedness, a memory of WW1 and the fact that the commonwealth downed tools and mucked in , we kept the wolf at bay for the critical period before the ROW joined in. Russia was did not join us until the Nazi invasion of the USSR. Until then, who was fighting ? the UK and the Commonwealth. Make no mistake, the USSR contributed vastly to the defeat of the Axis and they suffered terribly. IMHO, the fact that the Russians entered the war made a negotiated end to the war in Europe unlikely because the allies could now feasibly defeat the Axis. The arrival of the US made it an absolute certainty. Without Russia or the US, we might have been tempted to compromise.

Two points on who won what...

1. WW2 could have been manageable and even avoidable if the Western Europeans had the balls to recognise their errors.

- WW2 was directly sparked by the US speculation cast that helped germany gaining ground on the rest of Europe. They with their Dawies-Young plans alleviated the german burden and bleed it white once before WW2. The November Krach did the rest.

- The US pro-german crowd (supposeddly isolationist) had a tough fight on two different continents with their own imperialist compadres on the political ground. These sirs were playing cards on what to do while other were getting killed (till march 1942-proven- US spare parts were arriving to german troops deployed in the USSR-Alcoa invoices are tracable up to june 1942). While the isolationists were trying to "let the Commies trash Europe" they were having a problem with the Japanese. The Embargo of 1934 and the other one of 1936 on the Rising Sun Empire rendered the Japanese far more agressive and desperate and were replied by a bloody occupation of China(i'll come back to china since it played a significant role that has been even less public than the Soviet one). The absence of the USA from the SN due to the isolationnist crowd killed this so called Society of Nations from it's birth.

- During the dark 30's No ONE raised the fascist issue but the communist threat was well documented, despite the effective isolation of the Socialist State. Better the fascists were the "natural solution" to Communism...

-When the Spanish War sparked the first thing that the western world did was an arms embargo to...the Republic of Spain. The Insurgets were supposedly affected too but suprisingly enough arms importation from Portugal almost trippled!!! Western armament not only german! Now on an analogical case the Italian agression on Abyssinia earned them an oil Embargo and the exclusion from the SN:slap:. How come?

So while people were telling us that the USSR did it's share and a bit more. Others say we all fought and it's baseless to pull the blanket on your side. Well sure but there comes the political question. What about the post war reparation blanket? The one that was never honored by the Western Allies? People will get mad at me telling and what about LL? Great , let's compare LL to the Industrial output of the SU at the time...you'll be able to see that peanuts were given to the Soviets, expedients for immediate consumption.

Further more poeple tend to ignore that plans to bomb the USSR existed while the UK was coming at hands with ze NAZIS (operation UNTHINKABLE) and that these plans were also revived two months after VE.

Who did what? Easy, the USSR did the fighting ( the revenging) and the bleeding, the western allies the parading and the political ploting, the Chinese the bleeding.

What we all need to know is the context...the context clearly shows that in terms of retardos the OKH/OKW had it's fair share and that Hitler is responsible of a part of it not all. For instance the OKW intelligence services were in 1938 issueing memos that exposed the USSR as a failed cardboard state with almost no resilient infrastructure...

The racism, inherent of the german soldier (and citizen), towards slavic people (asians) was an important factor of the underachievement of the german army in the eastern front. Their quick victories were made at a heavy price for instance just to approach rovno/rivne two german battalions were KIA when a similar situation in september 1939 around katowize (Poland) was made without a single KIA (Forster and Mueller show this of their accountancy of the Eastern Front).

Someone called on the absence of Winter kits...BS on that. It was a myth. Winter kits were available but the problems were not the kits as the germans showed it in the invasion of Norway (wait a minute don't russian suffer from the same winter)...

Fury... against the invasion in the British islands? Well I know that given the high level of urbanisation of the same british islands controlling them would have been easier than taking on 200 million muzhiks(to our CIS crowd it's only a sarcastic POV) especially relying on Scots and Irish...The germans simply didn't had the supplies to attack Great Britain nor a good plan, nor a decent navy. All they wanted was peace from the UK nothing more. That's why they kept bombing London over Liverpool or Manchester. They wanted a moral victory (wich is a stupid thing to do with English in general).

The Soviets won that war, they even cleaned up manchuria for the USA. Now why didn't you took on the Japanse in JAPAN?

The soviets won that war, but lost the peace. As easy as that.

[Friendly Fire]

Why do people forgot there was also a war going on in the Pacific?

For sure the casaulties are not their. But you kinda have a limit on how many soldiers you can put on some island.

England, Australia and the US were fighting on 3 fronts. The sheer scale of the logistical effort involved in supporting forces in Europe, Africa/Italy and the Pacific is often ignored.

The British had troops defending the British Isles, fighting in Africa and later Italy and holding their own in Burma/SE Asia

Australia had troops in Africa, it's airforce in the UK, and was trying to withstand the Japs in SE Asia and the Pacific.

US virtually had to rebuild it's entire Navy, Army and Airforce from scratch and had it's forces in similar dispositions to Australia.

The Western Powers didn't have slave labour camps, in many cases they had hostile union movements, we had to transport everything by sea. The sheer scale of the operation is crazy.

Besides that. The war was lost for Germany the moment the tanks rolled into Poland. Even without the intervention by the US and or Russia. The British would of simply choked the life blood out of the German Economy. It would of ended up very similar to Japan in ww2 or Germany in WW1. In both cases they were simply starved out of the war through a lack of food and resources.


-3.5 million japanese troops were stationned in China for "counter-banditism" where the allied did not fired a single shot from 1942 to 1945. The japanese tried to wage war against the Soviets in 1938 about Mongolia and they lost 75 000 men. The "creme of the creme" of the RKKA put up a firework display (months before being purged by "Comrade Stalin") on their asses and scared them so much they were asking for a peace treaty just before taking on you (1941).

German economy? Then you tell me you ended up selling 90% of your gold reserves to the USA since your economy was so resilent. The british economy was far more in danger than the german one since they could have relied on their Moravian and Polish "Lebens raum".

I mean this is wishfulthinking typical of the wide ignorace thant reigns over WW2. The Soviets were starving too my friend!

If there was a war in the Pacific why not getting to hands with the japanese on Chinese soil? It was an open ground nice for the flanking tactics the US failed to achieve while taking on the pacific islands.

[Satellite Weapon]

Interesting Article. Should inspire some debate. ;)


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2437544,00.html

I don't think they really won it by themselves but they did do a huge share of the bleeding and fighting. Half of the problem is that the West didn't move quick enough against Hitler, Roosevelt wanted to join the allies, but couldn't because a lot of people in America didn't give about Europe's dictators and Japanese fascism or sympathized with the Nazis. America was kind a strange place before World War 2 and even levels of fascism could be seen after the war with the Jim Crow laws in certain parts of the South or weird racial groups like the KKK and such. There were strong levels of Antisemitism at this time, many other prominent public figures in the States condemned "the Jews" or blacks or other minorities. Many Americans wanted to see Hitler defeated and they hated the stuff going on in Europe but there were also some companies that had alleged connections to the Nazi such as IBM (hollerith machines for tracking jews), Lindbergh's groups (he was a fan of eugenics FDR called him a Nazi sympathizer), Standard-oil or Exxon and General Electric. Not all Americans wanted a fight but the US was suddenly dragged into the war with the Japanese hitting Pearl, invasion of HongKong and Hitler joining in by sending his U-boats to destroy shippiing of America's east. Even though the Russians, Aussies and Brits and others did a lot of fighting nobody can deny the USA played a huge role in ending World war 2.

[eugenlitwin]

The Third Reich was largely defeated not by the forces of liberal democracy, but by the forces of another mass-murdering tyranny. The liberators of Auschwitz were servants of a regime that ran a much larger network of concentration camps of its own.

strong...

[Friendly Fire]

The Third Reich was largely defeated not by the forces of liberal democracy, but by the forces of another mass-murdering tyranny. The liberators of Auschwitz were servants of a regime that ran a much larger network of concentration camps of its own.

strong...

Hum either way some had labor camps others had colonies or worse huge brothels...you pick.

Oh and BTW...the allegation if false...while stalin remained longer on power...the number of detainees (on political and common law charges) never surpassed 5 million 600 hundred thousand-1946 (only 26% of these were "political"). Hitler had during the year 1942 alone 8 million detaines (mostly "non-criminals").

[Labud]

old news to everyone in Eastern Europe.

Exactly. It is clear that SSSR took the huge part in victory against the nazism.

[oldsoak]

-3.5 million japanese troops were stationned in China for "counter-banditism" where the allied did not fired a single shot from 1942 to 1945. The japanese tried to wage war against the Soviets in 1938 about Mongolia and they lost 75 000 men. The "creme of the creme" of the RKKA put up a firework display (months before being purged by "Comrade Stalin") on their asses and scared them so much they were asking for a peace treaty just before taking on you (1941).

German economy? Then you tell me you ended up selling 90% of your gold reserves to the USA since your economy was so resilent. The british economy was far more in danger than the german one since they could have relied on their Moravian and Polish "Lebens raum".

I mean this is wishfulthinking typical of the wide ignorace thant reigns over WW2. The Soviets were starving too my friend!

If there was a war in the Pacific why not getting to hands with the japanese on Chinese soil? It was an open ground nice for the flanking tactics the US failed to achieve while taking on the pacific islands.

"When you are fighting a Tiger, be grateful for a neighbour even if he only hangs onto its tail. "

I get the feeling that you feel that the contribution of the USSR in defeating the Nazis is underrated. No one disputes the contribution or the sacrifice, but lets not all fall into the trap of beliveing our own countries are the sole cause of Nazi defeat.

The British did not have the luxury of a large population ( and Europe was also not our only theatre of operations) and vast natural resources or the ability to trade ground for time. We also did not have the ability to transport war material by road or rail - all these had to come by by sea. The USSR had made great attempts to move its industry forward from Tsarist times to the point where it had considerable capacity in excess of what the Uk and her colonies could provide. Our problem was that we did not encourage industrialisation in the colonies as much as we should have, preferring to develop them along the grounds of providing foodstufts and raw materials, rather than provide local competition for our rich industrialists. This caught us out. Were it not for the colonies ability to rapidly industrialise in the early war years and their manpower , there is every possiblity that the USSR would have had the undivided attention of the Nazi's. Our gold was sent to the US in the event of defeat - why leave anything to the enemy ? The US was also anxious that it businesses selling war materiel to us would not be left with useless money should we loose - understandable given the circumstances . Had the UK collapsed, the worldwide repercussions would have been immense. The British proxies in Iraq and Persia may well have dissappeared to be replaces by Axis leaning powers - which would have solved the oil supply problems for the Germans, by passing their needs for oil from the Caucasus. With their oil supplies secure and no enemies in the west to speak of, the Russians could only have suffered even more than they did.

As for the war in the Pacific, the British colonial administrations in Asia would have faced collapse and the Japanese simply not faced any oppostion at all until Pearl Harbour. The effect on the administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand ans S Africa would at best have been negative. Faced with the an impossible task of recovering the UK, they may well have withdrawn from the war. On the otherhand, being awkward sods like us, they may have continued fighting a lost cause with the remnants of the RN raiding the coasts of Europe and Asia out of Canada and other dominon ports.
The Russian convoys delivering LL suffered horrendous casualties and while you may question what you got, the allies left a lot on the bottom of the sea with together with a lot of ships and men. Even with our limited resources, we sent material that we had a pressing need for. You may have paid for it, but it was delivered by our ships and the cost in shipping and crews was very high. If the Russians had no need of what was delivered, then our losses on theses convoys are indeed senseless.
The US stategy in the Pacific was developed to exploit weaknesses in the Japanese strategy and was successful in that it ultimately got them a base close enough to Japan to drop the A-bomb. Going to war with Japan in China makes no sense at all - distance, and way too many Japanese occupied territories in the way. For the UK, the aid delivered by the colonies and the US powerhouse kept us fighting and gave a toehold in Europe for its eventual liberation. For the USSR, it may well appear that we were only holding the tail of the Tiger, but that too is useful. The USSR was absolutely necessary to draw WWII to a close in just 6 years. Defeat of the Nazis was a joint effort - without the UK and colonies, there would be no toehold for the second front in Europe, the USSR ground the Nazis down and the US made invasion possible and develop that second front.

[Friendly Fire]

"When you are fighting a Tiger, be grateful for a neighbour even if he only hangs onto its tail. "

I get the feeling that you feel that the contribution of the USSR in defeating the Nazis is underrated. No one disputes the contribution or the sacrifice, but lets not all fall into the trap of beliveing our own countries are the sole cause of Nazi defeat.

The British did not have the luxury of a large population ( and Europe was also not our only theatre of operations) and vast natural resources or the ability to trade ground for time. We also did not have the ability to transport war material by road or rail - all these had to come by by sea. The USSR had made great attempts to move its industry forward from Tsarist times to the point where it had considerable capacity in excess of what the Uk and her colonies could provide. Our problem was that we did not encourage industrialisation in the colonies as much as we should have, preferring to develop them along the grounds of providing foodstufts and raw materials, rather than provide local competition for our rich industrialists. This caught us out. Were it not for the colonies ability to rapidly industrialise in the early war years and their manpower , there is every possiblity that the USSR would have had the undivided attention of the Nazi's. Our gold was sent to the US in the event of defeat - why leave anything to the enemy ? The US was also anxious that it businesses selling war materiel to us would not be left with useless money should we loose - understandable given the circumstances . Had the UK collapsed, the worldwide repercussions would have been immense. The British proxies in Iraq and Persia may well have dissappeared to be replaces by Axis leaning powers - which would have solved the oil supply problems for the Germans, by passing their needs for oil from the Caucasus. With their oil supplies secure and no enemies in the west to speak of, the Russians could only have suffered even more than they did.

As for the war in the Pacific, the British colonial administrations in Asia would have faced collapse and the Japanese simply not faced any oppostion at all until Pearl Harbour. The effect on the administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand ans S Africa would at best have been negative. Faced with the an impossible task of recovering the UK, they may well have withdrawn from the war. On the otherhand, being awkward sods like us, they may have continued fighting a lost cause with the remnants of the RN raiding the coasts of Europe and Asia out of Canada and other dominon ports.
The Russian convoys delivering LL suffered horrendous casualties and while you may question what you got, the allies left a lot on the bottom of the sea with together with a lot of ships and men. Even with our limited resources, we sent material that we had a pressing need for. You may have paid for it, but it was delivered by our ships and the cost in shipping and crews was very high. If the Russians had no need of what was delivered, then our losses on theses convoys are indeed senseless.
The US stategy in the Pacific was developed to exploit weaknesses in the Japanese strategy and was successful in that it ultimately got them a base close enough to Japan to drop the A-bomb. Going to war with Japan in China makes no sense at all - distance, and way too many Japanese occupied territories in the way. For the UK, the aid delivered by the colonies and the US powerhouse kept us fighting and gave a toehold in Europe for its eventual liberation. For the USSR, it may well appear that we were only holding the tail of the Tiger, but that too is useful. The USSR was absolutely necessary to draw WWII to a close in just 6 years. Defeat of the Nazis was a joint effort - without the UK and colonies, there would be no toehold for the second front in Europe, the USSR ground the Nazis down and the US made invasion possible and develop that second front.


I get that feeling because the reality was completely distorted and the only way you're going to speak with the average european about WW2 and Soviets will be Backstab, Berlin Rapes and Lend Lease!

And with an American it will be LL, LL, Stalingrad but not without LL!

That was the political price of the alliance.

Further more the British had the best of the rest, they were on an Island! Had plenty of time (even to plan the bombing of the USSR) and a lot of foreign troops. In the contrary the USSR had no time, a disperssed population (30% of the Soviet population was under occupation in 1942).

[foxtrot023]

Anyone who has read historical books and information on WW2 will know that the Heer was defeated by the russians, that the major german defeats were done by the russians. However WW2 was a team victory if you will, specially in regards to Germany. To defeat them they were outproduced, outmanned and outgeneraled (on a strategic level). All allies contributed, some more in some areas than others, as per example, how the soviets took on the brunt of German army and Waffen SS troops, but I think that even without one of the big 3 (UK, US, USSR) the defeat of Germany would have been if not impossible, very hard.


Interesting data-

In June 1941, 75% of the German Heer was positioned against the USSR
In June 1944, 60% of the German Heer was positioned against the USSR
The Western Allies faced 1,000,000 German troops, the soviets faced over 3,000,000 German troops and allies (and those were 1942 type troops, younger, fitter and veterans of France, Balkans and Scadinavian conquests, wereas the 1944 type german troops usually were recruits with some veterans mixed in)

In the troops on the Eastern Front had been on France, there would not have been a D-Day, only a blood bath.

[oldsoak]

Either LL was needed by the USSR or it wasnt. Whats the point of risking lives and valuable ships to ship stuff that the USSR didnt want or need ? You even paid gold for it - we recovered 5tonnes of Russian gold from a sunken British ship in the 80's. Look, no-one is asking you to kiss our hands over this, I'm pointing out that no-one can lay claim to being the sole victor alone. No one of the war generation in the UK thinks that the contribution of the USSR was a small thing. So what if the we sent you a million guns - who died using them ? We get reminded about LL as well.

The fact that Britain is an island works for and against to us. Everything has to move by sea, and until late 1941 we were losing ships faster than we could build them. If it were not for Canadian and US shipyards, we would have run out of ships and starved. If the UK, Canada and the US had not secured the Atlantic, we would not have been able to take the fight into Europe. There is no such thing as plenty of time in war, we were way too busy trying to build faster and better.
Are you aware of the background to bomb the USSR ? We very nearly went to war with the USSR over Finland. This would have left us in the position where we were at war with the Nazis in Europe and allied to them in Finland. Until 1941, the USSR was not an ally of the UK in Europe. The treaty with Poland and the subsequent invasion by both Nazis and the USSR left us with the thought that war with the USSR was a distinct possibility. How we were expected to bomb the USSR with the planes we had then is interesting to say the least. I doubt we even had proper maps. A good thing we didnt, the only people to benefit would have been the Nazis.

[Basillicus]

It's pretty obvious who lost the war, but deciding who won it is much more difficult. All sides suffered from the war badly, some worse than others. If we compare the situation before the war and after it, it would seem that USA and SU were pretty much the only countries that gained something; the world was pretty much divided between these two superpowers. However SU lost unimaginable number of human lives and the west part of the country was practically destroyed, so it was a phyrric victory at best. As far as I know, after the war UK lost much of it's influence and shortly lost it's last colonies as well, and didn't gain anything. So it is just in the league of countries that barely survived the war.

[foxtrot023]

Either LL was needed by the USSR or it wasnt. Whats the point of risking lives and valuable ships to ship stuff that the USSR didnt want or need ? You even paid gold for it - we recovered 5tonnes of Russian gold from a sunken British ship in the 80's. Look, no-one is asking you to kiss our hands over this, I'm pointing out that no-one can lay claim to being the sole victor alone. No one of the war generation in the UK thinks that the contribution of the USSR was a small thing. So what if the we sent you a million guns - who died using them ? We get reminded about LL as well.



The Soviets used to low play the importance of Lend Lease, as well and the Western Allies have downplayed the USSR importance in defeating the Wehrmacht. Lend Lease certainly gave the soviet forces a lot of strategic mobility, thus they could move troops from theatre to theatre faster and easier. Personally I think that without lend lease the USSR would not have had the spectacular victories it had as early as 1943-44 (they would have been less spectacular or would have taken more years), specially when you consider that -per example- the Red army truck fleet was 50% US made.

[Kilgor]

- During the dark 30's No ONE raised the fascist issue but the communist threat was well documented, despite the effective isolation of the Socialist State. Better the fascists were the "natural solution" to Communism...
.

Im not going to bother with the rest of the post, its the usual soviet viewpoint garbage. But id think you'd find winston churchill was extremely concerned about hitler and warned of his expansionist desires.

As for facing the fascist threat, I seem to remember the soviet union was allied to nazi germany even when poland, france, the low countries, and the UK were attacked and invaded. The soviet raw materials and fuel traded at the time were directly used in the murder and conquest of these countries.

[Friendly Fire]

Im not going to bother with the rest of the post, its the usual soviet viewpoint garbage. But id think you'd find winston churchill was extremely concerned about hitler and warned of his expansionist desires.

As for facing the fascist threat, I seem to remember the soviet union was allied to nazi germany even when poland, france, the low countries, and the UK were attacked and invaded. The soviet raw materials and fuel traded at the time were directly used in the murder and conquest of these countries.

Classic right wing garbage!

Huuh and where were the allies when Spain and the Czech republic were subdued by the fascists...oh right they were ensuring Moravia and the whole of central Europe to fascist thugs! As for fuel ...it never came from the USSR but from Romania! The Soviets sold only heavy Naphta used to make the German BUNA (erzats for plastic and polyurethane). Churchill? Oh you mean the dude that ordered the bombing plans to be reviewed while the Soviets were still fighting in Romania? You're a good joker!


@Foxtrot:

First of all your percentages are a bit mixed up. While I tend to find them wrong it could be because the Heer is the Army not the entire German military. Further more it can be explained by the proportions the Waffen SS took in the 2 last years. For instance the Waffen SS inflated from a special and auxiliary corps (350 000 men in black, yeah I know it isn’t funny, in 1941) to a fully dedicated wing of the German military eating btw the Fshj (German paras) regiments (1 850 000 men including Volks from Poland, Rumania, Hungary and the rest of Europe December 1943).

But even with this your numbers about the Heer are exaggerated. While the Heer was the most active in the USSR (late mid 1943 just before Kursk and while total war was being declared by Goebbels) it totalled around 2 890 000 men (Mueller/ Solchany) excluding the Feld Gendarmerie (130 000 men) and the Orpo Units (80 000) men deployed in the Balkans and in Eastern Europe for the “Bullet Genocide” and the Counter Insurgency operations. At its height the German military had deployed around 10 400 000 operatives of all services in all Fronts. This was in 1943 (just before Kharkov) and according to Forster and Kimmel There were 8 250 000 operatives concentrated in the Eastern part of Europe (Germany included) …for all sorts of purposes (guard duty, active units, training Units, genocidary units, RICO units, Todt units).

So I don’t see where you got your numbers of 60 % of the Heer in the Eastern Front and 40% in the Western front since the Heer forces were always split in three non-proportional parts.
East, West and one part as a reserve in the Eastern front. The number always varied depending on the situation and transfers were made overwhelmingly to the eastern Front (even though the greatest numerical transfer was made in august 1944 from the Eastern Front to the Western ~ 360 000 troops were removed from their Ukrainians positions to reinforce the Fifth and the 21st n Divisions causing great havoc in Army Group Centre and rendering it defenceless against Operation Bagration).

Old soak buddy you have to understand this. LL was the political price to pay for the Allies and the Soviets along with Soviet weapons to be inspected by the Allies. The soviets had to accept LL in order to prove the USA they were weak and needed help. I don’t think the US would have agreed to send war materiel (of rather bad quality or useless under those circumstances in the beginning) if they knew the soviets were in good shape economically. And the case was that the USSR had already moved a lot of its war machine eastwards…recent French and German works show the soviets were not at all exhausted after WW2 even worse they were already planning the rebuilding process. The game appeared clearly when the allies cut the negotiation in Potsdam about the War reparations, Stalin didn’t even noticed the threats of insolvability of the allies. He went for a full scale confrontation

About Operation Unthinkable…the British were clearly acting against Soviet interests when they supplied Portugal with over 2 million gold-pounds worth of armament perfectly knowing the weapons were going to Spain into “fascist” hands! They also had a chance of avoiding confrontation over Finland and Poland if they abolished the Curzon-Line border in the West-East talks in summer 39 when the Soviets clearly offered a military alliance in exchange of the Former-czarist territories (excluding Finland). They (the british) refused that while they gave their approval on the Moravian case to Hitler. When you speak about context I can hardly imagine a worst international situation in 1939 for a country (except China!).

The political situation of the USSR at the time was equal to the situation of North Korea today. None wanted to speak with them, no one wanted to deal with them other but by threats!


Whatever! Old soak i respect your POV and it's pretty normal you defend the point of view you've been told! And I sincierly think yours was far more rational than some of the boastful motos that were used in the former CoMMbloc! But that truth is distorted neverte less.

My point is that the war was no honeymoon, and that victory was manipulated by both camps for obvious political reasons. As such was teh case the pie has to be split in fair parts. Nothing more!

Foxtrot...you'd be stunned to know that the RKKA was largely Hippomobile! The Mobility you're speaking about was largely absent this explains how Vatutin failed to "capitalize" on the defensive sucesses in Kursk as the tanks found themselves without infantry cover when they tried a spearhead into Prokhorovka! The Horses had been crazed out by the german bombardment and were out of action so the grunts had to walk till Prokhorovka...(and and the T-34 piggybacking was made only for theshow or for backtrailing never for troop transport into teh fireline).

[PELEIDES]

I wouldn't say that the Russia "won", but they did more than their own fair share of the bleeding. The west is now opeing its eyes to this.


I agree. We still would have defeated Germany and the Axis without the Soviets, however the Soviets helped shorten the war. Without them the war could have lasted another 3-5 years with hundreds of thousands more dead soldiers. IMO

[Kilgor]

Classic right wing garbage!

Huuh and where were the allies when Spain and the Czech republic were subdued by the fascists...oh right they were ensuring Moravia and the whole of central Europe to fascist thugs! As for fuel ...it never came from the USSR but from Romania! The Soviets sold only heavy Naphta used to make the German BUNA (erzats for plastic and polyurethane). Churchill? Oh you mean the dude that ordered the bombing plans to be reviewed while the Soviets were still fighting in Romania? You're a good joker!
.

The soviets provided petroleum to the germans, this is common knowledge and footage exists of rail tankers filled with fuel being delivered. Ill post a screen shot if you would like :)

Churchill was a good man, he was as hostile to Nazism as he was communism. History proved him to be right about both.

edit.

The actual content of the trade agreement.

MEMORANDUM

The German-Soviet Trade Agreement concluded on August 19 covers the following:


"4. In order that we might secure an immediate benefit from the credit agreement, it was made a condition from the beginning that the Soviet Union bind itself to the delivery, starting immediately, of certain raw materials as current business. It was possible so to arrange these raw-material commitments of the Russians that our wishes were largely met. The Russian commitments of raw materials are contained in schedule C. They amount to 180 million Reichsmarks: half to be delivered in each of the first and second years following the conclusion of the agreement. It is a question, in particular, of lumber, cotton, feed grain, oil cake, phosphate, platinum, raw furs, petroleum, and other goods which for us have a more or less gold value."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns059.htm

[Labud]

I agree. We still would have defeated Germany and the Axis without the Soviets, however the Soviets helped shorten the war. Without them the war could have lasted another 3-5 years with hundreds of thousands more dead soldiers. IMO

Come on, allies were landed in Europe after Kursk battle. And Kursk battle was the last battle where Germans had some chances to stop great counterattack of Soviets. Not the mention the Soviet cassaulties during the war - over 20 million...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The soviets provided petroleum to the germans, this is common knowledge and footage exists of rail tankers filled with fuel being delivered. Ill post a screen shot if you would like :)

Churchill was a good man, he was as hostile to Nazism as he was communism. History proved him to be right about both.

edit.

The actual content of the trade agreement.

MEMORANDUM

The German-Soviet Trade Agreement concluded on August 19 covers the following:


Took the words right outta my mouth. And let's not forget the USSR was selling petroleum out of the occupied Manchuria area (as well as Soviet Sakhalin I believe)to the Japanese, while the US was fighting the Japanese while the US was supplying the USSR with LL. Agh. A very tangled web pretty much everywhere you look.

[Klatuu]

The Russians shouldered the burden of casualties and hardship during WWII, no doubt. Part of that is the price you pay for living under communtist dictatorship, BUT that doesn't negate the real heroism and sacrifice shown by millions of individual Russians.

However, of the subject of winning...

You go back in time to 5-10 years after the end of WWII and ask some Soviets, especially ones in Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Ukraine, or "East Germany" if they feel like winners.

The "West Germans" and even the Japanese came out of WWII better off than the Russians and their satellites.

[PELEIDES]

Come on, allies were landed in Europe after Kursk battle. And Kursk battle was the last battle where Germans had some chances to stop great counterattack of Soviets. Not the mention the Soviet cassaulties during the war - over 20 million...


I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that no one country won WWII. We (the allies) would have won without the Soviets, however without the Soviets the war would have lasted much longer.

The allies were bombing German factories, shipyards etc. while the US and Canada could produce war planes, bombers, ships, ammunition without being harrassed at all.

It was only a matter of time before Germany would not be able to fight. The Soviets fought bravely and with their help and sacrifice, ended the war sooner.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Yeah the way I look at it, we would all have been screwed without each other. Nobody but the Germany was prepared for war, and we all needed to depend upon each other until we got up to speed. Let's face it, a fully mobilized USSR vs Nazi Germany would have been a different ballgame, as would just about any nation in Europe or the US etc. As it was, it was all about time, and unfortunately in war time = lives.

[madpendos]

Come on, allies were landed in Europe after Kursk battle. And Kursk battle was the last battle where Germans had some chances to stop great counterattack of Soviets. Not the mention the Soviet cassaulties during the war - over 20 million...

x2

War started in 39, Allies landed in 44, when Red Army was in full speed heading toward the Berlin.

Id say, the D-Day was to save the Europe from USSR rather Germans. rofl

[CPL Trevoga]

The "West Germans" and even the Japanese came out of WWII better off than the Russians and their satellites.

We definitely came out winners, there is no doubt in my military mind. Why don't you read Hitler and his "final solution" for the Eastern Europe, winning was the only choice.

It pointless to discuss what if scenarios, all did what they had to do.

http://www.wf.weltkrieg.ru/post/rus/foto/104b.jpg

http://www.wf.weltkrieg.ru/post/rus/foto/106b.jpg

[A_V_8_R]

I think the author of the article is a little one sided. It was a team effort. But using Stalins own words/demands at the Tehran Conferance, regarding a second front in Western Europe, ASAP. I feel, shows that the US/GB contribution wasnt a sideshow.

[James]

Great information about the Soviet contribution in WWII here:

http://static.kdenews.org/mirrors/malte.homeip.net/base.swf

[sup_tech]

To be fair, Soviets needed badly a second front but not when Allies finally decided that they have enough sources to do that. Saying that, god knows what would happened to Nazi’s nuclear program if not for bombing the hell out of them by Americans and Brits.

Yeah, and btw for most of the lend-lease goods and materials that the West shipped, USSR was paying with gold, so it was just business and not a real “helping hand".

[BLC_Nationalist]

If it wasn't for the Western Allies pounding German infrastructure and military industrial complexes / factories with airpower 24 hrs a day the Soviets would probally have crumbled under the Nazi boot.

[TR1]

If it wasn't for the Western Allies pounding German infrastructure and military industrial complexes / factories with airpower 24 hrs a day the Soviets would probally have crumbled under the Nazi boot.

because at 1943, and before, when the battles which decided the fate of the Su were fought, the bombing campaighn was actually effective, right?:roll:

[Kilgor]

If it wasn't for the Western Allies pounding German infrastructure and military industrial complexes / factories with airpower 24 hrs a day the Soviets would probally have crumbled under the Nazi boot.

This was true only in the last year of the war. The early bombing campaigns did little if nothing to the german war industry. However 4/5 of the luftwaffe, thousands of flak guns,millions of shells and at least 500K of manpower was taken away from the eastern front to deal with the bombers.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

This was true only in the last year of the war. The early bombing campaigns did little if nothing to the german war industry. However 4/5 of the luftwaffe, thousands of flak guns,millions of shells and at least 500K of manpower was taken away from the eastern front to deal with the bombers.


That's not necessarily true. German war production may not have been decreased significantly by bombing but the important point is that it did not climb anywhere near as rapidly as Anglo American or Soviet war production did during the war. That reduction in the increase can be attributed primarily to the inefficiencies in production caused by bombing of factories, transport links, dispersion of production and killing/dehousing of the workforce.

[JVeld]

Interesting article....and I must say that I agree with it almost totally !

[foxtrot023]

I agree. We still would have defeated Germany and the Axis without the Soviets, however the Soviets helped shorten the war. Without them the war could have lasted another 3-5 years with hundreds of thousands more dead soldiers. IMO


You are kidding yourself, unless the US had mobilized for total war, and Japan not being a factor. With the existing levels of mobilization, it would have been very improbable a successful invasion could have been staged, for the simple fact that a further 150 german divs would have been available to repel the invasion (consider that the US army had only 89 divs mustered for WW2)

[foxtrot023]

@Foxtrot:

East, West and one part as a reserve in the Eastern front. The number always varied depending on the situation and transfers were made overwhelmingly to the eastern Front (even though the greatest numerical transfer was made in august 1944 from the Eastern Front to the Western ~ 360 000 troops were removed from their Ukrainians positions to reinforce the Fifth and the 21st n Divisions causing great havoc in Army Group Centre and rendering it defenceless against Operation Bagration).

Old soak buddy you have to understand this. LL was the political price to pay for the Allies and the Soviets along with Soviet weapons to be inspected by the Allies. And the case was that the USSR had already moved a lot of its war machine eastwards…recent French and German works show the soviets were not at all exhausted after WW2 even worse they were already planning the rebuilding process. The game appeared clearly when the allies cut the negotiation in Potsdam about the War reparations, Stalin didn’t even noticed the threats of insolvability of the allies. He went for a full scale confrontation

).


FF

Those a some mighty points you raised, unfortunely you seem to pull them out of thin air!

here are the facts and references-

First of all your percentages are a bit mixed up. While I tend to find them wrong it could be because the Heer is the Army not the entire German military. Further more it can be explained by the proportions the Waffen SS took in the 2 last years. For instance the Waffen SS inflated from a special and auxiliary corps (350 000 men in black, yeah I know it isn’t funny, in 1941) to a fully dedicated wing of the German military eating btw the Fshj (German paras) regiments (1 850 000 men including Volks from Poland, Rumania, Hungary and the rest of Europe December 1943).

Mix up, hummm, let us see deployments-

According to the source, OKH Kriegsgliederung of June 18th there were 145 german divisions (including 4 ss divs) poised in front of the USSR, plus another 8 german divs in Finland. That makes out for a total of 145+8= 153 out of 208 total german divisions 153/208= .735 times 100 gives you 74%. So in June 1941 there were 74% of all total available german divisions in the Eastern front (soon to be).

That gives a total german strength in numbers of 3.2 million soldiers (source- Albert Seaton's The Russo German war, p.62, himself quoting the OKH Kriegsgliederung). That number does not include a further equivalent of 40 allied divisions (Finnish, Romanian, Italian, Hungarian, etc).

So 74% (yeah I said 75%, mea culpa) of the german divisions- check


So I don’t see where you got your numbers of 60 % of the Heer in the Eastern Front and 40% in the Western front since the Heer forces were always split in three non-proportional parts.

I have to develop my numbers there, I agree. As I am sure you are aware of, the theatres, for the germans were divided in 1943 as OKW and the eastern front OKH ( I might be wrong, as I am doing this from memory). According to the source- Kriegstagebuch des OKW, vol 3, Dec. 1943, pp1393-4, There were 2.8 million men in Russia and 2.4 million elsewhere, for a total of 5.2 million men, divided as 46% and 54%, if you put in the folks in Finland that shifted the percentages to 3 million in the East and 2.2 million elsewhere for a percentage of 58% and 42%, which I rounded to 60% and 40%.

I find your sources to be a bit unclear on this. Specially since I did not mentioned the Luftwaffe nor the Kriegsmarine, but the Heer and other land units.



Foxtrot...you'd be stunned to know that the RKKA was largely Hippomobile! The Mobility you're speaking about was largely absent this explains how Vatutin failed to "capitalize" on the defensive sucesses in Kursk as the tanks found themselves without infantry cover when they tried a spearhead into Prokhorovka! The Horses had been crazed out by the german bombardment and were out of action so the grunts had to walk till Prokhorovka...(and and the T-34 piggybacking was made only for theshow or for backtrailing never for troop transport into teh fireline


Lend Lease- Included 427,000 motor vehicles, 13,000 armoured vehicles, 35,000 motorcycles and 1,900 locomotives (with 11,000 railroad trucks). Hardly hippomobile!



The soviets had to accept LL in order to prove the USA they were weak and needed help. I don’t think the US would have agreed to send war materiel (of rather bad quality or useless under those circumstances in the beginning) if they knew the soviets were in good shape economically.


Funny that Stalin insisted so much on Lend Lease, specially when you consider that it made up for 64% of the motor pool (665,000 vehicles out of which 427,000 were provided by the US), 10% of the total soviet tank production (which I agree, generally they were inferior to german designs, but they in turn were superior to the T-60 and other russian designs), 12% of soviet aircraft. At the Teheran conference Stalin boasted that soviet success was due to the ability to move 60 divs from theatre to theatre- Guess who provided the vehicles for that mobility?). I am even not going to discuss the importance of high octane gas, nor all the foodstuff and clothing that the West gave to the USSR.

So as I said before, defeating the Germans was a team effort.

[ClydeFrog]

x2

War started in 39, Allies landed in 44, when Red Army was in full speed heading toward the Berlin.

Id say, the D-Day was to save the Europe from USSR rather Germans. rofl

You realize Stalin asked for the invasion if not even demanded it :roll:

[Hydro]

You realize Stalin asked for the invasion if not even demanded it :roll:


..and that the Allies landed in FRANCE in 1944, after fighting in Africa, Sicily, the Far East, Italy, not to mention the European countries fighting in 1939/1940.


It's kind of sickening to see the most destructive conflict in human history being used in a game of International one-upmanship about who "won".

[Friendly Fire]

FF

Those a some mighty points you raised, unfortunely you seem to pull them out of thin air!

here are the facts and references-


Mix up, hummm, let us see deployments-

According to the source, OKH Kriegsgliederung of June 18th there were 145 german divisions (including 4 ss divs) poised in front of the USSR, plus another 8 german divs in Finland. That makes out for a total of 145+8= 153 out of 208 total german divisions 153/208= .735 times 100 gives you 74%. So in June 1941 there were 74% of all total available german divisions in the Eastern front (soon to be).

That gives a total german strength in numbers of 3.2 million soldiers (source- Albert Seaton's The Russo German war, p.62, himself quoting the OKH Kriegsgliederung). That number does not include a further equivalent of 40 allied divisions (Finnish, Romanian, Italian, Hungarian, etc).

So 74% (yeah I said 75%, mea culpa) of the german divisions- check



I have to develop my numbers there, I agree. As I am sure you are aware of, the theatres, for the germans were divided in 1943 as OKW and the eastern front OKH ( I might be wrong, as I am doing this from memory). According to the source- Kriegstagebuch des OKW, vol 3, Dec. 1943, pp1393-4, There were 2.8 million men in Russia and 2.4 million elsewhere, for a total of 5.2 million men, divided as 46% and 54%, if you put in the folks in Finland that shifted the percentages to 3 million in the East and 2.2 million elsewhere for a percentage of 58% and 42%, which I rounded to 60% and 40%.

I find your sources to be a bit unclear on this. Specially since I did not mentioned the Luftwaffe nor the Kriegsmarine, but the Heer and other land units.



Lend Lease- Included 427,000 motor vehicles, 13,000 armoured vehicles, 35,000 motorcycles and 1,900 locomotives (with 11,000 railroad trucks). Hardly hippomobile!



Funny that Stalin insisted so much on Lend Lease, specially when you consider that it made up for 64% of the motor pool (665,000 vehicles out of which 427,000 were provided by the US), 10% of the total soviet tank production (which I agree, generally they were inferior to german designs, but they in turn were superior to the T-60 and other russian designs), 12% of soviet aircraft. At the Teheran conference Stalin boasted that soviet success was due to the ability to move 60 divs from theatre to theatre- Guess who provided the vehicles for that mobility?). I am even not going to discuss the importance of high octane gas, nor all the foodstuff and clothing that the West gave to the USSR.

So as I said before, defeating the Germans was a team effort.

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool!


Motor pool? Which motor pool? So According to your point the Soviets were supposed to have 600 000+ vehicles all along the war? They also had 900 000 horses, and Even 50 000 Bulls/traction animals! (Forster/ Hobsbawm) These 600 000 vehicles were supposedly used to move troops? These 600 000 vehicles were never hit, destroyed, of course they were american...But wait a minute so why Soviet soldiers marched on foot? With 600 000+ vehicles there were 1 vehicle for ... 40 Soviet soldiers...(when the numbers are taken as a whole!). IF these numbers are segmented... We find out that during 41 and 42 only 33 000 Vehicles were sent! The soviet troops total was around 14 million in 1942! Just tell me where this mobility of yours was?

Check your numbers before speaking! Trucks were for Guns, AA, wounded, and material transport!


I will reply to your points more thouroughly later but just a small point. The US designs were nowhere near the Soviet designs tankwise. Even British Valentines were preferred to the 75mm Sherman!

Of and about high octane fuel...gosh those BBqued soviet soldiers should thank the US LL effort!

[Friendly Fire]

Took the words right outta my mouth. And let's not forget the USSR was selling petroleum out of the occupied Manchuria area (as well as Soviet Sakhalin I believe)to the Japanese, while the US was fighting the Japanese while the US was supplying the USSR with LL. Agh. A very tangled web pretty much everywhere you look.


Sakhalin was half occupied by the Japanese since 1905 and Manchuria was under complete Japanese control. Not a single drom of oil was sold from the USSR to Japan!

[Kilgor]

Sakhalin was half occupied by the Japanese since 1905 and Manchuria was under complete Japanese control. Not a single drom of oil was sold from the USSR to Japan!

Before you claimed the USSR never sold oil to germany. I dont think you have much credibility or authority on this subject.

[Lokos]

As for facing the fascist threat, I seem to remember the soviet union was allied to nazi germany even when poland, france, the low countries, and the UK were attacked and invaded. The soviet raw materials and fuel traded at the time were directly used in the murder and conquest of these countries.

Even you should understand well that the 'alliance' was a play for time, and that Stalin and his advisors sought a reprieve until at least mid 1942 before the onset of hostilities, following RKKA performance in the Far East and, subsequently, Finland. The wargames held in 1939-1940 had Zhukov - commanding the 'blue' forces of Germany - defeating the 'red' forces every time. This was no small shock.

By this token, why not lambast the United States and the UK, who were perfectly willing to involve themselves in 'minor' campaigns, until they were good and ready to undertake the major ones.

If I recall correctly, Mr. Chamberlain, too, undertook a series of measures intended to at least stave off war until Britain was ready. Cowardice, prudence, or both?


If it wasn't for the Western Allies pounding German infrastructure and military industrial complexes / factories with airpower 24 hrs a day the Soviets would probally have crumbled under the Nazi boot.

You realise that German industrial production skyrocketed from 1941 into 1942, and then again into 1943, finally culminating in December of 1944, yes? The Western Allied bombing campaign tied up increasing numbers of Germany's fighter groups and flak guns. The bombing campaign itself had almost no effect in the crisis years of 1941 and 1942. Only from 1944 did it start having a tangible impact of sorts. Yet German production still did not slow down until German industrial areas began falling.


However 4/5 of the luftwaffe, thousands of flak guns,millions of shells and at least 500K of manpower was taken away from the eastern front to deal with the bombers

Do not pretend that the manpower was combat capable in the same sense as troops destined for the Eastern Front.


bombing but the important point is that it did not climb anywhere near as rapidly as Anglo American or Soviet war production did during the war.

Relatively speaking, actually, it did. It could not go any faster, as there were industrial bottlenecks that could not be overcome through sheer stubborness. The lack of necessary resources had a far greater impact on German industrial production than the bombing campaign.


That reduction in the increase can be attributed primarily to the inefficiencies in production caused by bombing of factories, transport links, dispersion of production and killing/dehousing of the workforce.

No, it can't, actually.


So in June 1941 there were 74% of all total available german divisions in the Eastern front (soon to be).


And 90% of Germany's combat capable formations.


According to the source- Kriegstagebuch des OKW, vol 3, Dec. 1943, pp1393-4, There were 2.8 million men in Russia and 2.4 million elsewhere, for a total of 5.2 million men, divided as 46% and 54%, if you put in the folks in Finland that shifted the percentages to 3 million in the East and 2.2 million elsewhere for a percentage of 58% and 42%, which I rounded to 60% and 40%.


Again, we should only concern ourselves with combat capable elements of the Heer and the Wehrmacht in general.


Lend Lease- Included 427,000 motor vehicles, 13,000 armoured vehicles, 35,000 motorcycles and 1,900 locomotives (with 11,000 railroad trucks). Hardly hippomobile!


Relatively speaking, that still puts the USSR as the least motorized of all the combatants.


but they in turn were superior to the T-60 and other russian designs)

The T-60 and T-70 were light tanks, and not in the same category as most LL tanks - which could not perform their role in the first place.


They also had 900 000 horses

Far more than that.


Before you claimed the USSR never sold oil to germany. I dont think you have much credibility or authority on this subject

One should speak for one's self.

Lokos

[sferrin]

You are kidding yourself, unless the US had mobilized for total war, and Japan not being a factor. With the existing levels of mobilization, it would have been very improbable a successful invasion could have been staged, for the simple fact that a further 150 german divs would have been available to repel the invasion (consider that the US army had only 89 divs mustered for WW2)

Once the US had nukes though I'd think that would have changed the picture considerably.

[California Joe]

Wow, another WW2 **** measuring contest. Hey Lokos, we get one of these, what, every month or so? :)

I never get why it's so hard for the uneducated nationalistic types to get that everyone kinda had a dog in the fight and that is a good thing.

[Fade]

I think one thing we can agree safely on, is that the Russians' suffering was legendary.

[Lokos]

Hey Lokos, we get one of these, what, every month or so?

I never get why it's so hard for the uneducated nationalistic types to get that everyone kinda had a dog in the fight and that is a good thing.

Yep, every month sounds about right.

Anyone who doesn't see that the relatively united effort of the WA and the Soviets was the most rapid way of achieving victory is blind, at best.

Lokos

[Alan]

I don't want to get into the argument, but here's an interesting tid-bit.

Of all the Soviet republics, Ossetia had the highest percentage of people[per population comparatively] who received the "Hero of the Soviet Union" award. We got 36 of them.

I don't think any one of them is alive today however, which is sad.

[Friendly Fire]

Before you claimed the USSR never sold oil to germany. I dont think you have much credibility or authority on this subject.


It sold Naphta ...you dumkopf it's not oil! It's a derivative of unreffined oil that the germans used to synthetically produce oil! Not to mention they used it for their BUNA! Kilgor even though I would have been wrong on that peculiar point ( i wasn't but what ever) How could the Soviets sell oil extracted from a fortified entrenched island and Japanese occupied territory!

Edit: Lokos it's not being blind it's completely rewieving the war effort!

As it stands today the mythical D-day landing has been beaten to death by german researchers, yet the mainstream knowledge in the "West" will always boast LL, D-Day, the Bulge and other stuff (not to mention that proportionally speaking some advances were just to slow! One year for half of Italy. 40 days for Iwo Jima, No attack on chinese territory that could have been proved far more efficient in having a launch pad to Japan).

And here people call for suffering of the "Russians"! Damn it was no suffering it was a complete reformation of the RKKA after dumkopf Stalin had some Paranoidal crisis! Russians blood, Us material, British Time! et it's wrong! Time was won by the relative impreparedness of the German Economy to Sustain an all out war! Time was won by the burden the german economy took by organising a Gencide and also by the sabotages inside this genocidal economy). There are so much factors gung ho westerners ignore that it's becoming laughable.

[Liptow]

well if you subtract the LL going to UK, UK should collapse early in the war. Withou the UK, landing in Europe should be almost impossible. Without UK, no strategic bombing should go on. Without it, German air force would not bleed over the Reich, but concentrate on the Eastern front and German productions should go unhampered. 2mil of flak troops and ten thousand of their 88mm guns should be used on East.
All three members - UK, US and USSR were inevitable for victory.

[Lokos]

Edit: Lokos it's not being blind it's completely rewieving the war effort!


If your position is that the USSR would have triumphed against Germany in the same timeframe as was historical without assistance from the Western Allies then, I'm sorry, but you are wilfully blinding yourself. I am of the opinion the USSR would have triumphed in any case - but certainly not by May 1945.


Time was won by the relative impreparedness of the German Economy to Sustain an all out war!

Time was won by feeding unprepared reserve armies into the meatgrinder of the Russo-German front. Had these armies not been there to be, quite literally, sacrificed en masse, the Germans would have had sufficient materiel to subjugate the Soviet Union.

I grant you, this time was used to reform the RKKA in early 1942, and then again in early 1943, before the final reforms of 1944 - when most postwar TO&Es were formulated.


yet the mainstream knowledge in the "West" will always boast LL, D-Day, the Bulge and other stuff

So rebuff the boasting with fact - not more boasting.

It's of no use to go from one extreme to another.


Time was won by the burden the german economy took by organising a Gencide and also by the sabotages inside this genocidal economy). There are so much factors gung ho westerners ignore that it's becoming laughable.

Here you are simply mistaken.


but concentrate on the Eastern front and German productions should go unhampered.

German production was, more or less, unhampered, in any case. Why don't you have a look at Bomber Command's estimations of damage to German industry by daytime/nighttime bombing?

Lokos

[Friendly Fire]

If your position is that the USSR would have triumphed against Germany in the same timeframe as was historical without assistance from the Western Allies then, I'm sorry, but you are wilfully blinding yourself. I am of the opinion the USSR would have triumphed in any case - but certainly not by May 1945.



Time was won by feeding unprepared reserve armies into the meatgrinder of the Russo-German front. Had these armies not been there to be, quite literally, sacrificed en masse, the Germans would have had sufficient materiel to subjugate the Soviet Union.

I grant you, this time was used to reform the RKKA in early 1942, and then again in early 1943, before the final reforms of 1944 - when most postwar TO&Es were formulated.



So rebuff the boasting with fact - not more boasting.

It's of no use to go from one extreme to another.



Here you are simply mistaken.



German production was, more or less, unhampered, in any case. Why don't you have a look at Bomber Command's estimations of damage to German industry by daytime/nighttime bombing?

Lokos

I'm not following you on the Timeframe... The Time frame would have already been quite similar if your recall the initial stage of LL. Furthermore Germany had not the capacity to control the USSR! And about material means...it's quite extreme to say they had such means!

Meat grinder? Wait are we speaking about a war? Just look at the Sino-Japanese war! The case is almost identical! The Agressed country defends it self with what it has. So I don't get your point! At the other hand. The means diverted for the Genocide of the jewish population had a profound impact on the German war machine. Expecially while you think a German worker was Two times more productive than a french STO! You'd argue that productivity is largely dependent on raw materials wich would probably come at what I told you: Germany was trying to take on bigger bull it means allowed to!

[Lokos]

I'm not following you on the Timeframe... The Time frame would have already been quite similar if your recall the initial stage of LL.

In a historical vacuum wherein the UK and the US don't exist to trouble Germany with bombing, Lend Lease and North African/Italian/French campaigns, your position is that the Soviet Union would have been victorious by May 1945?

Is that the gist of it?

What ifs are hopeless delusions and gratifications at the best of times. At worst, they are sinister manipulations of historical truth.


And about material means...it's quite extreme to say they had such means!


It was ferocious resistance by militia and the recently formed reserve armies - coupled with one of the coldest winters on record in the Soviet Union - that put a stop to the German advance; not a lack of materiel. Without the reserve armies, especially, what would there have been to stop the Germans after Smolensk?

The RKKA, as it stood in June 1941, was destroyed inside the Western Military District. Its reformation required the bitter sacrifice of millions of reserve army soldiers. That Stalin expended carefully garnered strategic reserves on a useless offensive across the entire three thousand mile front is a whole different story.


Meat grinder? Wait are we speaking about a war? Just look at the Sino-Japanese war!

Meat grinder more or less equates to a war of attrition. Not the kind of war the Germans preferred, to be sure.


The means diverted for the Genocide of the jewish population had a profound impact on the German war machine.

No, it didn't. Where are you getting this information from?

If anything, the slave labour of Jewish concentration camp victims helped keep the war machine going as late as 1945 (when Germany employed seven million slave labourers of Jewish, French, Italian, Yugoslav, Polish and Soviet extraction), as more and more German men were drafted into the Wehrmacht and taken away from the war industries. German women, unlike in Britain, the US and the Soviet Union, did not take over the industrial jobs of German men as readily.


You'd argue that productivity is largely dependent on raw materials wich would probably come at what I told you: Germany was trying to take on bigger bull it means allowed to!

I have never argued otherwise.

No offense, but I grow uncertain that your mastery of English is sufficient to debate, in this matter, as I feel you have badly misinterpreted both the meaning and the tone of my arguments.

Lokos

[Midav]

Man, these threads are getting old.

[Friendly Fire]

In a historical vacuum wherein the UK and the US don't exist to trouble Germany with bombing, Lend Lease and North African/Italian/French campaigns, your position is that the Soviet Union would have been victorious by May 1945?

Is that the gist of it?

What ifs are hopeless delusions and gratifications at the best of times. At worst, they are sinister manipulations of historical truth.



It was ferocious resistance by militia and the recently formed reserve armies - coupled with one of the coldest winters on record in the Soviet Union - that put a stop to the German advance; not a lack of materiel. Without the reserve armies, especially, what would there have been to stop the Germans after Smolensk?

The RKKA, as it stood in June 1941, was destroyed inside the Western Military District. Its reformation required the bitter sacrifice of millions of reserve army soldiers. That Stalin expended carefully garnered strategic reserves on a useless offensive across the entire three thousand mile front is a whole different story.



Meat grinder more or less equates to a war of attrition. Not the kind of war the Germans preferred, to be sure.



No, it didn't. Where are you getting this information from?

If anything, the slave labour of Jewish concentration camp victims helped keep the war machine going as late as 1945 (when Germany employed seven million slave labourers of Jewish, French, Italian, Yugoslav, Polish and Soviet extraction), as more and more German men were drafted into the Wehrmacht and taken away from the war industries. German women, unlike in Britain, the US and the Soviet Union, did not take over the industrial jobs of German men as readily.



I have never argued otherwise.

No offense, but I grow uncertain that your mastery of English is sufficient to debate, in this matter, as I feel you have badly misinterpreted both the meaning and the tone of my arguments.

Lokos

Lokos you contradict yourself. The time frame (aka known as context) was not outputting a direct 3rd Reich/USSR confrontation. Actually i'm pretty amazed how you jump from the realist POV to a probabilist one.

As it stood the German army would have never taken the risk of an eastern expansion was it only the fate of Germany and SU in stake.

There's the small problem with Uchronia (what you're referring to). You can't control it since it doesn't exist. Had the war started as you draw it, there would have been a lot of mismatch.

1. The Soviet regime wouldnt had purged it's CC chain (that was done partly because of Stalin Paranoia, partly of the failure the Soviet Ex corps had in Spain, partly because of the openning Stalin had with Hitler!).

2. The Soviet regime wouldn't had agreed on Poland if the Nazis were not to wage war on the Western allies!

3. The War was started partly of the Easy sucesses the Germans had on the diplomatic table against the Western allies. If Munich didn't existed the September 39 campaign woudn't had been possible for both of the belligerants!

I can keep up with this for ever (if the US and UK did not existed) but if you mean if the two major powers were only to assist the carnage then any time frame would have been wishful thinking.

And attrition war? Wait a minute I must repeat my self...is this about a war coming after "the Great War"? Lokos what are you thinking about? Oh mybe are you still believing on the nazi memo's (If the red army crumbles...) wait did the RKKA crumbled? Why didn't the germans got moscow then?

Hum and Lokos do you know what was the "service" duration of a STO or detainee in a KZ? Between two weeks and one month! After that the detainee was moved from a plant to another! Soviet POWs had the lowest output ratio at 0.35 of the average german worker (they also had the lowest duration)! These and other numbers are easliy available in the work of Mueller, Forster and Uberschar (as well as others). A good book is "Hitler war in the East. A critical assesment".

There are a lot of periodicals that you can look upon. "Revue d'histoire moderne et Contemporaine" is one of them, but I also consider a lot of other german sources.

But the Genocide did not eased the job of the German war machine it only provided the German induistrials with indecent profits.

A good detail of this can be found at "The architecture of oppression : the SS, forced labor and the Nazi monumental building economy" from Laskot or "Konzentrationslager und deutsche Wirtschaft 1939-1945" from Kaienburg.

I mean now you can doubt of my capacity to withstand (yes yes) a debate over germany in WW2. But I'm always open for debate. And on the wrong tone, I think you're not bad either. I never said the Soviets did it alone, I said that the Soviet war effort went unconsiderated in the "West" by the average man (probably a backlash of the CW)!

Edit: Please stop introducing winter in this debate. The winter had not a red star on his coat. It whipped both sides with equal zeal.

[Lokos]

The time frame (aka known as context) was not outputting a direct 3rd Reich/USSR confrontation.

What does that even mean? Like I said, I am having trouble understanding your English. 'Outputting' is not a term that even approximates correctness in the sense I believe you are utilizing it.


As it stood the German army would have never taken the risk of an eastern expansion was it only the fate of Germany and SU in stake.


What gives you that idea?


Had the war started as you draw it, there would have been a lot of mismatch.


Correction: That's how you're drawing it. Comprende? You are the one saying that the timeframe (June 1941 - May 1945) would have remained identical regardless of the involvement of the Western Allies. I have previously called this blindness. As my patience for you wears thin, I will call it what it is: idiocy.


1. The Soviet regime wouldnt had purged it's CC chain (that was done partly because of Stalin Paranoia, partly of the failure the Soviet Ex corps had in Spain, partly because of the openning Stalin had with Hitler!).


It was done out of Stalin's paranoia (no need for capitalization), not out of the 'failure' of the Soviet 'Ex corps' (whatever that's supposed to be) in Spain, and not out of warmer relations with Hitler. It would have happened regardless, is what I'm getting at.

State your proof to the contrary.


2. The Soviet regime wouldn't had agreed on Poland if the Nazis were not to wage war on the Western allies!

1) The Nazi invasion of Poland was not contingent on Soviet agreement.

2) The Soviets had the opportunity to go to unilateral war with Germany in 1938, when Czechoslovakia was destroyed.

3) The Soviet Union spent 1939-1941 desperately averting general war. Every piece of evidence we have supports this. Stalin wanted to heavily strengthen the RKKA before plunging the SU into conflict.


3. The War was started partly of the Easy sucesses the Germans had on the diplomatic table against the Western allies. If Munich didn't existed the September 39 campaign woudn't had been possible for both of the belligerants!


In what sense?

Your statements border on bewildering. You offer no evidence, merely assertions that go against the established grain of WW2 historiographical narrative.


And attrition war? Wait a minute I must repeat my self...is this about a war coming after "the Great War"? Lokos what are you thinking about? Oh mybe are you still believing on the nazi memo's (If the red army crumbles...) wait did the RKKA crumbled? Why didn't the germans got moscow then?


Are you smoking crack?

The lessons of the 'Great War' notwithstanding, by October 1941 the Eastern Front had become a battle of attrition wherein Soviet reserve armies were sequentially fielded and in turn destroyed, reformed and refielded - all the while wearing away Germany's elite panzer, motorized and infantry formations.

I have already told you why the Germans didn't get to Moscow. The rest of the quoted passage makes no sense.


Hum and Lokos do you know what was the "service" duration of a STO or detainee in a KZ? Between two weeks and one month! After that the detainee was moved from a plant to another! Soviet POWs had the lowest output ratio at 0.35 of the average german worker (they also had the lowest duration)! These and other numbers are easliy available in the work of Mueller, Forster and Uberschar (as well as others). A good book is "Hitler war in the East. A critical assesment".


Utterly inconsequential. How does anything raised above in any way impinge on what I've already said?


But the Genocide did not eased the job of the German war machine it only provided the German induistrials with indecent profits.

Since German men were largely in the field (21% mobilization rate - enormous by any standard), and German women were not being put to work on any scale, irrespective of the output of slave labourers they - by their very definition - aided Germany's war economy by providing unpaid industrial and infrastructural labour.

Which part of this are you having difficulty with?


I never said the Soviets did it alone, I said that the Soviet war effort went unconsiderated in the "West" by the average man (probably a backlash of the CW)!


And I never said otherwise. Quote me, if you feel that is the case.


Edit: Please stop introducing winter in this debate. The winter had not a red star on his coat. It whipped both sides with equal zeal.

Whilst both sides suffered from the winter of 1941, the Soviets were more equipped to deal with its effects - both in their seminal experiences with such climates and the appropriate equipment of the Far Eastern and Siberian formations, especially. Furthermore, German advantages in motorization and armour (very ****ounced in November 1941-January 1942) were corroded away by the winter. Not to mention the issue of extraordinarily long supply lines that were very much so disrupted by the cold. The Soviets, on the other hand, were working from near their railheads and supply depots.

I do not - by any means - disparage the efforts of the Soviet soldier to halt Germany's greatest offensive. In fact, on MP.net, I am considered one of the most pro-Soviet members.

However, attributing Germany's failure solely to Soviet resistance is a fabrication - considering the limitations of raspu****a and winter on operational manoeuvre.

Lokos

[Friendly Fire]

What does that even mean? Like I said, I am having trouble understanding your English. 'Outputting' is not a term that even approximates correctness in the sense I believe you are utilizing it.



What gives you that idea?



Correction: That's how you're drawing it. Comprende? You are the one saying that the timeframe (June 1941 - May 1945) would have remained identical regardless of the involvement of the Western Allies. I have previously called this blindness. As my patience for you wears thin, I will call it what it is: idiocy.



It was done out of Stalin's paranoia (no need for capitalization), not out of the 'failure' of the Soviet 'Ex corps' (whatever that's supposed to be) in Spain, and not out of warmer relations with Hitler. It would have happened regardless, is what I'm getting at.

State your proof to the contrary.



1) The Nazi invasion of Poland was not contingent on Soviet agreement.

2) The Soviets had the opportunity to go to unilateral war with Germany in 1938, when Czechoslovakia was destroyed.

3) The Soviet Union spent 1939-1941 desperately averting general war. Every piece of evidence we have supports this. Stalin wanted to heavily strengthen the RKKA before plunging the SU into conflict.



In what sense?

Your statements border on bewildering. You offer no evidence, merely assertions that go against the established grain of WW2 historiographical narrative.



Are you smoking crack?

The lessons of the 'Great War' notwithstanding, by October 1941 the Eastern Front had become a battle of attrition wherein Soviet reserve armies were sequentially fielded and in turn destroyed, reformed and refielded - all the while wearing away Germany's elite panzer, motorized and infantry formations.

I have already told you why the Germans didn't get to Moscow. The rest of the quoted passage makes no sense.



Utterly inconsequential. How does anything raised above in any way impinge on what I've already said?



Since German men were largely in the field (21% mobilization rate - enormous by any standard), and German women were not being put to work on any scale, irrespective of the output of slave labourers they - by their very definition - aided Germany's war economy by providing unpaid industrial and infrastructural labour.

Which part of this are you having difficulty with?



And I never said otherwise. Quote me, if you feel that is the case.



Whilst both sides suffered from the winter of 1941, the Soviets were more equipped to deal with its effects - both in their seminal experiences with such climates and the appropriate equipment of the Far Eastern and Siberian formations, especially. Furthermore, German advantages in motorization and armour (very ****ounced in November 1941-January 1942) were corroded away by the winter. Not to mention the issue of extraordinarily long supply lines that were very much so disrupted by the cold. The Soviets, on the other hand, were working from near their railheads and supply depots.

I do not - by any means - disparage the efforts of the Soviet soldier to halt Germany's greatest offensive. In fact, on MP.net, I am considered one of the most pro-Soviet members.

However, attributing Germany's failure solely to Soviet resistance is a fabrication - considering the limitations of raspu****a and winter on operational manoeuvre.

Lokos

Then you ignore the veracity of the german strength in 1938. You ignore the fact that an all out war of the Soviet union couple with it's involvment against Japan and Spain would have sparked a "Christian-Freedom Crusade". That's wy Stalin did not went on a war against Germany (even though it was in an active armed confrontation in Spain).

Assertions? What assertions? Oh the very fact that you push aside very lucid reports on the German situation while they went on an all out war against an ocean of land? These guys were never anywhere close to imagine what the USSR was! I provided you very important and recent works on how it went eastwards.

Then let's look at this...long supply lines? And how about bad planning? How about obvious risks when you attack the USSR in late June? Damn you get to the peculiar while forgetting the very obvious big picture of what the USSR was! I mean are you serious on your points? These guys were daydreaming.

So while not resisting (or poorly) the Soviet Soldiers did made possible the failure of the Blitzkrieg? How that? I mean there must be something I've not understood on your point.

Long supply lines? Bad winter? But what if the soviets had resisted (better)? There wouldn't had been any blitzkrieg? How come? So by winning early victories and having a huge burden on their paws (Around 5 million Soviet Pows and half that number of Jews) the whole Blitz kreg manoever was made easier? Off course says Lokos these guys were immediately put to Work and helped the Nazi war machine...(some one is forgetting the May orders of Adolf).

It's funny how you speak of historiography, you've never provided a single reference either. Oh yes as you put it, I was just vomiting a bunch of crap (yeah you said idiocies).

Now on Poland! Gosh You really support the case that the Soviet green light didn't allowed the Polish Invasion? Guess what I am not Russian, even not former soviet, but as you're speaking about historiography, then learn! The Ribentropp-Molotov pact was the Green light to both sides for expansion.

And Without the Allied fiasco (and now we know Chamberlain was expecting a Soviet reaction after Munich, Daladier even got mad with him by recalling him the Soviets were not going to bite) over the Volk Deutsche.

The Soviets just got it the Czarist way: We can't stop them by valor (questionnable) let's throw them men instead of bullets! And as in WW1 it worked. Now we're facing a double misfit here. Better prepared for the Rasputica? NO. You're not better prepared for the Rasputica if you're a kid or muzhik taken from his ordinary life. I mean damn you're completely wrong on this. There can't be any seminal experience...other wise how come the counter attack was so bad? Plus you should know there is no rasputica in mongolia...how mongolians are better prepared to it than germans?

This is a small part of the answer i'm preparing for you dear Sir.

[Smersh]

more about the pacific theatre...

according to new research. It was not the atomic bombs that forced japan to surrender. But the soviet unions declaration of war, and take over of manchuria. (fire bombing of japanese cities killed more people then the atomic bombs for instance) The Japanese military political elite were considering surrenduring to the soviet union under conditions of less then "unconditional surrender". With the soviet declaration of war, and their activity in manchuria, this ended Japans only remaining option other than total surrender.

No one claims it was the Soviet Union who beat japan and brough them to this state, it was of course mostly done by the United States in the island hoping campign. But japan's surrender when it did, was played in large part by Soviet involvement. Cold war historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (considered one of the world experts on japanese soviet relations) wrote a book on this: Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan

"In this groundbreaking book, Hasegawa argues that the atomic bombs were not as decisive in bringing about Japan's unconditional surrender as Soviet entry into the Pacific War. His challenging study...offers fresh evidence of how Japan's leaders viewed Stalin's entrance into the war as the decisive factor. "

[Kilgor]

more about the pacific theatre...

according to new research. It was not the atomic bombs that forced japan to surrender. But the soviet unions declaration of war, and take over of manchuria. (fire bombing of japanese cities killed more people then the atomic bombs for instance) The Japanese military political elite were considering surrenduring to the soviet union under conditions of less then "unconditional surrender". With the soviet declaration of war, and their activity in manchuria, this ended Japans only remaining option other than total surrender.

No one claims it was the Soviet Union who beat japan and brough them to this state, it was of course mostly done by the United States in the island hoping campign. But japan's surrender when it did, was played in large part by Soviet involvement. Cold war historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (considered one of the world experts on japanese soviet relations) wrote a book on this: Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan

"In this groundbreaking book, Hasegawa argues that the atomic bombs were not as decisive in bringing about Japan's unconditional surrender as Soviet entry into the Pacific War. His challenging study...offers fresh evidence of how Japan's leaders viewed Stalin's entrance into the war as the decisive factor. "

This is surprisingly also Stephen Ambrose's view.

[Lokos]

Then you ignore the veracity of the german strength in 1938.

Glantz, Erickson and others have all convincingly postulated that, in 1938, the USSR was in a position to wage a successful offensive against Germany.


You ignore the fact that an all out war of the Soviet union couple with it's involvment against Japan and Spain would have sparked a "Christian-Freedom Crusade".

Says who?


These guys were never anywhere close to imagine what the USSR was! I provided you very important and recent works on how it went eastwards.


Considering I do not concern myself with German delusions re: the Eastern Front, I am unsure as to what you mean. Most of my sources are Soviet. Specifically, the studies of the General Staff on the campaign of 1941/1942, not to mention Zhukov's impressions of the Moscow defensive operations.

Secondly, you provided me with no such 'recent works' of any importance.


Then let's look at this...long supply lines? And how about bad planning?

And how about green Martians? Who cares if it was bad planning? That it was bad planning is obvious; that does not mean that the supply lines weren't long. Understand?


How about obvious risks when you attack the USSR in late June?

As opposed to? I would think that there were obvious risks associated with attacking the USSR in any month.


I mean are you serious on your points? These guys were daydreaming.


And since I never said they weren't, your panties are getting caught up in a bunch over nothing in particular. Do you enjoy getting excited over nothing for its own sake?


So while not resisting (or poorly) the Soviet Soldiers did made possible the failure of the Blitzkrieg?

Where did I say that Soviet soldiers were not resisting, or resisting poorly?


But what if the soviets had resisted (better)?

The optimum Soviet performance would have had the RKKA halt the German offensive at the border, and then counter with a general offensive. This was the doctrine. The what if is of no consequence.


Around 5 million Soviet Pows

Where did you get that ridiculous figure? Nowhere near that number.


Off course says Lokos these guys were immediately put to Work and helped the Nazi war machine...(

Since Soviet prisoners were neither transported by train, nor were they adequately fed or housed (a tragedy resulting in a more than 80% death rate), they were not a particular burden on German rail and road networks.


It's funny how you speak of historiography, you've never provided a single reference either.

You didn't ask. What do you need references for? It's not as if I don't have them.


You really support the case that the Soviet green light didn't allowed the Polish Invasion?

Yes, actually.


The Ribentropp-Molotov pact was the Green light to both sides for expansion.


No it wasn't, actually.


(and now we know Chamberlain was expecting a Soviet reaction after Munich

The Soviets offered a joint action (punitive) against Germany - the WA refused. Chamberlain wasn't expecting anything.


Now we're facing a double misfit here. Better prepared for the Rasputica? NO. You're not better prepared for the Rasputica if you're a kid or muzhik taken from his ordinary life.

But you are if you use almost exclusively horse-drawn transport, and are operating from very near your railheads.


I mean damn you're completely wrong on this.

Yah-huh.


There can't be any seminal experience...other wise how come the counter attack was so bad?

Because Stalin ordered the attack across the entire front, as opposed to concentrating it against AGC?


Plus you should know there is no rasputica in mongolia...how mongolians are better prepared to it than germans?


Because the Far Eastern and Siberian troops were mostly ethnic Russians - not Mongolians.


This is a small part of the answer i'm preparing for you dear Sir.

You've got me shaking in my boots.

Lokos

[doomedllamaguy]

old news to everyone in Eastern Europe.jez even I knew that,and an`t even in Eastern Europe

[foxtrot023]

Yep, every month sounds about right.

Anyone who doesn't see that the relatively united effort of the WA and the Soviets was the most rapid way of achieving victory is blind, at best.

Lokos


Meh, a good arguement once in a while does stir up the blood, and makes for fine posting. I personally enjoy discussing with Lokos.

[foxtrot023]

Lokos


And 90% of Germany's combat capable formations.
True for 1941, still the numbers of divs quoted were the ones used, and represent the 74% of available divs.


Again, we should only concern ourselves with combat capable elements of the Heer and the Wehrmacht in general.

Once again, not to minimized soviet contribution to defeating Germany, but in late 1943 and early 1944, Hitler feared more a Western amphibious assault in Pas de Calais than the Soviet summer offensive, for the simple fact that France was an overnight drive away from germany, specifically the very sensitive Ruhr industrial area. So Hitler started reinforcing the western european divisions (which had until then, being used to replaced worn out Eastern front divisions). An example of this can be the creation of the 300 series divisions, which were rated A. True, there were a lot of the 700 series divisions in Western Europe- the so called static divisions- but that does not take away from the fact that high grade divisions were diverted and stationed in Western Europe at the end of 1943, divisions which could have been used in countering the soviet offensives in 1944 (could but by no means assured, of course)



Relatively speaking, that still puts the USSR as the least motorized of all the combatants.


Surely they USSR was more motorized than the German army, specially since many infantry divisions marched or depended on panjes. I will agree to the Red Army being less motorised than the US or UK armies, however that makes the LL contribution in motor vehicles more valuable.

[Lokos]

True for 1941, still the numbers of divs quoted were the ones used, and represent the 74% of available divs.


Fair enough.


but that does not take away from the fact that high grade divisions were diverted and stationed in Western Europe at the end of 1943, divisions which could have been used in countering the soviet offensives in 1944 (could but by no means assured, of course)


Whilst I do not dispute that there was a diversion of combat capable formations to Western Europe in late 1943 and early 1944, ten or fifteen more combat capable divisions in the East would have been a stop-gap measure - and certainly not enough to counter the Soviet offensives of 1944!


Surely they USSR was more motorized than the German army, specially since many infantry divisions marched or depended on panjes.

Relatively speaking, RKKA infantry formations (the bulk of the army) were even less motorized than the Wehrmacht, in general. Many operational halts in late 1944 can be more readily attributed to STAVKA allowing horsedrawn infantry to 'catch up' and, granted, for railheads to be moved up closer to the frontline.

Overall, though, the RKKA remained the least motorized of the combatants apart from the Japanese (which I forgot to mention).

Lokos

[Labud]

more about the pacific theatre...

according to new research. It was not the atomic bombs that forced japan to surrender. But the soviet unions declaration of war, and take over of manchuria. (fire bombing of japanese cities killed more people then the atomic bombs for instance) The Japanese military political elite were considering surrenduring to the soviet union under conditions of less then "unconditional surrender". With the soviet declaration of war, and their activity in manchuria, this ended Japans only remaining option other than total surrender.

No one claims it was the Soviet Union who beat japan and brough them to this state, it was of course mostly done by the United States in the island hoping campign. But japan's surrender when it did, was played in large part by Soviet involvement. Cold war historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (considered one of the world experts on japanese soviet relations) wrote a book on this: Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan

"In this groundbreaking book, Hasegawa argues that the atomic bombs were not as decisive in bringing about Japan's unconditional surrender as Soviet entry into the Pacific War. His challenging study...offers fresh evidence of how Japan's leaders viewed Stalin's entrance into the war as the decisive factor. "

For us in Eastern Europe, also the old news. The Americans with Chinese took the biggest part in Far east and Pacific, but the invasion of Manchuria by USSR was little, but main reason for Japanese capitulation.

[mi35d]

First point, time and time again I rail against the "D-Day" factor. The US and the British landed on the European Mainland in July of 1943. The blind ignorance of people in the WW2 debate always amazes me, especially when those on opposing views castigate the west for not invading until June of 44. The fight up the Italian *****ula took nearly a year and a half to complete. To brush these efforts aside does a disservice to the men who fought those bloody campaigns.

But japan's surrender when it did, was played in large part by Soviet involvement.

So what you're saying is that nearly four years of bloody war throughout the Pacific meant nothing to the defeat of Japan - it was just the mere thought that Russia might invade that magically caused them to capitulate? Why, silly us! We could have avoided Okinowa, Iwo Jima, The Phillipines, Luzon, Coral Sea, Miday, etc. etc. etc. We should have just stayed back and said, "Hey Japan - better surrender or Comrade Stalin will invade!".

Yep. Bombing their industry, railyards, seaports, supply lines and defeating them across the entire pacific ocean really didn't do much at all.

The two atomic bombs? Just a silly little thing. Didn't even worry the Japanese leadership at all. The US building up for an invasion of the mainland with everything we had available - not even a thought.

If you'd like to debate the European fight of WW2 and lay claim to the lion's share of victory you'll find some agreement but to even suggest that Russia had some major impact on the Pacific war is arrogance defined.

[Lokos]

Russia had some major impact on the Pacific war is arrogance defined.

Whilst the US and the Commonwealth gets the lion's share of the glory, the USSR did eliminate more than one million men from the Japanese roster within two weeks of combat. No small feat.

Lokos

[dondo]

wait.....the british were in WWII?

[Alan]

Whilst the US and the Commonwealth gets the lion's share of the glory, the USSR did eliminate more than one million men from the Japanese roster within two weeks of combat. No small feat.

Lokos


Yes, the Kwantoon[sp] army.

A million and something men in two weeks.

Also, for those that say 'Why would Japan so fear Russia after all the damage the US already did?"

Easy.

The US occupied Japan and helped it out. Stalin would've massacared it.

[Smersh]

but to even suggest that Russia had some major impact on the Pacific war is arrogance defined.

you have blinders on? you take one quote from my post out of context and run wild. why don't you go re-read what I wrote.

[hammerlock]

Everyone did there part to defeat Germany, but the USSR did more. Without them there would be no German defeat, but the same can't be said of the US. Germany would of been defeat by the USSR if there was no US involvment. It would of been slower and loses higher. But they would still been beaten.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Whilst the US and the Commonwealth gets the lion's share of the glory, the USSR did eliminate more than one million men from the Japanese roster within two weeks of combat. No small feat.

Lokos

you have a link to that info? im assuming the majority were POW's...? saw the wiki article on it but it didnt give figures

[TR1]

you have a link to that info? im assuming the majority were POW's...? saw the wiki article on it but it didnt give figures
yes the vast majority were POWs.
a lot of wounded too,
and approximatly 60,000 dead.

[Smersh]

So what if a majority where POWs?

here is more about the manchurian campign:

http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp Strategic

http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz4/glantz4.asp Tactical

"For those who dismiss the campaign as a walkover of an already defeated enemy, LTC Glantz presents overwhelming evidence of tenacious, often suicidal, Japanese resistance. The sophistication of Soviet operations made an admittedly inferior Japanese Kwantung Army appear even more feeble than it actually was. Reminiscent of the lightning German victory in northwest Europe in May 1940..."

[Lokos]

you have a link to that info? im assuming the majority were POW's...? saw the wiki article on it but it didnt give figures

Search up Ft. Leavenworth Papers on Google. Find 'Operation August Storm', the strategic study done by Col. David Glantz. And discover what the Americans drew on for inspiration for Desert Storm (ever wonder why they didn't call it Desert Sword?).

A strategic Cannae, in essence, rivalling Barbarossa itself in scope, and outshining it in results.

That's not to say the Japanese were pushovers. They offered fanatical resistance - and skillful resistance, too. But the Soviets had the advantage in technical means and operational skill.

Lokos

[Lokos]

Damn you, Smersh :)

Lokos

[foxtrot023]

Everyone did there part to defeat Germany, but the USSR did more. Without them there would be no German defeat, but the same can't be said of the US. Germany would of been defeat by the USSR if there was no US involvment. It would of been slower and loses higher. But they would still been beaten.


That is up to debate. Personally I would have it as unlikely that the USSR alone could have beaten German, if no US nor UK involvement, not impossible mind you, but unlikely.

[foxtrot023]

Search up Ft. Leavenworth Papers on Google. Find 'Operation August Storm', the strategic study done by Col. David Glantz. And discover what the Americans drew on for inspiration for Desert Storm (ever wonder why they didn't call it Desert Sword?).

A strategic Cannae, in essence, rivalling Barbarossa itself in scope, and outshining it in results.

That's not to say the Japanese were pushovers. They offered fanatical resistance - and skillful resistance, too. But the Soviets had the advantage in technical means and operational skill.

Lokos

Now now Lokos, it was a brilliant plan, with almost flawless execution, but not a Barbarossa. Numbers and objectives were different.

The Japanese were no pushovers, however they were not a mechanized or even a tank heavy army either.

[doomedllamaguy]

wait.....the british were in WWII?you did`t know that!or were you being sarcastic?

[Labud]

First point, time and time again I rail against the "D-Day" factor. The US and the British landed on the European Mainland in July of 1943. The blind ignorance of people in the WW2 debate always amazes me, especially when those on opposing views castigate the west for not invading until June of 44. The fight up the Italian *****ula took nearly a year and a half to complete. To brush these efforts aside does a disservice to the men who fought those bloody campaigns.

But japan's surrender when it did, was played in large part by Soviet involvement.

So what you're saying is that nearly four years of bloody war throughout the Pacific meant nothing to the defeat of Japan - it was just the mere thought that Russia might invade that magically caused them to capitulate? Why, silly us! We could have avoided Okinowa, Iwo Jima, The Phillipines, Luzon, Coral Sea, Miday, etc. etc. etc. We should have just stayed back and said, "Hey Japan - better surrender or Comrade Stalin will invade!".

Yep. Bombing their industry, railyards, seaports, supply lines and defeating them across the entire pacific ocean really didn't do much at all.

The two atomic bombs? Just a silly little thing. Didn't even worry the Japanese leadership at all. The US building up for an invasion of the mainland with everything we had available - not even a thought.

If you'd like to debate the European fight of WW2 and lay claim to the lion's share of victory you'll find some agreement but to even suggest that Russia had some major impact on the Pacific war is arrogance defined.

I said that USSR had a little impact on the Pacific and the Far east, but it was, as we in Serbia said, "the drop that poured out the glass". On the European front, I' ve said that allies were landed in Europe (september 1943.) after the Kursk battle, after which Russians made rapid offensive.

[Friendly Fire]

Fair enough.



Whilst I do not dispute that there was a diversion of combat capable formations to Western Europe in late 1943 and early 1944, ten or fifteen more combat capable divisions in the East would have been a stop-gap measure - and certainly not enough to counter the Soviet offensives of 1944!



Relatively speaking, RKKA infantry formations (the bulk of the army) were even less motorized than the Wehrmacht, in general. Many operational halts in late 1944 can be more readily attributed to STAVKA allowing horsedrawn infantry to 'catch up' and, granted, for railheads to be moved up closer to the frontline.

Overall, though, the RKKA remained the least motorized of the combatants apart from the Japanese (which I forgot to mention).

Lokos


You forgot the Chinese... as for the Huge answer I'm actually putting it in form, watch your M box.

I got up this morning and rehearsed the whole topic. One thing struck me.
We're on the same side fighting about a worthless argument. The war is over! End of story.


This doesn't mean I won't discuss your point about germans having the ability to control the USSR.

Cheers.

[Lokos]

Now now Lokos, it was a brilliant plan, with almost flawless execution, but not a Barbarossa. Numbers and objectives were different

I don't know, the frontage was similar, though the numbers were smaller. The depth of the objectives was immense. The execution was far superior.

I suppose it was a bit over the top to call it what I did.

I retract the earlier statement.

Lokos

[Lokos]

We're on the same side fighting about a worthless argument.

My friend, I've beent trying to tell you that for some time, now.


This doesn't mean I won't discuss your point about germans having the ability to control the USSR.


I never said the Germans had such an ability.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

Whilst the US and the Commonwealth gets the lion's share of the glory, the USSR did eliminate more than one million men from the Japanese roster within two weeks of combat. No small feat.

Lokos

I thought the figure of Japanese fighting power was closer to 600,000.

The divisions in Manchuria would have been the absolute bottom of the manpower barrel after the pacific war. No medium or heavy tanks, no heavy or medium artillery, no worthwhile AT guns, and only training and obsolete aircraft.

[Lokos]

I thought the figure of Japanese fighting power was closer to 600,000.


More than 750,000 Japanese, as well as several hundred thousand Manchurian and Korean auxilliaries who were on the Japanese roster.


No medium or heavy tanks, no heavy or medium artillery, no worthwhile AT guns

Some heavy artillery, substantial medium artillery. No AT guns worth their salt, though. They compensated with what the Soviets called 'smertniki'. Men who strapped kilos of HE to their chests and close assaulted (via a suicide run) Soviet tanks.


The divisions in Manchuria would have been the absolute bottom of the manpower barrel after the pacific war.

Who just happened to offer some of the most fanatical resistance (when offered the opportunity to resist) of any combatant division in the war.

The Japanese who fought in Manchuria cannot be accused of being 'walk overs'.

Lokos

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Whilst the US and the Commonwealth gets the lion's share of the glory, the USSR did eliminate more than one million men from the Japanese roster within two weeks of combat. No small feat.

Lokos

Might not of been a small feat. But compared to the combined efforts of the Allies especially Australia and the US the Russian involvment was reletivly straightforward. And unlike the Western nations Russia did not have to go from island to island fighting in the most inhospitable jungles in the world. Even when the allies had command of the air and sea simply getting supplies to troops was a mission in itself. Then trying to implement offensives.

Having studied the battles in PNG closely they are a theorists dream. The battles back and forth of the Owen Stanly's have everything from fighting withdrawals, encirclments, stubborn defending, combined arms operations and air logistics that one could argue laid the foundation for the type of warfare that was experianced in Vietnam albeit without the Helicopters.

All this at a time when the Japanese Army was well supplied, had yet been defeated on land. Russia on the hand came into it when Japan could not even feed it's people properly. Let alone get any supplies to troops. Kind of takes the punch out of the Russian victory in Manchuria. Even though it was a well thought out and executed operation.

[oldsoak]

Truth is the Russians were the anvil and WA were the hammer - or the other way round if you prefer - and thankfully so. Think of history if the USSR had eventually occupied all of Germany, or if the Germans had won - or even if we had defeated the Germans and stood at the Russian border. Would we even be here to talk like this now ?

[Friendly Fire]

I thought the figure of Japanese fighting power was closer to 600,000.

The divisions in Manchuria would have been the absolute bottom of the manpower barrel after the pacific war. No medium or heavy tanks, no heavy or medium artillery, no worthwhile AT guns, and only training and obsolete aircraft.


Actually no, the divisions in Manchuria were the most willing to fight and probably the less affected by the Pacific Thatre. Not mentionning captured US materiel from the KMT/GMT army!

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Might not of been a small feat. But compared to the combined efforts of the Allies especially Australia and the US the Russian involvment was reletivly straightforward. And unlike the Western nations Russia did not have to go from island to island fighting in the most inhospitable jungles in the world. Even when the allies had command of the air and sea simply getting supplies to troops was a mission in itself. Then trying to implement offensives.

Having studied the battles in PNG closely they are a theorists dream. The battles back and forth of the Owen Stanly's have everything from fighting withdrawals, encirclments, stubborn defending, combined arms operations and air logistics that one could argue laid the foundation for the type of warfare that was experianced in Vietnam albeit without the Helicopters.

All this at a time when the Japanese Army was well supplied, had yet been defeated on land. Russia on the hand came into it when Japan could not even feed it's people properly. Let alone get any supplies to troops. Kind of takes the punch out of the Russian victory in Manchuria. Even though it was a well thought out and executed operation.

wow for once i think i can say im fully backing minardiau on this one...the US "island hopping" campaign in the pacific was probably the most brilliant, difficult and most amazing things in modern warfare. it was a logistical nightmare and it involved some of the largest aerial combat battles as well, because it was not an "asymmetrical" modern war by the US where we completely controlled the skies. this made shipping, allocation and distribution of supplies insane. without the advantage of heavy rail everything was carried by ship and the japanese had a navy as well to worry about. so it was a while before the US even had control for shipping troops and material. i think the pacific theatre is unmatched in brilliance, strategy and planning compared to anything in WWII.

the russian invasion of manchuria began August 8, 1945...bombing of Hiroshima August 6, 1945; bombing of Nagasaki August 9, 1945...the japanese were finished they knew that their war was over...the russians came in and gave a final blow to an army of a country that was in ruin (and with the perception of further ruin if they continued the war).

[Smersh]

......the japanese were finished they knew that their war was over...the russians came in and gave a final blow to an army of a country that was in ruin (and with the perception of further ruin if they continued the war).

your obviosly a bigger expert then Ambrose, Hasagawa, and Glantz.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

your obviosly a bigger expert then Ambrose, Hasagawa, and Glantz.

yeah im sure they were confident the US WOULDNT use anymore of the most destructive power known on the earth at that time on them................again

[Brute]

Russia on the hand came into it when Japan could not even feed it's people properly. Let alone get any supplies to troops. Kind of takes the punch out of the Russian victory in Manchuria.

Does it really?

Was it the same weak, starving Japan the US were so reluctant to invade because it was deemed to be too costly in terms of lives lost, so they resorted to nuking them instead? I'm sure that if such feat had been attempted by the US and they won, nobody would try to de-signify their efforts by portraying Japan as weak. But this is USSR we're talking about. They couldn't wipe their own asses let alone be able to conduct a brilliant military operation, right?


the japanese were finished they knew that their war was over...
I believe somebody must have forgotten to pass on the memo to the fanatical and suicidal Japanese encountered by the Soviets in Manchuria... the same weak and starving ones that would've made the US invasion of Japan so costly.

[Smersh]

yeah im sure they were confident the US WOULDNT use anymore of the most destructive power known on the earth at that time on them................again

As already pointed out on this thread, the fire bombing of dozens of japanese cities caused more destruction and larger civilian deaths then the atomic weapons.

good points, brute.

[Kilgor]

Actually no, the divisions in Manchuria were the most willing to fight and probably the less affected by the Pacific Thatre. Not mentionning captured US materiel from the KMT/GMT army!

So they managed to equip 25 or so divsions with captured material... remarkable !
Japanese industry was in ruin, and every supply ship would have been at the bottom of the ocean, any realistic supply of these troops was over.



Who just happened to offer some of the most fanatical resistance (when offered the opportunity to resist) of any combatant division in the war.

The Japanese who fought in Manchuria cannot be accused of being 'walk overs'.

Lokos



The japanese were never pushovers. Even armed with the ww1 standard weapons and meager supplies they were a fanatical force to be delt with. But the point must be made the Manchurian forces was at a different state of supply and strength those Japanese forces earlier in the war. However, I do not doubt their suicidal fighting spirit.

[Lokos]

And unlike the Western nations Russia did not have to go from island to island fighting in the most inhospitable jungles in the world.

The Soviets instead fought across terrain considered 'impassable' by every logical assessment of it. Please, read Glantz's paper on August Storm. Jungles are jungles, but the Manchurian campaign had challenges particular to it that do not lend themselves to that sort of comparison.


...the US "island hopping" campaign in the pacific was probably the most brilliant, difficult and most amazing things in modern warfare.

The 2.5 million men the Soviet Union assembled for August Storm were transported from Europe via TWO railways in the period of two months, their build up in the Far East was painstakingly hidden from observation (strategic maskirovka), every aspect of the campaign was then carefully articulated and planned, and each element of the invasion force was carefully modulated for its given task.

The Soviets then conducted a strategic Cannae - a feat not even attempted by the Germans at the height of their prowess - with hundreds of miles being covered each day by the lead elements of the 2nd Red Banner Army and others. They isolated and shut down formidable mountain defences with the minimum of time and expenditure of men and materiel.

They crossed ground that no sane man - i.e. a traditionally trained military theorist - would consider capable of supporting maneouvre operations.

This was but one campaign in a war fraught with massive, successful Soviet operations. You tell me, what was it about the island hopping campaign that was so much more impressive?

Note that I do not compare the two, as the comparisons are essentially worthless.

Lokos

[Sith]

Lokos, I have to disagree with you on comparisons. I believe they can be very useful. However, they have to be the right comparison.

You are absolutely correct that one can not compare the island hopping campaign to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. There are just too many differences. In order to make a successful comparison one must find a characteristically similar situation within a relatively close time frame.

By using comparison one can develop good questions to explore that they might not have asked when viewing their chosen event in isolation.

Thanks,
Sith

Quick question. How familiar are you with post-war (45-53ish) Soviet conventional military activities in relation to the formation of the Cold War? Specifically armor issues. This is something that is down the road a bit (year or two) but I would like to get your perspective on these activities sometime.

[Pvt.Anderson]

Anyone who has read historical books and information on WW2 will know that the Heer was defeated by the russians, that the major german defeats were done by the russians. However WW2 was a team victory if you will, specially in regards to Germany. To defeat them they were outproduced, outmanned and outgeneraled (on a strategic level). All allies contributed, some more in some areas than others, as per example, how the soviets took on the brunt of German army and Waffen SS troops, but I think that even without one of the big 3 (UK, US, USSR) the defeat of Germany would have been if not impossible, very hard.


Interesting data-

In June 1941, 75% of the German Heer was positioned against the USSR
In June 1944, 60% of the German Heer was positioned against the USSR
The Western Allies faced 1,000,000 German troops, the soviets faced over 3,000,000 German troops and allies (and those were 1942 type troops, younger, fitter and veterans of France, Balkans and Scadinavian conquests, wereas the 1944 type german troops usually were recruits with some veterans mixed in)

In the troops on the Eastern Front had been on France, there would not have been a D-Day, only a blood bath.

Maybe after Hitler claimed control of the armed forces ,before surely not .

[Lokos]

Quick question. How familiar are you with post-war (45-53ish) Soviet conventional military activities in relation to the formation of the Cold War? Specifically armor issues.

What is it you'd like to know?


Lokos, I have to disagree with you on comparisons.

Yeah, I meant this kind of comparison.

My bad.

[foxtrot023]

Maybe after Hitler claimed control of the armed forces ,before surely not .


Hitler was in strategic control of the armed forces from the start. Not only he decide when and to whom to declare war, he also slowed pz. divs like in Calais 1940, or changed whole armies from fronts, like the 2/3 Pz groups in the Eastern Front in the fall of 1941

[Murray B]

The way I heard it was Canada actually won the war but with a little help from our friends. Of course this view may be biased as hell.

The truth is that three countries played a critical role in defeating the Axis of Germany, Japan and Italy. In alphabetical order these are; Britain and friends, Russia and friends and, the U.S.A. and friends.

It seems to me that if any one of these three groups had so much as remained neutral then the war would have been lost.

Artsy historians don't realize it but if Britain remained neutral then the Axis would have had access to chromium and cobalt in southern Africa. The chromium would have allowed axial flow jet engines to be produced a couple of years sooner. Cobalt would have allowed for synthesizing diesel fuel from coal. Also, Soviet intelligence would not have been so good as it was since much of it came from Britain.

Diesel tanks and jets for the Axis could have made quite a difference on the Eastern front. Methinks the war would be lost without Britain.

The U.S. built thousands of every kind of thing from tanks to Spam. Even if the Sherman is not as good as a T34 for tank fighting it is still great for every other task. Trucks are also important and so are the aircraft. It is clear that the war would also have been lost without U.S. production and this is without even considering their military contributions.

Obviously, the war would also be lost without the Soviets. If the Soviets had remained neutral and allowed Axis forces to cross over to Alaska then all of North America would likely have fallen and Britain soon after. As it was, the Soviets fought the invasion and managed to stop an unstoppable force. Many millions of their citizens (mostly civilians) were killed doing this. Shockingly, most of these civilians were not legitimate targets but were murdered by terror troops.

The costs were very high but there was no other way. Allied armies with Shermans and Matildas on Germany's western flank would have done little to divert Panthers and Tigers from the eastern front. It might have reduced the number of PzIIIs with the L50 gun in the east but this would have made little difference overall. For the Soviets there was no way out. Despite their modesty they did eventually field large numbers of excellent soldiers with some of the best equipment in the world. They then drove the invaders all the way back to Berlin.

So it was the unlikely trio of the British Empire, the Soviet Republics and the U.S.A. that won the war. Together! [Or it was Canada if you like that new fangled revisionist history.]

[Smersh]

The U.S. built thousands of every kind of thing from tanks to Spam. Even if the Sherman is not as good as a T34 for tank fighting it is still great for every other task. Trucks are also important and so are the aircraft. It is clear that the war would also have been lost without U.S. production and this is without even considering their military contributions. There is no reason to think that if the United States stayed out of the war it would not have continued to provide military equipment to the Soviet Union and Britain.



Obviously, the war would also be lost without the Soviets. If the Soviets had remained neutral and allowed Axis forces to cross over to Alaska then all of North America would likely have fallen and Britain soon after. What??? Why would the Soviet Union allow Germany to freely pass through its territory? and if it did How exactly would they cross into Alaska? No tanks are going to cross thousands of miles of frozen tundra. How could supplies be shipped to troops involved in such a crazy operation


So it was the unlikely trio of the British Empire, the Soviet Republics and the U.S.A. that won the war. Together! [Or it was Canada if you like that new fangled revisionist history.] No one is saying the contratry of course, all the allied nations made contributions. But they weren't necessarly all equal.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

As already pointed out on this thread, the fire bombing of dozens of japanese cities caused more destruction and larger civilian deaths then the atomic weapons.

good points, brute.

doesn't matter...its the psychological impact of the weapon that gave it its true power...tens upon tens of thousands of casualties in seconds

[Smersh]

Thats true, but it didn't have much of a impact on fanatical japanese military-political leaders. according to many historians.

[Murray B]

There is no reason to think that if the United States stayed out of the war it would not have continued to provide military equipment to the Soviet Union and Britain.

I'm saying if they had not sent the supplies then the war would be lost.


Why would the Soviet Union allow Germany to freely pass through its territory? and if it did How exactly would they cross into Alaska? No tanks are going to cross thousands of miles of frozen tundra. How could supplies be shipped to troops involved in such a crazy operation

They wouldn't but if they wanted to remain neutral then that might have been the cost of neutrality. The Axis forces would cross the narrow straight by boat in the summertime. Supplies by boat to Alaska then to ports south as they advanced. Without the Soviets the outcome of the war would have been radically different.


No one is saying the contratry of course, all the allied nations made contributions. But they weren't necessarly all equal.

Actually this thread is about how the Russians won the war without the help of "we".

[Lokos]

Artsy historians don't realize it but if Britain remained neutral then the Axis would have had access to chromium and cobalt in southern Africa. The chromium would have allowed axial flow jet engines to be produced a couple of years sooner.

Is that so? How do you figure?


Also, Soviet intelligence would not have been so good as it was since much of it came from Britain.


No, it didn't. Or would you like to elaborate?


Diesel tanks and jets for the Axis could have made quite a difference on the Eastern front.

What difference would have diesel tanks made on the EF, exactly?


It is clear that the war would also have been lost without U.S. production and this is without even considering their military contributions.


And why is that 'clear'? In 1941 and 1942, when the war's outcome was in doubt, and Soviet economic mobilization had not yet achieved its culmination, there was next to no significant LL. And despite having no noticeable access to American goods during this time, the Soviet Union held its own - and even launched the operation that destroyed three Axis armies at Stalingrad and in surrounding environs.


If the Soviets had remained neutral and allowed Axis forces to cross over to Alaska then all of North America would likely have fallen and Britain soon after.

This makes it very clear to me how much you actually know about and understand WW2. I would suggest, for your sake, to not continue this line of argument.


Shockingly, most of these civilians were not legitimate targets but were murdered by terror troops.


Is this a serious statement?


The Axis forces would cross the narrow straight by boat in the summertime. Supplies by boat to Alaska then to ports south as they advanced. Without the Soviets the outcome of the war would have been radically different.


You are insane. Do you have any understanding of military operations at all? Do you have any idea of the logistics involved in moving millions of men across two Siberian railway tracks, supplying them, and having them fight a war of mobility and attrition on the continental United States? Are you truly that naive? Supplying two and a half divisions in North Africa nearly broke Germany's maritime supply services. And you think they could supply more than a hundred divisions some twenty thousand kilometres away?

Right.

Lokos

[kosse]

This thread has some good comedians in it. I hope the whole house did not wake up when I burst to laughter while reading these "with boats to Alaska" predictions :lol:

[Murray B]

You are insane.
Lokos

This is an ad hominem argument. These are often used by lawyers and historians. Which are you?

It is no secret that the Japanese had a foothold in U.S. territory for several months during the war. Why did they do this?

A reasonable person alters their beliefs to accomodate the facts but a zealot alters the facts to suit their beliefs.

This makes any debate with zealots a complete waste of time.