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

[L J]

Originally Posted by Hast2

And what this would change ?

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

[L J]

Originally Posted by Hast2

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

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

[Hast2]

Originally Posted by L J

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

You think that was decisive for the war in Europe ?

Originally Posted by L J

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

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

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

[L J]

Originally Posted by Hast2

You think that was decisive for the war in Europe ?



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

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

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

[HellToupee]

Germany declared war because they were allied with Japan.

[Kilgor]

Originally Posted by HellToupee

Germany declared war because they were allied with Japan.

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

[TheKiwi]

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

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

[CPL Trevoga]

Originally Posted by Jacknola

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Jacknola

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

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

Originally Posted by Jacknola

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

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