The Sweep of History
Read the article this discussion is about
- SteveK
- pseudoerasmus
- SteveK
- pseudoerasmus
- pseudoerasmus
- SteveK
- pseudoerasmus
- pseudoerasmus
- pseudoerasmus
- not_him_again
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» SteveK - Alex, apparently brimming with British bias, opines: <ul> Chur
Alex, apparently brimming with British bias, opines:Churchill's refusal to withdraw from the war, and bide his time for an opportunity for American entry, crucially affected the outcome of the Second World War.
Not to denigrate any single country's contribution or suffering, but the European theater was basically a German-Russian war. Its statistics dwarf all other aspects of the European theater combined, starting with the fact that Russia lost 20 million people. Even more importantly, the overwhelming vast majority of Europe's total combat action and force deployment occured on the Eastern Front, ranging from the German/Russian invasion of Poland to Operation Barbarossa. The latter involved 121 German divisions blitzkrieging on a 2,000 mile front -- no other theater even comes close to these numbers.
Russia had already decisively turned the tide of the war against the Germans by the winter of 1942-43, long before America made its first minor excursion into Europe with the invasion of Sicily in May 1943. (The earlier North African campaign, with its handful of divisions on both sides, was a minor affair compared to the hundreds of divisions fighting in Russia.) America's participation hastened the end, but was not a factor in deciding the war. Russia's turning of the tide was.
Nor did America's Lend-Lease program saved Russia. American Lend-Lease amounted to no more than 5 percent of the Russian war effort.
Only Anglo-American ethnocentrism leads our two nations to believe that we were the number one destroyers of Hitler. As many a Russian has proven to me in long and arduous debate, this belief is indefensible.
Steve Kangas
-- posted by SteveK
» pseudoerasmus - Kangas Every fool and his dog know that the Eastern front was
KangasEvery fool and his dog know that the Eastern front was the most important part of the Second World War in Europe. All I said was that the British refusal to surrender in 1940 was important to the outcome. That hardly means American won the war for Russia; but Russia probably could not have won the war against Germany all alone.
Nor did America's Lend-Lease program saved Russia. American Lend-Lease amounted to no more than 5 percent of the Russian war effort.
I don't know what "5%" of the Russian war effort means, but...
Anglo-American shipments to Russia, 1941-44
- 12,230 planes
- 8,026 tanks
- 210,000 automobiles
- 427,000 trucks
- 70,000 other vehicles
- 3000 anti-aircraft guns
- 23 million yards of cloth
- 2 million tyres
- 500,000 tonnes of high-octane petrol
- 135,000 tonnes of aluminium
- 217,000 tonnes of copper
- 1.2 million tonnes of steel
- 20,000 machine tools
- 1 billion cartridges
- 22 million shells
- 1.2 million km of telephone wire
- 245,000 field telephones
- 5.5 million pairs of boots
- 2.7 million tonnes of petroleum products
- 103,000 tonnes of rubber
- 130,000 tonnes of TNT
- 4.5 million tonnes of flour ("half pound of bread for every Russian soldier")
- untold medical supplies
The famous "5% of war production" that Kangas quotes is not something reputable Western scholars agree on. Rather, it's GOSPLAN propaganda issued after the war. A better quantitative estimate is approximately 15%.
But a quantitative estimate of lead-lease to Russia suffers from what statisticians call a "capturing problem" -- i.e., the number doesn't tell us some very important things. For example, virtually every field telephone used by the Russian army was supplied by the West. The Russians had so fiercely concentrated on producing the "show" munitions of aircraft, tanks and artillery that the production of basic items like boots, food and medical supplies went almost neglected.
Source for all my claims: Alexander Wirth, Russia at War, 1941-1945, one of the first Western historians (though of Russian birth) to argue that the Russian contribution to the war had gone grossly underestimated in the West.
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» pseudoerasmus - Given that Russian aircraft production amounted to nearly 150,00
Given that Russian aircraft production amounted to nearly 150,000 between 1941 and 1945, Anglo-American shipments of aicraft could not have been important. However, the importance of allied aid was, as I've already said, not in the big ticket items, but in the hundreds of other basic items, including components of the big ticket stuff.But one has also to bear in mind that before Stalingrad, the Germans had occupied nearly 2 million sq. km of the USSR's prime real estate: the Baltic states, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, the Crimea, a big chunk of Russia, the Caucasus and Moldavia. That was the heart of the Soviet Union's industrial and agricultural heartland. And Soviet production suffered accordingly, a diminution which is today masked by Russia's gargantuan production numbers in tanks, aircraft & artillery. Yet Russia's total industrial & agricultural production in 1945 was only 50% of the 1941 level. (Source: Paul Kennedy.)
Visit my website: Globalisation FAQ.
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» pseudoerasmus - Oh, yes, one of the most underestimated and underreported facts
Oh, yes, one of the most underestimated and underreported facts of the Second World War is that Operation Barbarossa was delayed by five weeks because of German intervention in Yugoslavia and Greece. Both countries had been actively prodded by the British to defy the Germans. Of course, the Germans eventually won, the Greek and Yugoslav national armies were decimated, and British troops in Greece and Cyrenaica routed ignonimiously. However, these five weeks probably cost Hitler Staliningrad. The Balkan campaign shortened the window of opportunity available to the ermans: instead of the six months of snow-free fighting, the Germans got five months. This, for a Russia which had never been conquered from the West before.Visit my website: Globalisation FAQ.
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» SteveK - Alex: You stated, and I quote, that Great Britain's actions "
Alex:You stated, and I quote, that Great Britain's actions "crucially affected the outcome of the Second World War." The word "crucially" suggests that without Britain, Hitler would have won the war.
But Anglo-American operations against Hitler were light anyway until 1943, when Russia turned the tide. I don't see how Britain's complete withdrawal would have been much of a change from what actually occured before 1943. Hitler would have been able to add a few divisions to the Russian Front, in time to freeze for the winter. His U-boats could have had freer reign against Lend-Lease shipping, but most of that was coming via the Bering Straits anyway. I don't see Britain's "crucial" role here, only a contributing one.
BTW, I'd like to withdraw the claim that Lend-Lease stopped in September 1941. It officially ended at the end of the war. Upon double-checking this fact, which was surprising to me, I discovered I was the victim of a bad reference source.
The Soviets might have concentrated on manufacturing weapons because they knew the Americans would supply other things. The Soviet military was famous for its talented engineers, and certainly could have produced this equipment themselves. Also, even if we eliminated the 15 percent of the Soviet war effort that we contributed, the Red Army might have taken only 15 percent longer to defeat the Germans. Even this is too generous an estimate because it was the bitter winters, not the size of the Red Army, that crippled the Wehrmacht in the first place.
Anyway, enough of this subject... debating this historical point doesn't seem politically important today. Take the last word if you want.
Steve Kangas
-- posted by SteveK
» pseudoerasmus - One more thing. I realise that the bulk of the Anglo-American a
One more thing. I realise that the bulk of the Anglo-American aid began arriving in 1943, after Stalingrad. In other words, the epic battle was the Soviet Union's lonely victory, no question about it. But my point is that Stalingrad need not have been the great turning point that it ended up becoming if it hadn't been for the subsequent massive allied aid.None of this detracts from the Soviet Union's decisive role in the war, but I doubt it could have won on its own.
Visit my website: Globalisation FAQ.
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» pseudoerasmus - Steve Kangas remarked: <i><blockquote>You stated, and I quote
Steve Kangas remarked:You stated, and I quote, that Great Britain's actions "crucially affected the outcome of the Second World War." The word "crucially" suggests that without Britain, Hitler would have won the war.
But Anglo-American operations against Hitler were light anyway until 1943, when Russia turned the tide. I don't see how Britain's complete withdrawal would have been much of a change from what actually occured before 1943.
Hmm. From someone chattering earlier about the "butterfly effect", this is interesting. British activities in the war were necessarily limited, but it doesn't mean that Britain's marginal contributions were not crucial. I believe they were.
1) As I mentioned earlier, without the British, the extremely important Balkan diversion would not have taken place, because it was British intrigue that drew the Germans into Yugoslavia and Greece. The Germans probably would have taken Stalingrad before freezing. Speed was the strategy they banked on most heavily.
2) Without Britain, the United States would not have gotten involved in the war. And American aid had become crucial by 1943. The allied role in the Soviet victory was the enabling of the Soviets to exploit Stalingrad as the turning point.
The Soviets might have concentrated on manufacturing weapons because they knew the Americans would supply other things.
This sounds like an economist's argument! Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that Soviet productive capacity had been more than halved by German conquest of its European territories. If it hadn't been for the Urals production, there would have been nothing left.
Also, even if we eliminated the 15 percent of the Soviet war effort that we contributed, the Red Army might have taken only 15 percent longer to defeat the Germans.
I can't recall a more bizarre extrapolationist argument.
Even this is too generous an estimate because it was the bitter winters, not the size of the Red Army, that crippled the Wehrmacht in the first place.
I think the supply-siders would call this "static analysis". If the Germans had launched Barbarossa in April or May as originally intended, they might have taken Moscow in the fall of 1941, as they almost did anyway, and taken Stalingrad forthwith.
Visit my website: Globalisation FAQ.
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» pseudoerasmus - The second paragraph of my last message is part of Steve's passa
The second paragraph of my last message is part of Steve's passage that I quote._______
I also don't see how without the Americans and the British in the West, the Russians could have simply pushed for Berlin. The result might have been a draw.
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» not_him_again - Brian Carpenter There can be no question whatever that if Hitle
Brian Carpenter There can be no question whatever that if Hitler had only fought the USSR instead of the coalition arrayed against him, he would have defeated the USSR.reasons:
1. The war on the Eastern front was very close run in 1941 and 1942. If Hitler had the forces deployed in the west available for service in the east, he could have tipped the balance. This is especially important when considering the most critical German bottleneck- fuel.
2. Alex's point about the war being delayed for an extra month is absolutely right, and is in fact even stornger than is argued. If Hitler had had the airborne forces squandered in the Crete Operation, the key battle that saved Moscow- the delay to complete the encirclement of the Russians to the south- would not have taken so long, and the advance could have proceeded before the rainy season, and the mud.
3. No western front, no U-boat production is necessary, no personnel for naval operations, ect. This also would have helped a great deal.
4. The Allies made a serious air effort in 1942-1944. This met with mixed success, but it forced the Germans to siphon off one of their biggest pluses against the Russians- their air superiority.
5. If Germany would have been able to maintain a solid front in 1944, instead of the collapse she suffered, she could have deployed the new weapons she had (including jet fighters and a tank that even the T-34 was no match for). She had guided weapons technology, as well. the reason for the collapse in 1944 was not just Russian action; Germany was in trouble in the west after D-Day.
6. Under speer's direction, the German economy actually produced more in the later years of the war, even under bolbing pressure. If that pressure had not been there, would not even more of the very high quality equipment they had been available?
7. There exist accounts that seem to show that the Germans were capable of beating the Russians on the defensive even if outnumbered 5:1. Is it not feasible that even if Germany had not successfully concluded the affair in 1941 or 1942, that she would have turned the tide with the jets and super-tanks available in 1944-1945? I think it would have been feasible, except for one thing:
she was fighting a war on more than one front. And all this seems to show that the assistance and participation of Britian and the US made victory possible for the USSR.
-- posted by not_him_again
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.