Allied or Soviet Victory in Europe?

» Lawhawk - Welcome aboard! We've got more than a few members who have been

Welcome aboard! We've got more than a few members who have been looking for someone to take over this topic since it went vacant some time back. Good luck!

That's my 2 shekels (tm)!

Michael L. Siegel

Managing Editor - Politics - Check out our other fine Editors!

Mid-East Politics Contributing Editor

-- posted by Lawhawk

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» pseudoerasmus - A pretty good article, but I have some objections. You said:

A pretty good article, but I have some objections. You said:

It is also one of the great ironies of recent history that while the Soviet Union invested much more blood and treasure, it was the US and its allies that reaped the greatest benefits....It is a nasty brutish world and the results of WWII reflected the relative power of the western Allies and the USSR. By the time of the victory in Europe the western Allies were substantially more powerful than the Soviet Union and so they reaped the profits of World War II which many Soviets would say were paid for with Soviet blood.

How do you suppose that the Western allies reaped the greatest benefits from the defeat of Nazi Germany? I grant that Western Europe got survival out of the deal, but what did the United States get out of it? The political reality of the post-war period was America's lone superpower status, but this resulted less from Germany's defeat than from the unleashing of America's virtually unlimited economic potential. You can hardly attribute to the outcome of the war what was mostly a natural evolution of the pre-war economic disparities between the United States and Russia/USSR.

And, in traditional Realpolitik terms, the Soviet Union got a LOT out of the Second World War: the descent of its armies into the centre of Europe, something not accomplished since the Napoleonic world war; as well as the dramatic reversal of the political revolution of 1864-71 that unified Germany.

Towards the end of the war, the western Allies also took an interest in how great a victory the Soviets were to be allowed in Eastern Europe, but that too is international politics for you. Churchill, for example, wanted to take Berlin with an eye on postwar negotiations with the Soviets. Much of the postwar animosity between the former allies comes from this lack of appreciation in the west of the tremendous scale of the fighting on the Eastern Front.

So, you think Stalin said to himself: "God damn it, what we did for those Anglo-Saxons! They don't appreciate our sacrifice. I resent them. I'm hurt. I think I'll now set up puppet regimes in Warsaw, Prague and Berlin. I'll also foment a civil war in Greece and encroach on Turkish and Iranian territories while I'm at it. If only the West would thank us!" You think resentment at Western underappreciation is what made the Soviet army stand still across the Vistula as the German army eradicated the Polish uprising?

---

By the way, your second paragraph is an excellent corrective to those who go overboard in stressing Russia's contribution to the war. The allied contribution to the Russian contribution was itself crucial, since without the diversions in Sicily, North Africa, the Atlantic or the Balkans, it's entirely plausible that the Germans would have overrun the Russians. But you forget the Yugoslav contribution! It was initially Tito's partisans who caused so much headache for the Germans that hundreds of thousands of troops had to be devoted to the Balkans.

-- posted by pseudoerasmus

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Margot - Great to see this era finaly written about here.Good article.I'm

Great to see this era finaly written about here.Good article.I'm looking forward to more interesting information.

Eileen O'dea - Contributing Editor
Home and Garden

-- posted by Margot

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» RickR - What is it war night? Just got through with WWI. However, I thin

What is it war night? Just got through with WWI. However, I think I beg to differ on the general premise. As far as I can see the result of WWII has to do with the industrial output, not battles or military engagements. While I have lost the exact statistics, I remmeber being rather amazed by the fact that the United States in the course of the war lost three time the amount of planes the Luftwaffe had during the whole course of the war. Given that kind of industrial superiority, did military affairs matter?



Rick

Censorship

-- posted by RickR

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» pseudoerasmus - I agree with Rick Russell. Advantages of geography, tactics & s

I agree with Rick Russell. Advantages of geography, tactics & strategy, discipline, etc. probably only affected the duration of the war, but the long-term outcome of WWII was predetermined by the entry of the United States.

Shares of World Manufacturing Output, 1938

USA	27.7&
USSR	17.6%
UK	9.2%
Germany	13.2%
France	4.5%
Italy	2.9%
Japan	3.8%

[I'm being impish by placing France between Germany and Italy.]

Source: P. Kennedy

Tank Production in 1943 (peak year for all powers)

USA	29,500
USSR	29,000
UK	6,000
Germany	21,000

Source: A. Seaton

Aircraft Production, 1944 (peak year for all powers)

Allied Total	167,700
USA	96,300
USSR	40,300
UK	26,500
Commonwealth	4,600
Axis Total	68,000
Germany	39,800
Japan	28,200

Source: P. Kennedy

Note that U.S. aircraft production exceeded that of all others powers, axis or allied, combined.

-- posted by pseudoerasmus

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» not_him_again - Brian Carpenter Hi, Ralph- thanks for giving military history a

Brian Carpenter Hi, Ralph- thanks for giving military history addicts this site to go to. Hope to see more good articles like this one.

I have to disagree with the idea that the axis could not have won after the entry of the US. I am a little exhausted right now, but I will try to explain why I think this way later on.

By the way, Alex's view in the opposite direction- that the US entry sealed the axis fate- was seconded by no less than Churchill himself. So it will not be easy to make my case, and that is why I am going to wait a little bit.

-- posted by not_him_again

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» pseudoerasmus - Brian Carpenter It wasn't absolutely impossible for Germany t

Brian Carpenter

It wasn't absolutely impossible for Germany to win the war even after the United States entered. But both the possibility and the plausibility of German victory inevitably receded with time. That is, the only advantage the Germans had over the United States was time. For example, had Britain been knocked out of the war rather than the Soviet Union invaded in the summer of 1941 -- long before the Americans could mobilise for war -- it's hard to imagine what the United States could ever have done to liberate Europe. Without Britain, where would they have based their European operations? Iceland?

On the other hand, the U.S. victory in the Pacific theater was preordained. There was never any chance in hell Japan could win. I've never stopped marvelling over the mammoth irrationality of Japan's war against every Pacific power --China, Britain, Australia, the United States, and (eventually) the Soviet Union.

-- posted by pseudoerasmus

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» not_him_again - Brian Carpenter Actually, you might want to check out a posting

Brian Carpenter Actually, you might want to check out a posting I made on the Pearl Harbor thread. It might suprise you. I agree that Japan could not have won the war on her own, but she was not on her own- if Germany won, she could win too, depending on how the diplomatic table served up the victory dinner.

You are right on the money about the difficulty of basing for US forces if england had surrendered. But I think that in 1942, there existed for a time a chance to end the war in the Axis favor.

If your point was that Japan could not have beaten the US, great Britain, austrailia, and later the USSR on her own, I agree with you for the most part. But the problem is that there is one scenario that might have worked for them. That is if somehow they had secured Hawaii, and still had enough time to take New Zealand, so isolating austrailia. This might-, and I do mean might, it is a longshot- have resulted in the same type of logistical difficulties that would have faced America if she tried to invade europe without England as a base, like mentioned previously. But it is likely that this point is not as compelling as yours; the odds against Japan were very long, indeed.

Nonetheless, I maintain that the key to victory in WWII in 1942 was the Japanese. You might check out the Pearl Harbor thread to see why.

-- posted by not_him_again

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Joe_Sramek - Welcome aboard!!! We've been waiting for a new WWII editor. If

Welcome aboard!!! We've been waiting for a new WWII editor. If we didn't get one soon, I was starting to plan articles to fill in the void!!! Once again, welcome!

And that's my £1 17s. 6d!!!

Joseph Sramek

Contributing Editor

20th Century British History and Politics
E-mail: jsramek@yahoo.com

http://www.suite101.com/page.cfm/548

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6215

-- posted by Joe_Sramek

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» RalphZ - Hi everyone. First off, let me say thanks to all of you for t

Hi everyone.

First off, let me say thanks to all of you for the responses and the encouragement. I sincerely hope that you will continue to take an interest in the material to be found here.

Also, while several of the messages posted here could generate opinionated responses from me it is my intention to limit any responses to making factual statements about the issues raised (where such remarks are warrented) and not statements of opinion. Given my role as an editor, I believe it would be inappropriate to engage in potentially heated discussions with the readership. It is probably safe to say that each of us have some fairly strong opinions about particular points. However, I view my role in the discussions as that of a (relatively) neutral moderator.

Having said this, I would also like to note that I take a keen interest in the discussions taking place here. I have read each one carefully and, yes, I am making some notes about them for future use. It is my expectation that some of this material will lead to future articles and possibly even greater discussion. Just so you know, an article on the prospects for a Axis victory in Europe is definitely in the works.

Lastly, I make no claim to having an exhaustive knowledge of World War II. It is a fairly broad subject area and some aspects are of greater interest to me than others. If there are links or topics you believe should be given consideration please contact me via e-mail and let me know.

Once again, thanks to everyone!

-- posted by RalphZ

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian_Hughes - Hi Ralph...and indeed welcome. You obviously have diplomacy s

Hi Ralph...and indeed welcome.

You obviously have diplomacy skills as well...they can get to be useful around here! ((-:

Look foreward to future articles.

<img src="http://www.suite101.com/userfiles/4390/l..." width=120 hight=30>

Brian Hughes

Suite 101 Editor, Internet:
Freeware

-- posted by Brian_Hughes

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» not_him_again - Brian Carpenter I think this site is going to be great. And yo

Brian Carpenter I think this site is going to be great. And your taking a neutral position is intruiging.

-- posted by not_him_again

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» pseudoerasmus - Ralph Zuljan I'm mystified that you so scruple to be neutral.

Ralph Zuljan

I'm mystified that you so scruple to be neutral. In fact, your decision to abstain from debate seems gratuitously genteel, not to mention eccentric in a venue where the editors are regularly found bickering with member-contributors.

-- posted by pseudoerasmus

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Joe_Sramek - Perhaps "eccentric" but I think that its probably better that hi

Perhaps "eccentric" but I think that its probably better that history editors stick to the facts, and ignore polemics as much as possible. Let those who want to engage in partisan bantering go to somewhere else... like the Politics pages!!!

And that's my £1 17s. 6d!!!

Joseph Sramek

Contributing Editor

20th Century British History and Politics
E-mail: jsramek@yahoo.com

http://www.suite101.com/page.cfm/548

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6215

-- posted by Joe_Sramek

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Emperor - The Russian Side

Mr. Zuljan's article is interesting, but biased in favor of the western powers. The Russians have a different view of W.W. II and based on what I observed, Russian vets I talked to and various Russian history museums that I had the privilage of visiting, the Russian side is being neglected by Mr. Zuljan. Perhaps our historians have also taken too much stock in the German viewpoint and have put too much emphasis on the postwar German generals' books such as Panzer Leader, Panzer Battles, etc...
The Russian viewpoint is quite different and we should keep an open mind to their arguments. I am a trained historian and an educator. I spent much time in Russia and kept an open viewpoint. I learned much from what Russians told me about WWII. It is certainly food for thought and can be classified as revisionist.
Our historians put emphasis on our aid to Russia during the war. --Most Russians take no stock in this minimal flow of supplies.
Our history books make a big deal about D-Day and the opening of this "Second Front."
-- Most Russians believe this was done much too late. By the summer of 1944, the Russians had the Germans in retreat. Many Russians believe a Second Front should have been attempted much earlier. A landing or bridgehead in northwestern Europe in 1942 or 1943 would have helped the war effort of all the Allies immensely. Some pressure could have been taken off the Russians on the Eastern Front if more Nazi forces would have been diverted to fight the British and Americans. Instead, a puny "Second Front" is opened up in 1943 against Italy!
The Russians do have a point here. In late 1941 and 1942 about 80% of the Nazi forces were on the Eastern Front. The percentage was less in 1943 and dropped to about 65% in 1944. Still, WWII cost the Russians about 20,000,000 lives and untold destruction of their beautiful country. Some British cities were bombed heavily and U.S. was unscathed. In comparison to the Russians, our casualties were light.
Regarding the Second Front in 1943, few German troops were tied down defending Italy. This was not an area where the western Allies committed their strength. By comparison to the effort made in France in the D-Day landings, the strength committed to the Italian campaign was puny.
Most western history books talk about how Winston Churchill was such a good and loyal statesman. --Most Russians believe he was quite Machavellian. Churchill was content to let the Germans and the Russians destroy each other while he preserved the British Empire. Churchill deliberately held off opening a Second Front until it was clear that the Russians had the Germans on the run. Winston Churchill is NOTa popular man in Russia among the WWII generation!
Many of our movies emphasize D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge or the bomber offensive. --Most Russians view these as trivial. The Bulge is not even in the same category as a really epic battle like Stalingrad. Many Russians do admire our technology. The bomber missions look impressive at first glance with the 100's to 1000 bombers going on missions, but they do show how the westerners are dodging or bypassing actually fighting the Nazis! Many Russians believe it would have been better if the westerners had put the effort and energy they put into air power into their armored divisions! Many of our "armchair generals" and other so-called "experts" on the Eastern Front have never been to Russia and to the battlefields, museums, etc... They discuss the German capture of Moscow and how it may have altered the course of WWII or other pipe-dream subjects and try to make a guess as to the feasibility of such things. WHAT A CROCK!!!
Anyone trying to evaluate if the Germans could have captured Moscow has to go and see the place. Moscow is huge! Millions and millions of people live there. The city is incredibly spread out. It's sort of like Los Angeles in its sprawl. There are forests and places that resemble small villages inside the boundary of the City of Moscow. There are some areas that are planned out, but much that is not. The city can be like a rabbit warren with a million good hiding places. With the forests there, one impression I had was a bunch on overgrown, interconnected villages.
There is no way the Nazis could have even attempted to capture this colossus without a major house to house, block by block street battle reminiscent of Stalingrad. All during the terrible winter of 1941 too! NO WAY! The Red Army, Partisans, too few Nazis for an impossible job. It all probably would have led to a major disaster like Stalingrad except a year earlier!
Time is late and I have to break off, but my advice is that we all have to KEEP AN OPEN MIND about WWII campaigns that we think we know much about. Someone comes along and can turn our ideas upsidown with an obscure document or a totally different point of view. Our future historians should be well-travelled in the fronts they want to study because that is the way to really learn about a people and historical events.

-- posted by Emperor

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Emperor - Russian Side II

Mr. Zuljan neglects the Russian side of WWII in his article. The Russians have a very different view of WWII and their western Allies.
Some of our revisionist (or enlightened) historians have studied the war on the Russian front in-depth and have come to a very different conclusion than most of the western historians. For example, the fine book, The War in the East, written by the editors of Strategy and Tactics magazine, comes to the conclusion that the Russians could have won WWII without ANY Allies.
Mr. Zuljan's articles about Stalingrad should show him that Russian manpower, Russian equipment and Russian tactics defeated the best the Nazis could throw at them. The trap and ensuing disaster at Stalingrad should prove that the Germans could not beat the Russians. The clever defense at Kursk where the best German armored divisions were mauled and decisively rebuffed should prove that the Russians knew how to defeat an enemy and win a war. Why does anyone believe they needed the British and the Americans in order to win?
For the Nazis, the Eastern front was THE ONE that made the most impact. They committed most of their manpower and strength to defeat the Russians and crush Communism. The Russians slowed, then pushed the Germans and their allies back in one of history's epic struggles. It is estimated that about 20,000,000 Russians perished in the struggle to push back the Nazis. For more on the sufferings of the Russians, read Harrison Salisbury's book, The Unknown War.
Many Russians are resentful over the lack of a second front until 1944! By 1944, even the blind could see that the Germans could not win. Many Russians are not satisfied with western excuses for not opening a second front until 1944. Many of our history books say we learned a lot from the disaster at Dieppe. Perhaps our politicians and generals learned that they could make lots of excuses! Many of our western history books explain that the Germans were too strong in 1942 and 1943 and that any invasion would end up with unacceptable casualties like the Dieppe raid. In addition, our western sources say we had to build up our forces until we were REALLY READY and we invaded on July 6, 1944. These sound like excuses to me.
How many millions of people could we have saved from Hitler's death camps if we had ended the war a year earlier. Even though the western Allies would have taken heavy casualties, a second front opened in 42 or 43 in western Europe may have shortened the war considerably. The Russians certainly think so.
Based on the fact that the Russians defeated and pushed back the bulk of the Nazi army without a real second front to siphon off some of the Germans, should show that they really didn't need the western Allies in order to win. There are many other factors that I haven't touched on, such as the Russians having a much larger population of military age manpower are discussed in the book, The War in the East by the editors of Strategy and Tactics magazine. This source is worth finding and reading in order to get an alternate view of the Russians' chances of winning WWII without any allies.

-- posted by Emperor

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Suther - pardon me Emperor

I am so sorry that my question on the possibility of Moscow falling insulted you. Granted, you have much more knowledge about the Eastern Front than I. But if you noticed it said give me your opinions. Now I am just a college student and try ing to learn as much about history as I can. I find your argument most impressive, and do intend to to look for the books you recomended. Some of us have never been to Moscow and therfore don't have the insight that you have. That is why we ask questions, to learn from others. So next time you see a question that you know well, give your statement, but there is no need to belittle those who posses less knowledge by calling a question "A CROCK".

-- posted by Suther

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Boeman - RE: Russian Side

Emperor,

I am by no means an authority on the Eastern Front or even World War II in general. However, I would like to comment on the casualties suffered by the Russian soldiers.

As horrendous as they were, a great portion of those deaths were of the Red Army’s own making, with the blame resting specifically on Joseph Stalin himself. You are no doubt familiar with his famous mantra, "Die. But do not retreat". Words with which many Russian soldiers literally died by. Stalin quickly introduced the harshest of penalties for soldiers accused of being panic mongers, cowards or incompetence. Men who retreated from the front lines in the wake of the German spearhead were subsequently executed. As a result, no Russian commander dared to consider the possibility of retreat; which ultimately lead to catastrophic losses. Stalin made great efforts to buy as much time as possible through the sacrifices of his fighting men before the final Battle for Moscow.

Take note also that upon Stalin’s claim to power, he personally conducted a great sweep of the military as a precaution to ensure all of his political opponents were vanquished. The result of these excessive actions was the near complete collapse of capable leadership as newly appointed commanders found themselves in positions they were ill equipped and trained to handle when the invasion of Russia commenced. The slow reactions in the beginning of the invasion and the clumsy counter offensives that followed just before the Battle for Moscow certainly illustrated the impact Stalin’s purge had on the army and no doubt contributed greatly to the casualties that might otherwise have been avoided.

The tactics for offensive maneuvers employed by the Red Army reflected the value of lives they placed on their infantry. Often scours of shock troops and penal battalions (formations made up of soldiers that committed civil or military crimes and even former commanders who failed to deliver the expected results) would be thrown into the German lines to create gaps in their defensive ring, which the elite units would then exploit. It wasn’t uncommon either for penal battalions to be forced to march at gunpoint in order to clear mine fields. The indifference for casualties by Russian commanders shocked even the Wehrmacht.

During the German retreat, Stalin had already been obsessed with reaching Moscow before the Allies who he profoundly distrusted. Even with his own commanders, Stalin was devious and deeply manipulative. Although he encouraged them to cooperate with one another, he also tried to spur them on by insinuating bitter rivalries. The campaign against the Third Reich would turn into a race and that the result would be a reckless expenditure of Russian lives was to Stalin, no matter of supreme difference.

I may never be able to truly appreciate the magnitude of the sacrifices made by the Red Army. I can say however that it not fair to simply pin down the Western Allies as the prime reason for the severe toll incurred by the Red Army when there just as many other important factors (such as the ones mentioned above), which most certainly attributed to their losses.

-- posted by Boeman

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Boeman - Small Correction...

"During the German retreat, Stalin had already been obsessed with reaching Moscow...."

Should read:

Stalin had already been obsessed with reaching Berlin....

-- posted by Boeman

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - What about Allied military assistance?

In your opinion (and those of your readers as well), could the USSR have triumphed in the East without the military assistance (in weaponry, munitions, etc.) from the Allies?

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor, US Founding Era
Suite101.com

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Vcoggle - Lend-Lease

I still can't figure out how the Red Army could move the way they did without 450,000 2/12 ton trucks. I agree with Emperor that Russia contributed the most to victory in Europe but..I don't think that that should belittle the western allies contributions. You talk of public opinion in Russia as if it were gospil. Every single person you talked to came up with there opinion during Stalin's reign. People are a product of their enviroment. Can we look at the official Communist party propoganda and public opinion (that you were talking about)and see a difference?
If not you may want to question the validity of your argument. (Unless of course you agree with Stalin).
Of course Churchill was not popular. He brought Stalins misdeeds to the worlds attention with his cold war speach.
It is imppossible to try and blame the western allies for Russian casulties. Perhaps the Russian people need to take a long hard look at how they value human life. Maybe they need to take a long hard look at the benifits that freedom bring versus what communism brings. Take a look at every campaign in history conducted by a communist regime and you will see casulty figures that boggle the mind.
You talk of ending the war earlier to save lives. How about not helping start one in the first place! Alot of the blame for ww2 goes smack on old Joes head. He cavorted with the enemy to such an extent then blames the western allies for not helping enough when his "friend" (whom he started carving up Europe with)turns on him!

-- posted by Vcoggle

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Neutral - RUSSIA ALONE

Here's is an interesting question, could the Soviet Union have won the war against Germany alone? Could they survive without lend lease?

There are a few historians who believe so.

However I disagree for the following reasons described below:

1,

The Luftwaffe’s strength was destroyed by the
Anglo-American air forces. I believe without the
considerable air strength which the Anglo-American air offensives and front's diverted from the Russian front,the Germans would have continued to enjoy air supremacy.

History has shown that battles are very difficult to win when the enemy has air superiority. The Soviet air force record was poor compared to the army and Russian pilots had a low skill level( as evidenced by the very high kill totals of Luftwaffe aces on the front).

The correct analysis of history would show that it was Anglo-American air power that destroyed the Luftwaffe(the Mustang, the Spitfire, their excellent bomber forces and the high capability and training of their personnel).

2,

German war production was reduced by at least 10%
as a result of strategic bombing. What difference
would this extra 10-15% would have made when you
consider that in a lot of cases, that victory on the Eastern Front occurred by a narrow margin.

Plus, the Western Allies could hit Germany oil
refineries and wells( an ability that the Soviets did not have( due to distance and their poor strategic bombing capability).

Hitting their oil, was a decisive factor in many of Germany's defeats(in the latter period of the war).

The Allied air offensive tied down thousands of
guns(the 88 mm) for flak protection. These thousands of guns could have made a difference in the armour defensive battles that Germany faced on the Eastern Front.

3,

The 20% of resources (quoted by some) that the Allies tied down prior to D-day is deceptive. It does not take into account the synergistic benefits of a one front war. Synergistic concepts such as, that two front war leads to duplication of resources, poorer logistics and administration.

There are intangible factors such as intelligence(Enigma)which had a decisive effect on the war, which such crude measures( only 20% of resources) fail to take into consideration.

Additionally this (20%) could have made the difference since many of the decisive battles which occurred on the Eastern Front, the margin of victory (the factors that the determine victory) had been small.

For example according to Liddel Hart, a extra couple of German divisions could have make the difference at Stalingrad. Where were these extra divisions, on garrison duty in the west, in North Africa etc.

4,

Lend lease made Soviet victory possible, without it the best they could have achieved (in my opinion) was stalemate. It was lend lease that gave them the motorization and logistics that enabled them to penetrated deeply into Germany.

Lend lense allow the Soviet Union to recover from their terrible defeats in 1941 and 1942. It increased their strength in tanks and aircraft and munitions by a very substantial amount.

Without such supply it would have been very difficult for the Soviets to overwhelm their adversary.

Too much of Soviet Union's productive land have been overrun by the Germans. It was Allied aid in food stuffs that alleviated much of this shortage and also freed up considerable male resources( which could be used at the front).

5,

The manpower shortage, it is a fact that Russia was running out of manpower towards the end of the war. That without the help of the Western Allies, this manpower shortage would have hit them earlier( since the Germans would be stronger on the Eastern Front and inflicted even greater losses).

With these extra resources, the Eastern Front would probably have been far more static and the Soviets may very well have bled to death.

6,

The moral effect, while it seems to some Russians that the Western Allies did not provide much help, they did have the considerable moral boost of knowing that the Western Allies were on their side.

What would have been the effect on morale if the
Russian's were fighting alone( particularly during the darkest days of the war, 1941-1942) without having the moral tonic of knowing that the considerable forces of the USA and the British Empire where on their side.

There is a possibility that resistance may not have been so resolute.

7,

Technology, Germany had a decisive lead in
technology, jet aircraft, nerve gas, missile technology etc.

The war was certainly shortened by the Western Allies participation by at least 2 years( if you believe the Soviet argument that they could have won on their own). These 2 years would have given the Germans time to fully develop such weapons( weapons which the Russians had no answer to).

Such weapons employed correctly and with force
would have devastated the Soviet Union. And the
Soviet Union had no nuclear bomb technology to
counter this threat( unlike the Americans). In many of these areas the soviets were years behind.

The only hope the soviet's would have had was Hitler’s stupidity, who's irrationality and ego did much to neutralize Germany's superior generalship and fighting capability on the Eastern Front.

Additionally his interference led to waste of much of Germany's productive and scientific potential during the war.

I also believe that the USA would have had great trouble beating Germany(with the resources of
their conquests behind them) on their own as well.

The Allied victory was a team effort and it was only this team effort( I believe) that made this victory possible.

One must remember that the Soviets still deserve
great credit( the lion's share) for the victory.
Their own domestic production was very considerable(they exceeded the USA in tank production) a great achievement under the very adverse circumstances they were under.

Plus no not forget that their massive human resources paved the way for victory in blood as much as any American Lend Lease.

Much of the Allied victories in the west were made
possible because of this sacrifice. I believe this for the reasons described below.

The vast majority of Germany's resources where used in the production of land weapons to meet the soviet threat( the main weapon of the soviet union was it's armour formations and land forces).

If it was not for the Eastern Front, Germany probably would have concentrated far more of it's resources to combat the Anglo-American strengths ( air power and sea power) and weaknesses (the need of amphibious invasions and sea supply).

By one estimate, if Germany had not been distracted by the Eastern Front, it could have produced 5000 aircraft a month, along with increased manpower, to provide far more pilots.

Such a built-up of air resources would have prevented the massive air superiority that make the amphibious invasions possible and also the high success at hitting Germany's oil and production facilities.

Additionally the Eastern Front tied down the vast
majority of the Luftwaffe in the years of 1941-42,
allowing the Anglo-Americans to built up a large air force, free of the high level attrition(a relative statement, compared to the attrition rate they would have faced, if they had been exposed against the full strength of the luftwaffe).

As for the success of the Allied amphibious invasions, look at the great difficulty the Allies had at breaking out of their beachheads in Italy and France, difficulty experienced, despite of the fact that the Allies had almost total control of the air and the RELATIVELY weak forces they encountered( do to the high losses the Germans had suffered against the Red army and
the considerable resources that the Russians diverted from the Western front).

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not true, that half the German troops facing the Allies in France and the low countries in 1944 were low quality( 30-45 year old men and 15-16 year old kids) with little experience or training and lot of them under equipped.

Yet these second rate soldiers(on paper) kept the
Allies tied up in Normandy for months and delayed the Allies from reaching the Rhine by 11 months( a great achievement in the face of the enemies supreme control of the air and their immense material superiority).

So one must ask the question, what would have been
the result if the Anglo-Americans had to face 3 million experienced German soldiers, in their prime, armed to the teeth, fully entrenched and with air parity?( as would have been the case without the Russian contribution).

I would suggest a disaster.

Additionally much of the Allies success for these
invasions were made possible by deception attempts. Attempts made far more effective by the Allies supreme control of the air( hardly any German reconnaissance aircraft got through).

If the Germans had air parity( as probably would have been the case in a one front war) such deception techniques would have been far less effective. For instance German reconnaissance aircraft would have spotted the invasion fleets from air and from their course of motion deduced the landing sites and any fake deception attacks would probably be quickly exposed.

The U-boat war

3 critical factors which helped the Allies win the war in the Atlantic and which were influenced by the Eastern Front.

One of the reason for the success of the Allies was their air superiority over the Atlantic. There is little doubt, that if it was not for the massive resources diverted to the Eastern front, the U-boats would have received the air cover that they pleaded for, plus the recon planes. This would have substantially reduced the U-boats losses and improved their effectiveness.

For example the success of Allied intelligence in
diverting convoys from U-boats( a success made
possible by the U-boats being practically blind, hardly any recon planes)would have largely been neutralized, such convoys would have been seen from the air.

U-boat construction, one of the reasons for the Allies success was the limited number of U-boats available during the decisive years of 1941-42.

Without Russia, U-boat construction would have been vastly greater,combined this with considerably more German air power over the Atlantic and the Allied losses would have been far greater.

Aircraft and U-boat development would have probably have been more intense and thus the development of such weapons as the Jet fighter and type XX1 U-boat may have been accelerated.

Plus the same technology argument that a I applied
above( Russia Alone) is also relevant in this scenario.

The atomic bomb may have been neutralized by the
combined weight of Germany's new technology( jet
aircraft, new submarines, nerve gas, missiles
equipped with radioactive material, which could have turned Britain into a radioactive wasteland etc.).

-- posted by Neutral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» loh - Thank you,Emperor.

I have just read both of your letters and I want to thank you. I'm really happy that some of the people in this country understand the meaning of the great achievement that people of my country have made.
Thank you very much.

-- posted by loh

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - Excellent analysis by Neutral

The analysis of the situation by "Neutral" is excellent. The Soviets simply could not have won against the Germans without Western Allied support. The reverse is also true. Great Britain and the United States would have had an almost impossible task of liberating France, let alone conquering Germany, without Stalin's USSR closing in from the East.

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era
Suite101.com

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» RalphZ - The Soviet Perspective on World War II

Before I begin, I would like to note that I generally allow these discussions of opinion to be free ranging, to provide a forum for comments by those interested in a topic, other than myself, and opinions other than my own. I hope that none of you take offense at this intervention. However, a few comments do need to be made.

First off, to BrianTubbs, no I do not believe the Soviet Union would have successfully concluded the war against Nazi Germany and its allies without the western allies. The converse, I would point out, is equally true: the western allies would not have defeated the Third Reich without Soviet involvement. (To this day there is a serious lack of appreciation in the West for the immense size of the continental army the Third Reich maintained as a matter of routine.) The issues at stake here range from the obvious lend-lease aid given to the Soviet Union by the US (as well as Canada and the UK) to the impact on Wehrmacht force distributions resulting from Allied offensives (from the bomber offensive to African and Italian campaigns to D-Day and beyond). Each effort forced the Germans to move more of their forces toward the west. The AA defences alone required a million soldiers in 1944, if I recall correctly.

Secondly, to Emperor, there are numerous studies that claim the Soviets could have won without the West. Glantz and House When Titans Clashed comes to mind. What such analysis tends to overlook are the global implications of what is being claimed as possible and I tend to disagree on that basis. No war in the west means: no AA defense of the Reich, no danger of a second front, unhindered war production... a powerful Luftwaffe in the East, a larger military manpower pool available for the German armed forces. I think that makes the point. A large number of variables need to be considered in order to make a meaningful claim either way. Considering how far away from historical reality it deviates, the question is probably not trivially answerable. I find such blithe comments to be baseless and assuming of much historical facts that are not necessarily "givens" in such an alternate history.

Also, I would point out, no reputable source would suggest that partisans were a problem for the Germans during 1941 or 1942. That is a myth perpetuated by the selective memory of persons who joined later (once a Soviet victory became conceivable) much like the overblown resistance in France and the low countries. Consider the partisan numbers provided by Erickson in Road to Stalingrad for example. These do not constitute a meaningful force.

Be that as it may, I would urge you to re-read the article on which this thread is based. The Soviets did not have a choice in the type of war they fought. The Allies did. They might have accepted higher casualties for themselves (and some folks actually proposed doing so). To what end? State self-interest alone argues against such sacrificing for the sake of another state -- especially a state that had such an unsavory prewar reputation in the West as Stalin's USSR. Pity the Soviets if you must but don't expect leaders of great powers, like Roosevelt and Churchill were, to do so. All the war leaders were Machiavellian -- Stalin and Hitler too. Each had his own state's interests to care for. To do otherwise would have been irresponsible. If anything, one could argue the Allies were incredibly generous to the Soviet Union. After all, they did believe that they could take on Hitler without Stalin and win... So why bother supporting the Soviets at all? Churchill was certainly in favor of scaling back the help once the Soviets gained the upper hand in the war on the Eastern Front.

With respect to the Moscow controversy. The most contentious issue is whether the Germans should have taken it in a coup de main in August or early September 1941 when there was nothing, nothing, in the way. I believe von Bock was right in wanting to ignore the Soviets on the flanks. We will never know. We do know that the arguments against doing it are all based on the Hitler's opinion of the situation. Have a read of his directives on the subject in Blitzkrieg to Defeat. You should notice that even Glantz is merely repeating what Hitler held to be true.

The sprawl of Moscow, by the way, is not particularly important in my opinion. Berlin is one of the most sprawling cities around yet the Soviets took it with relatively light casualties. (Their casualties were mostly the result of breaking the German line on the Oder.) The quality and quantity of defenders, however, does matter. In September 1941 there wasn't much available to stop a German advance into Moscow.

Finally, Emperor, I would like to make a comment on etiquette. In all fairness, I am an armchair general in making comments on World War II. So are you, and so is everyone else participating in this discussion. Making such a remark tends to imply that your opinion is somehow of greater weight. It is not. I believe your comment to be an ad hominem response and would enjoin you to refrain from future use of such remarks. Frankly, other than the generals involved in the events, everyone is an armchair general. That includes present day generals, by the way, and colonels and majors and captains too.

There are countless opinions to be found on events of the Second World War. There is a remarkable level of national pretence to this day. Providing alternative perspectives is both desirable and informative for all participants and I honestly appreciate your referral to source material so that we may engage in a more informed discussion. I would certainly agree with you that the Soviet/Russian perspective is quite different from what would be found in the US/UK/Germany. That, however, makes it no more right -- only different.

-- posted by RalphZ

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Tarkin - Would Soviets win without Allies?

As I mentioned on some other discussion group. Germany lost it's war on 23 August 1939 by singing Ribentropp-Molotov pact (again read Victor Suvorov's books - "Icebraker" and "M day").
Even if the Germans captured Moscow, Leningrad, and even Stalingrad, the Soviets would win either way, and Hitler knew it!. The Soviet military potential was much larger than German.
WHY?
Because, full military production in USSR started in 1938, and full military production in Germany in 1942 (YES! Believe it or not).
The only reason why Germans got so far, was that the Soviets were prepared to attack on 6 July 1941 - The "M" day. All fortifications were destroyed. Artillery was brought to the border, but the soldiers, were still in trains. Or f.ex. soldiers were on place, but without ammo.
If you want to know more, read Suvorov

-- posted by Tarkin

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - To Tarkin

Your analysis of history is flawed.

If Hitler knew he could not defeat Russia, why did he attack it? An illogical argument.

The majority of creditable sources suggest that Hitler thought that the invasion of Russia would be a walk over. Even when he failed to capture Moscow, it is suggested, that he still believed that victory was possible.

Now if the Russians were to attack Germany through Poland, they would be playing into the hands of the Germans, for the following reasons:

1, The Germans would have a much more narrow frontage to defend, which would have led to a far more effective defense, compared to their historical defense, deep in Russia and overextended.

2, German logistics and supply (two of the chief factors in Germany's defeat in Russia) would be substantially improved, so much closer to the German frontier, aiding Germany's defense considerably.

3, Their would be no Russian winter, the winter in the Polish region, is nowhere near as severe, as in Russia. Another major reason for the German defeat historically.

4, The Russians performance in offensive war, attacking other countries, is poor, the Russian-Finnish war, Afghanistan etc.

The Russian soldier only seems to perform well, when defending his own homeland. Their determination in Poland and Germany in 1944-45, was largely generated by years of fighting to defend their homeland and the destruction inflicted on Russia by the Germans.

As shown in the Russian-Finnish war, the Soviet soldier was very poorly motivated, the Finns made complete fools of them. The Finns were hopelessly outnumbered, but inflicted terrible casualties on the Soviets.

4, By concentrating their forces near the German frontier, the Russians would be playing into the hands of their German counterparts. This would have given the Germans, ample opportunity to encircle and destroy them. Historically, the Russian were saved to a large degree, by withdrawing into the huge Russian interior, avoiding encirclement.

The Germans would have used the superior power of defense to wear down the attack. And then use their superior tactical and logistical ability, to launch an effective counter attack.

Such a response, would have probably encircled much of the Russians, and in the process, destroy them.

4, Don't forget that the competence of the Russian army in 1941, was very poor, while the German army was the finest in the world. And unlike the Finish, the Germans had a huge industry and millions of men.

Also, the Germans had the benefits of superior doctrine and tactics ( at that time, 41-42), compared to their Russian counterparts. Additionally, during the war, they demonstrated that their skill in defense was unparalleled.

5, Many Soviet provinces did not believe in the benefits of communism, for example many Germans were greeted with open arms initially, they were actually seen as liberators! This further raises the question mark, of how motivated the Russian soldier would have been.

Finally, don't believe all the Russian literature you read, the Russians have the reputation to bullshit more than most. For example, one Russian general, who I saw on TV, claimed that Russians had invented 74% of the world's inventions.

What does that tell you.

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Tarkin - Soviet loss

The war, was a great loss for Stalin. He planned changing Europe into Soviet Socialitic United States Of Europe, and he only got Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, 1/3 of Germany, and some land in Asia. I don't count Yugoslavia and Albania.

-- posted by Tarkin

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Tarkin - a small add-on

A small thing to what nuetral says. I don't believe in what Russians say. Those who believe in Soviet unpreparedness do, 'cause this history was developed on wish of Nikita Krushchev in 1956. I can simply see what was the amount of Soviet preparations for war, while Western historicians, blindly believe in Krushchev's sick words.

-- posted by Tarkin

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - To Hardu

What is your opinion in regard to this topic?

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hardu - I was an Allied victory.

One of the rumours about WWII diplomacy I've never seen confirmed is that in 1943 Ribbentrop and Molotov met to discuss peace. The Soviets turned down the Nazi offer because Ribbentrop proposed the Dnepr as the border in the Ukraine.

It is very unlikely that Stalin would have turned down a German offer of peace unless he was absolutely certain that his allies, ie th US, wouls back up his war efort to the hilt.

In 1943, even after Kursk the Soviets were in no better shape to continue the fight alone with any realistic hope of victory than Britain in 1940.
In 1942 the Soviet Union produced 8.1 million tons of steel, German-controlle output was 33.5 million tons. Even after the massive reconstruction of industry in Western Siberia, the Soviet Union only produced 12.2 million tons of steel.

The question of Allied or Soviet victory has two facets: Lend-lease and the Second Front.

1. Lend-lease
What kept the Soviet Union in the war and what enbled the Red Army to defeat the Wehrmacht in the field was Lend-lease. Lend-lease enabled the Soviet Union to focus on the production of weapons and the maintenance of armed forces totalling 12.000.000 men. Their loss ratio in tanks, the most vital statistic of the East Front, was negative in the region of 6 Soviet to one German.

In the absence of Lend-lease the Soviets would have been unable to field more than 8 million men, supported by 40 pct of the planes. The total weight of explosives launched by this force would have been about two-thirds of what was actually fired off. It would have had to rely on horse transport to an even greater degree, and would not have been able to sustain its offensive gains by reparing the railroads as it advanced.

In the words of Jason Long at his Sinews of War site at http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/So...

"Soviet historians have typically denigrated the Allied efforts to supply the Soviet Union with war material as paltry in comparison with her own production and that it was not essential to the Soviet victory. In armored fighting vehicles this is somewhat true, in aircraft less true and in raw and semi-finished industrial materials this is a bold-faced lie".

Wars are not won by tanks alone. And even in 1944 the Red Army had not enough T-34s to go around. The Unkrainian Fronts that conquered the Balkans used mainly M-4 Shermans. Lend-lease deliveries of tanks amounted to roughly 12.000 against a Soviet production of ca 100.000. Neither are wars won by aircraft alone. Leand-lease deliveries amounted to ca 18.000 against a Soviet production of 137.000. But unlike the tank, all the lend-lease aircraft were at least equal to the German ones. The US kept both the P-39/P-63 and the later (1943) versions of the P-40 in production for lend-lease.

Trucks is one much quoted aspect of lend lease. Allied deliveries comprised approx. 60 pct of total deliveries to the Soevit Union during the war. The Studebaker 2,5 ton 6 by 6 was produced almost exclusively for the Soviet Union. The Soviet industry hardly produced any cross-country vehicles at all. And 30 pct of all Soviet tires were made in the U.S.A.

But the key to mobility in WWII Russia was the railroads, not the roads. Railroads need locomotives (railroad engines), cars and rails.
Peacetime (1940) Soviet locomotive production was
about 900, half the German peacetime production. During the war thee SU produced a total of 442 locos, against the 1966 delivered from the US. The proportion for cars and rails are roughly the same, 80 pct of Soviet receipts came from US sources. Without these deliveries the Soviets would have had to divert steel and heavy engineering capacity from tanks and artillery to railroad equipment if they wanted to get to Berlin. Reduce tank/artillery output by at least 20 pct.

Planes are made mainly from aluminium and need fuel and bombs. Over half the Soviet aluminium was lend-lease, No Lend-lease means 70.000, not 137.000 planes produced. 59 pct of Soviet aviation fuel, that is 59 pct of all sorties, came courtesy Lend-lease.

The numbers qouted in the sources vary, but Allied deliveries of explosives accounted for somewhere between 1/3 and half the Soviet consumption. Soviet gross production was around 600.000 tons against Allied deliveries in the region of 300.000 tons. But the U.S. also shipped 103.000 tons of the basic ingredient for making TNT, the filler for bombs and shells, against a Soviet domestic production of 116.000 tons. The allied also delivered 991.000.000 empty cartridges.

No Lend-lease means reducing Soviet overall firepower by at least one third.

But all of this would not have mattered in the absence of Lend-lease in any case. The U.S. deliverd rations for 12.000.000 men - it fed the Red Army for the last two and half years of the war.

Russia mobilized in the order of 25.000.000 men and at least 10.000.000 horses for military purposes, almost all from agriculture. Along with the territorial losses this gave an agricultural output in 1942 and 1943 at 38 pct of the prewar level. Food rations were at subsistence level. (In the less exposed and less vital parts of the Soviet Union, ie the Siberian Maritimes, there was famine). There is no way that the Soviet Union could have fed a Red Army/Air Force/Navy of 12.000.000 men and 3-4.000.000 horses without lend-lease food. On its own the Soviet Union would have had to let a large number of men and horses serving in the military remain on the land to grow food for those fighting the Nazis. My guess is that Soviet military manpower would have been reduced by a third.

2. The Second Front.
U.S. war planning was based on the principle of Europe First from the summer of 1939 at the very latest. The Second Front came into existence as soon as the U.S. could mobilize and ship forces to Europe. But mobilization and shipping, as opposed to planning and rearmament, only began on Pearl Harbour Day

Moving militarily significant forces to Europe took a year and half, mainly because of strategic distractions in the Pacific. U.S. prewar planning did not account for the Fall of the Phillipines and Singapore.

In military terms a threat is as real as an act. The threat of the Second Front is reflected in the redeployment of the German Army between the winter of 1942 and the spring of 1944. Dec.24th, 1941 the Germans had 150 divisional equivalents in the East against 80 elsewhere. Apr. 4th 1944 150 div.equ. remained in the East, against 122 elsewhere. None of the 36 odd div.equ. raised had been sent to the East. In mechanized units the discrepancy is even grater, 19,33 vs 5,5 against 22 vs 18. None of the 12 new formations raised had gone East. Moreover, by that time the divisions in France were up to strength while those in the East were in various states of exhaustion.

The entire quantitative, and whatever qualitative, increase of the Wehrmacht between 1941 and 1944 had been consumed by the "Second Front", the war in Italy no less than the threat of invasion.

The 36 divisions worth of men and arms that the Red Army did not face made the "Second Front" real even three months before Overlord.

And while the air offensive did not significantly harm German war production before the summer of 1944, it did reduce output. In the last quarter of 1943 bomb damage and disruption lead to 79 Tiger tanks and 144 Panthers not being finshed. Actual Tiger production in that quarter was 173, that of Panthers 776. Bombing also reduced truck production by 20 pct and that prime movers (half-tracks) by one third.

To cope with the bombing heavy FLAK production was increased from Oct.1942 and the Luftwaffe had to devote ever greater resources to defence of the Reich. While the numerical strength of the Luftwaffe remained constant at approx. 2 million men, its fighting power had to be redeployed away from the East.

Judging by the amout of concrete poured by Organisation Todt, most of the investment of manpower and material in the Atlantic Wall was made in 1942 and 1943. Most of the guns were old or captured and the men defending it as old as the gunds. But it nevertheles consumed an inordinate amount of steel for obstacles and explosives for mines. Building it Hitler also broke the major maxim of his military hero Frederick the Great: "He who defends everywhere defends nowhere". But as Rommel well knew, he had no choice. When the invasion came Allied airpower would deny him the ability to concentrate his forces for a grand operational masterstroke. He had to defend everywhere.

Overlord was merely the "actualization of the idea of the Second Front". When it was launched, it succeeded. Its course conformed to the intent of its commander, even if the pace did not. (My only criticism is that Eisenhower stuck to the plan and sent the 1st US Army into Britanny instead of having it envelop the Germans of the Falaise pocket. He missed the chance to destroy the German army in the west completely, which meant that he had to do it again on the West Wall. It's what makes him less than a "Great Captain").

If the Normandy invasion had failed I don't think Stalin had launched his summer offensives of 1944. In that sense Overlord was the real "Icebreaker".

The Russian believe that they won the war by themselves during the year beginning with Kursk and ending with Bagration in Belorussia. It rests on more solid grounds than one factor explanations in general. But blood shed is not only cause of victory. It was during 1943 that Lend-lease became effective, due to the opening of the Persian Gulf route, and the Ostheer was not reinforced after Kursk because of urgent need to defend in the West. This is not to devalue the sacrfices of the Russians and associated Central Asian peoples. But all their sacrifices would have been in vain but for Lend-lease and the Second Front.

-- posted by Hardu

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - To Hardu

Do you believe also that the western allies could have liberated Europe and defeat Germany without the contribution of the USSR?

My belief, with the atomic bomb, possibly, without it, no way.

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - to hardu

Also i wonder if you could help me on a issue.

I a program on the discovery channel, stated that the Germans lost 800,000 dead at Stalingrad. Yet according to another source it was 300,000(100,000 dead, 100,000 wounded, 100,000 prisoners).

Plus the russians state that the germans lost 6 million dead on the russian front, well accordng to my own sources it was around 3 million.

I wonder what your sources say on this matter.

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» easy_green - Re: the Falaise Pocket/Stalingrad

The Allies did eventually seal the pocket, and 25 of the 38 odd German divisions committed to battle were completely destroyed in the cauldron. Part of von Kluge's 7th Army did slip through....

In _A Soldier's Story_, Bradley puts the blame for this on Montgomery: "Rather than close the trap by capping Falaise, Monty proceeded to squeeze the enemy out toward the Seine. If Monty's tactics mystified me, they dismayed Eisenhower even more. And at LUCKY FORWARD where a shocked Third Army looked on helplessly as its quarry fled, Patton raged at Montgomery's blunder."

Bradley could have sent Patton northward to seal the gap on his own iniative, and in fact he countermanded Patton's order to XV to push on from Argentan to Falaise.

Seems to me that the blunder was mostly Monty's -- Eisenhower had not yet assumed personal command of Allied ground forces -- and/or maybe Bradley's for giving Patton the stop sign at Argentan.

Re Stalingrad: The German Quartermaster General's report estimated the forces encircled at Stalingrad at 270,000 men November 24, 1942. Working backwards, F. W. von Mellenthin (Alan Clark's source, apparently) notes that 40,000 -- including many wounded -- were evacuated by the Luftwaffe. The Russians claimed 90,000 prisoners. That leaves 140,000 unaccounted for and presumably killed in action.

The German order of battle included in _Panzer Battles_:

Thirteen infrantry divsions (44, 71, 76, 79, 94, 100 Jager, 113, 295, 305, 371, 376, 389, and 397).
Three Panzer divisions (14, 16, and 24).
Three motorized divisions: 3, 29, and 60.
One antiaircraft: 9.

There were also remnants of two Rumanian divisions at Stalingrad, a Croat regiment, plus a lot of other personel (including 6th Army headquarters and staff for five army corps).

-- posted by easy_green

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hardu - Re Stalingrad

My major source at the moment is Volume 5 of the "German Reich and the Second World War" written by the German semi-official Military- historical research Unit - which is the closest thing to an "official" German history of WWII. (My copy is in German, it is available in English as well).I also have "World War II in Europe. An encyclopedia" close at hand (That's the big advantage of being a librarian ... I can take whatever I need from the stacks - no eyebrows raised - the books are MINE; MINE. Bacvk to earth).

It was not the peronell losses at Stalingrad that hurt the most. It was most of all a psychological defeat because it was an utter defeat. No Prussian or German army had surrendered since 1806.

The importance of Stalingrad lies in that it destroyed the Wehrmacht as a force capable of conducting mobile operations because at Stalingrad the Soviets bagged not just the 6th Army, they bagged a sizable proportion of the German army vehicle park. In Jan. 1943 the Wehrmacht Heer wrote off 53.696 trucks and 28.638 "cars" (jeeps and weapons carriers), in Feb. 18.760 and 10.718. Total truck receipts into the German army in 1942 was 45.101. The total 1942 German controlled truck production was 126.706. The losses of artillery prime movers were 3902 and 919.

Total German vehicle losses for all of Barbarossa were 35.159 trucks, 24.849 cars and 2.754 prime movers, which was offset by the capture of 52.238 assorted vehicles.

Tank and artillery losses were extremely heavy. They were replaced; the tanks by better types. Bu because priority had to be given to weapons, the truck losses were not replaced. The German automotive industry was not big enough to sustain a mechanized war with loss rates in the Stalingrad
range.

The casualty figures given by Soviet sources are fictional. But Stalin claimed to have incurred 14.000.000 German casualties by jan.1 1942. If the Soviet body counts published during the war are added up the Soviets killed every German soldier at least three times.

Just for the record: The source I've been unsing devotes about a fifth of its 1500 pages on manpower problems.

PS: I won't be online until after the week-end. I'll be back to comment your qauestion nuetral. But I agree with your analysis.

-- posted by Hardu

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - Thanks

To Hardu.

I like to thank you for your replies, you have obviously put a lot of time and effort into them.

You have shown a great understanding of subject material, and I envy the resources which you have at your disposal.

Your contributions have been very informative and revealing, they have certainly aided my understanding of the war. And I will keep your contributions on record (like a good book) for future reference.

It’s good to see a guy who knows his stuff.

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hardu - Allied victory without the Soviet Union ? Yes, probably.

Whether an Allied victory would have been possible after the defeat of the Societ Union is definitely an iffy question.

What is certain is that the U.S. intended to do just that. The American participation in WWII was based on a set of contingency plans, Rainbow 1 through 5, made by the U.S. Joint War Planning Board under the direction of Gen. George C. Marshall in 1938/39. These all assumed that the enemy would be the Axis coalition of Germany, Japan and Italy, and that the British Empire and France would be allied to the U.S. The Soviet Union was for planning purposes considered a neutral power.

The plan that became the basis for U.S. strategy was Rainbow-5. This was finalized in the summer of 1939. Given the Hitler-Stalin Pact this assumed the benevolent neutrality of the Soviet Union towards Nazi Germany. (The person responsible for drafting the plan was Col. Albert Wedemeyer, a graduate of the German Army Military Academy, Class of 1938 as an exchange student, on eof the very few Allied officers with a real understanding of the German military mind).

Rainbow-5 was accepted as Allied strategy, Plan Dog, by the British in March 1941.

Plan Dog was simple in the extreme. The United States would mobilize an army of 288 divisions, of which 60 armoured, and ship them off to Continental Europe where it would defeat the German Army in the field and occupy Germany, holding its victory parade in Berlin a year after it had invaded the Continent. Its efforts were to be supported by strategic bombing by U.S. and British airforces and the ground forces available to the British, preferably the majority of the 50 divisions Britain intended to mobilize.

The only difference between Plan Dog and reality is that the ground forces involved in the War in the West between the summer of 1943 and the summer of 1945 only amounted to one third of those required by the plan. This was partly due to the demands of the War in the Far East/Pacific, which was a drain on British Empire resources in particular, but mainly due to the fact that the US slowed down the tempo in raising new divisions once it was realized that they could not be shipped to Europe in time to take part in the war.
But the reason for this was ack of shipping, not of manpower and arms and the tapering off in U.S. mobilization and production only happened after the date for the invasion had been set for the summer of 1944.

The shipping constarints were produced by the offensive posture in the Pacific, which was contrary to the plan and mainly a sop to U.S. public opinion.

The actual Alied armies that invaded Continetal Europe in 1943 and 1944 were less than half the size of those required by Plan Dog. In numerical terms the Red Army became the substitute for the 180 U.S. divisions that were "missing" comparaed to the plan in 1944.

From the vantage point of March 1941 the entry of the Soviet Union into the war was a bonus, nothing more.

The first lesson of war is Moltke's dictum that plans never survive contact with reality. The enemy is an independent actor that continually strives to disrupt our planned actions.

The Western Allies intended to defeat Germany with or without Soviet help, AND on the assumption that Germany would have access to Soviet raw materials.

Would the Allies have been able to defeat Germany on their own ?

This quesion can only be tentaively answered, and only by speculating on how Germany would have acted after it had defeated the Soviet Union in a successful Barbarossa.

One indicator of this are the various planning proposals made in 1941 for the size of the German Army of 1942. These all envisage a growth in the operational core of the Heer, the panzer and motorized divsions. The Panzer-program enacted by the "Führer" of July 14 1941 envisaged 36 panzer and 18 motorized divisions by May 1 1942. The number of infantry formations proposed for that date fluctuates between 110 and 120, including 10 mountain divisions.

In addition post-Barbarossa planning called for an increase in German strategic capability, ie U-boats and heavy bombers.

Given that the U.S. mobilization of a mass army would have required 3 years (starting with nine divisions in 1940, doubling every 6 months), the earliest date for an invasion would have been the summer of 1943. This would have givne the germans ample time to prepare.

But, and this is the 64.000 dollar question, would they have done so. German rearmament was based on the assumption of short wars, "rearmament in width", not attrition, "rearmament in depth". The industrial mobilization of 1939 was a shambles because of the totally irrational nature of the economic planing system imposed by the totalitarian dictatorship and the managerial incompetence of the OKW. From Sept. 1 1939 until Dec.31 1942 capacity utilization in the armaments industry was only 80 pct. For the first two and half years of the war Germany produced 25 pct less weapons than it could have done under a rational management !

There was no large scale transfer of capacity from civilian to military production, "mobilization of industry" properly speaking. Neither were there any unemployed to direct to the arms industry. On the contrary output fell to 80 pct due to the call up for military service. This lead to repeated crises in the production of military supplies, crises that were met by improvisation, not restructuring.

The Germans were not supermen. The war went according to plan. There was no need for a fundamental restructuring of the economy, for mobilization for "total war". This of course lead to Britain outproducing them from 1940 to 1942.
(Contrary to historical wisdom Britain was well-prepared for the war it had to fight from June 1940. It had planned for a war of attrition since 1935. Its aircraft and aero-engine factories were in place, the planes were either building or in advanced state of development. Their problem was that they had to create an army as well after the Fall of France. This need had not been foreseen and was not planned for, This explains the backwardness of for instance British tanks and tank production If any single person is to blamed for this it is B.H. Liddel Hart, who as advisor to the Chaberlain government argued vehenmently against creating an army as he thougt the generals would only waste it in WW1 fashion).

It took the defeat of their army at the gates of Moscow for the Germans to wake up to the real economic requirements of modern war. This "Winter crisis" of 1942 is the beginning of the real German industrail mobilization and coincides with the appointment of Albert Speer as armaments "czar". His policy was identical to that adopted by the U.S. at the very beginning of the war: Letting industry manage production without any interference from politicians or militay men. This worked wonders. By 1944 Germany was outproducing Britain. But the restructuring required a full year to take effect. It was only in the spring of 1943 that actual tank production met the production targets. (Paradoxically the British area bombing helped rather than hampered industrial mobilization by destroying small businesses involve din civilian production and "freeing" those working their for the war effort.)

Given the nature of the Nazi regime it is questionable whether this industrial mobilizaiton would have occurred if Barbarossa had been victorious. The victory over France was followed by both industrial and military demobilizaiton measures. The same would probably have been the case after a victory over the Soviets. Hitler would have opted for more butter and less guns. In addition resources would have been siphoned off from the German economy for state-sponsored schemes to "develop" the newly conquered Eastern lands.

The German WWII leadership suffered from the tunnell-vision induced by an exclusive focus on operational warfare. After the successful conclusion of the war against the Soviet Union the military would probably have rested on their laurels. The Nazi ledership would probably have lost what grip it had on reality.

For Germany to successfully defend its conquest against the United States it would have had to develop the means to invade and conquer Britain, ie a capacity to enforce a total blocade of the islands (I have outlined this strategy in an earlier post). The British capacity for withstanding a strategic assault in 1942 was vastly superior to that of 1940/41. The German capacity for attack was at roughly the same level.
Germany had no heavy bombers because its aero-engine industry was incapable of producing suitable engines. Judging from the state of aircraft development it is hard to see how Germany could have had a viable strategic bombing force ready before 1944 at the earliest. The A-4 (V-2) SRBM only became operational in late 1944. Without the Peenemünde raid it could have become operational in the spring. The same timeframe applies to the jet aircraft. It is as likely that even weapons development would have proceeded at a peacetime, rather than wartime, pace.

As for the German navy it would have had to rely on submarines. German shipbuilders never achieved the productivity of their U.S. counterparts. Only U.S. industry was capable of completing a battleship in less than two years. The Germans needed at least three. If a massive building program of major surface combatants had been initiated in 1941 Germany might have had a balanced navy in 1944. It was not - and there simply was not enough steel to go around in the Great German Reich for an "American" arms build-up to occur.

Given that the defeat of the Soviet Union would have meant that the U.S. had stuck to Plan Dog, Macarthur's promise to return to the Phillipines notwithstanding, the maritime resources sent to the Pacific would have been used in the Atlantic. The shortage of convoy escorts and long-range patrol aircraft that allowed the U-boats to almost strangle Britain in the winter of 1943 would not have occurred. Adherence to the Germany First principle would have enabled the U.S. to use the logistic capacity tied up in the Pacific for strategically useful purposes. With more shipping available the American build-up in Britain could have proceeded at a faster pace than historically, allowing for the transshipment of the army planned.

In the absence of a balanced maritime capacity there was nothing the Germans could have done to prevent the American build-up.

One possible effect of a vicyory in the east would have been that Spain might have entered the war on the German side in 1942. This would have given the Allies the Canary Islands, a vastly better base area than Gibraltar. If Spain had become belligerent the Allies would have occupied the Acores Islands just to be on the safe side, with or without Portuguese leave. These bases would have more than compensated for German control of the Iberian peninsula. Neither country had any maritime assets. Their entry into the war would not have affected the Battle of the Atlantic in the least.

In such an event it is also highly likely that Roosevelt would have twisted de Valera's balls hard enough to make the Republic of Ireland come in on the Allied side, in which case Allied control of the Central Atlantic would have been total.

It is possible that the Italians could have been persuaded/cajoled into sending their navy into the Atlantic in the event of a Spanish entry into the war. I cannot see it having any strategic effect however. Whether the British would have had to cover it in Cadiz or Taranto is immaterial. It is highly unlikely that Darlan would have let the Germans have the French fleet, regardless of how things went in Russia. The Vichy French were peparing to fight the Germans, not Americans.

The entry of Spain into the war would have permanently closed the Mediterranean. Depending on the attitude of Turkey, it would in all probability have lead to a British evacuation from the Middle East. The Germans were thinking of following the victory over the Soviet Union up with a descent on India. At a conference of July 7. 1941, the chief of the OKH, Halder, stipulated the need for an army of 17 divisions in Afghanistan, 14 divisions in Turkey and 8 divisions in North Africa within a year. It is conceivable that Hitler could have equalled Alexander the Great. But on the Indian "Northwest frontier" the British Army was at its home turf, and supplying the forces envisaged overland from Germany would have strained the German logistics capacity - to say the least. To evacuate India would have been an American decision in any case. But it would have been possible to raise an army of several million men in India using the equipment that historically went to the Soviet Union. "Quitting India" and leaving the Indian nationalist leaders to the tender mercies of the Japanese would at least have taught the world something about the efficacy of non--violent resistance.

Hitler playing Alexander would of course have meant that Britain could have been orced to concentrate its resources where they were most needed: On the British Isles. A German peripheral strategy would thus have played straight into the hands of the Allies.

The precondition for a successful Allied invasion of Europe was air superiority. That was achieved in the Battle of Berlin in the winter of 1944. While more German resources would have been avaialable to counter the strategic bombing from the winter of 1943 onwards, the advent of the Bomber oFfensive is the earliest likely date for the beginning of the restructuring of German industry. Historically the process of disentangling German industry from the shackles of a totalitarian dictatorship took a year.

While strategic decisions, outcomes of battles and the like are variables, organizational factors must be regarded as fixed quantities. Just like German tactical superiority is a fixed quantity, so is the organizational mess of German war production. It would have taken a year for German industry to reach its planned levels of output and a further year for production to peak. The availability of raw materials and manpower is important, but not decisive.

In this scenario the Germans would have had to fight an invasion in 1944 on a supply om arms equal to that of 1943. They would have lost the ensuing war of attrition.

The hypothetical invasion of 1944 would have been very similar to the historical. Depending on the weather it would have hit the beaches of Normandy in May or June. Normandy was the only place in France that filled the two necessary criteria of being within fighter range from Britain and having easily defensible terrain inland. (It was because of the bocage that the Allies chose Normandy over Pas de Calais).

It is entirely possible that a diversionary invasion would have been made in Southwestern Norway using U:S. Marines and naval airpower. A second invasion and even a third invasion from the British Isles would certainly have been launched after the Normandy beachhead was secured and its forward airfields operational. Southern Britanny
is the most likely landing area. But the concentration of U.S. forces on the British isles would have been such as to tie sizable German forces down all along the Atlantic Wall. "Panzergruppe Patton" would have been a reality, not merely a German intelligence fiction based on British deception measures.

Eisenhower's (Eisenhower was Marshall's choice; the alternative would have been Marshall itself). "Crusade in Europe" would have followed the same course as it did historically. The landing area would have been sealed off using airpower, writing down Luftwaffe strength in the process. The Allies would have secured a lodgment on the coast in exactly the same manner as historically. It is even likely that a better formation than the 3rd British Division would have been given Caen as its objective, in which case the city would have been secured on D-Day.

The ensuring "battle of the bridgehead" to make room for the follow-up forces and the airfields would certainly have been far more bloody and possibly more protracted. The Germans would have had no scarcity of infantry and a Verdun-like carnage in the bocage is entirely possible. But Allied airpower wold have ensured that German reinforcements would have been slow and the threat of secondary invasions would have precluded a German concentration of forces.

With German fighter production at a 1943 level combating an Allied air offensive at its historical level, the oil of Russia would have been immaterial to the outcome of the campaign. German oil and transportation infrastructure would have been reduced to rubble, the army in field immobilized.

And having to defend where it stood the German army would have been destroyed where it stood, in Normandy and possibly on the line of the Somme. Moreover, the historical reequipping of the German army for the Battle of the Siegfried Line would have been impossible at 1943 production levels.
Airfields in France would have increased the striking power of the Allied strategic bombers, reducing german industrial output even further.

Allied operations involving up to 250 divisions would of course have been constrained by logistics to a much greater extent than historically. But in the absence of a simultaneous offensive in the Pacific greater logistics resources would be at hand. It is even possible that the U.S. Navy would have developed the landing sites at Quiberon Bay into a real port using the seabees historically employed in the Pacific. (The U.S.Navy would have played a far greater role in the invasion than historically; so would the U.S.Marines).

Operation Dog, the planned war in Europe in 1944/45 would have been far more violent - leading to far greater loss of life - than the historical
campaign. It would have had to. To defeat the Germans the Western Allies would have had to inflict on them a proportion of the losses the Germans did not incur on the Eastern Front.

The war might have dragged on into 1946 and the United States would possibly have run into even greater manpower problems than it historically did.

It is possible that Truman would have used the Bomb against Germany. If the aiming point had been the Führerbunker it would have made its point as well.

But the Allies would have won. Germany was not prepared to fight the war of attrition of the Allies. And the ability of democracies to wage war is infinitely better than that of dictatorships - ven if democracies tend to lose a lot of single battles.

-- posted by Hardu

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - excellent reply but

To Hardu

An excellent analysis, but I still have serious doubts about the ability of the USA and Britian to win alone.

I have to disagree with you here, believing an Allied victory is far from probable.

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hardu - Truman would have nuked Berlin

Not to put a too fine point on it:

If no other means had lead to victory I think the Bomb would have been used to make the Germans come to their senses.

-- posted by Hardu

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hugs - re: the bomb

But what if the Germans also had the bomb at their disposal by that time? Think they would have even hesitated to use it?

-- posted by Hugs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» pod_ - bomb

I believe that if the Germans would have gotten the bomb it would have been much latter then when the U.S. got it. The US created the Manhattan Project because they feared that Germany was far ahead of the US in the development of the Atomic bomb. The Germans never put anywhere near the amount of resources into the development of their bomb as the U.S. did theirs. This combined with the Special operations to halt or slow down the German development of the bomb would have meant far set backs for the Germans. Although I do believe they probably would have used a Atomic bomb in every V-2 Launch.

-- posted by pod_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» easy_green - atomic bomb

German atom bomb research was never very far advanced. At a secret meeting at Dahlem, 4 June 1942, Heisenberg advised War Minister Speer and the assembled German physicists that an atomic bomb was possible but not in the foreseeable future owing to the fact that tons of heavy water or enriched uranium would be needed to achieve critical mass. These were not available to Germany, but neither were they available to the Allies. Atomic weapons development was put on the back burner and soon completely adonanded.

Actually, Heisenberg's calculations were flawed (See http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/96...

Meanwhile, at the same time Heisenberg was telling the German government that neither the Germans nor the Allies could build nukes, Vannevar Bush was writing to Roosevelt to recommend that an isotope isolation plant be built to produce U235 in sufficient quantities for one bomb per month, the first to be ready perhaps by the end of 1943. Critical mass was given as 2-5 kilograms or 5-10 pounds.

So as you can see, Nazi Germany could not have had atomic weapons before the Allies did -- a) because insufficient resources were devoted to the project and relatedly b) the German fission researchers were working under a set of incorrect premises (incidentally, when Heisenberg heard that the U.S. had detonated an atomic weapon over Japan, his initial reaction -- secretly taped by the Allies -- was to write it off as U.S. propaganda).

I agree with Hardu: supposing the land campaign went entirely the Germans' way in Eastern Europe, and even supposing Overlord failed to win the Anglo-Americans a foothold in France, by 1945 Truman would've been in a position to launch an atomic bombing campaign over Germany. The nukes would've made short work of the Reich and the Nazis would not have had anything to counter with.

-- posted by easy_green

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - let's say the germans had developed jets

If, and this is the question, the germans had developed jets(eariler, a possibility in onefront war scenario, more resources to airpower) an had gone into full production, they would have enjoyed the same air superiority that they enjoyed in 1940.

Combined this control of the air with Nerve gas agent(a chemical weapon far more potent to anything the allies had) and V2 missiles with radioactive materiel and I believe the Germans had the weapons in their aresenal to respond to a atomic attack.

Now i may be wrong, but I believe that the US could only construct 3 bombs a year at that time, Germany could have alienatied the British poulation with nerve gas as retaliation, and with control of the air, the allies would not be able to retaliate effectivily.

German advanced aircraft technology was years ahead of the Allies.

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» easy_green - if....

If Germany had done this that and the other thing, they would have won the war. But they didn't do any of those things. The Americans, on the other, were going to be a nuclear power in 1945 -- that's a matter of historical record.

Anyway, here's an "what if" scenario for you. If the Germans had built and deployed large numbers of ME 262s, the British and Americans would have rushed their own jet fighters into combat.

The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star was designed, built and tested (Jan 1944) in only 143 days, and its performance smoked the Me 262. Here are the vital stats:

P-80 Shooting Star
Year: 1945
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 * 24.03kN Allison J33-A-35
Wing Span: 11.81 m
Length: 10.49 m
Height: 3.43 m
Wing Area: 22.07 m2
Empty Weight: 3819 kg
Max.Weight: 7646 kg
Max. Speed: 967 km/h
Ceiling: 14265 m
Range: 1328 km
Armament: 6*mg 12.7 mm 2*b454kg

Type: Me 262A-1a
Function: fighter
Year: 1944 Crew: 1
Engines: 2 * 900kg Junkers Jumo 004B-1
Wing Span: 12.48 m
Length: 10.60 m
Height: 3.84 m
Wing Area: 21.70 m2
Empty Weight: 3800 kg
Max.Weight: 6400 kg
Speed: 870 km/h
Ceiling: 11450 m
Range: 1050 km
Armament: 4*g30 mm

Once committed to jet development, the British and Americans would pull sharply ahead -- thanks to superior engine design.

-- posted by easy_green

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» pod_ - easy_green

Who says that the Germans would have used only the Me262? The Germans had several jets that were far superior to the Me262 or the P-80 when the war ended in 1945 even a bomber that could reach New York. And if they had defeated the Soviet Union these Jets probably for sure would have put these into service before the allies got major amounts of P-80s or the British Meteor ,which the Me262 could have "flown circles around", into service.

-- posted by pod_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» pod_ - correction

I meant that the Germans had several planes "in development far superior to the Me262..."

-- posted by pod_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hardu - Sabotage ?

I wonder, Easy Green: Did Heisenberg really get the numbers wrong on his slide rule or did he make his faulty calculation to discourage further research ?

.

-- posted by Hardu

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hardu - On wonder weapons.

This discussion reminds me of the proposal for the game "Fall Geld" that appeard in the feedback column of SPIs "Strategy and Tactics" in 1977 or '78. The came was on a German invasion of the U.S. in 1946 and the proposal began as follows (qouting from memory): "After a B-29 managed to slip past German defences and drop an atom bomb on Hamburg, a nuclear armed sub-launched A-4 devastated New York City". (The game had the highest positive feedback in SPI history, but was never made).

Germany possessed two potential "strategic equalizers" during World War II. The first was the A-4 (V-s) SRBM, the second was its arsenal of modern chemical weapons. I have been lead to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that at the beginning of WWII only Germany possessed the knowlegde and technology to produce nerve agents. These agants "burnt through" the WWI gas mask filters used at the beginning of the war.

In combination enough of the two could have knocked Britain out of the war. But "enough" in this context means the simultaneous delivery of several thousand tons of chemical agents, ie the launch of the same number of A-4s. AND, it would have to have been done prior to 1943. Which means it is not a possible historical option. Neither the missiles nor the gas was available in sufficient quantities.

It would aso have lead to several - tens of - million civilian casualties because it would have meant saturating Greater London with gas.

More thought-provoking is the fact that if chemical agents had been used in its "proper" miitary role, to suppress the defence, Germany would almost certainly have won the Battle of Britain. The Germans could have saturated the Fighter Command airfields with persistent chemical agents instead of trying to knock them out with HE. Given the state of the art of protective and decontamination equipment, the resulting reduction in the British sortie rate would have made the airfields of No 11 Group untenable

While Britain did have a retaliatory capacity, the Luftwaffe would probabaly have been able to defend its bases in France against British attacks. For the British to retaliate by attacking German cities at night would only have been to invite German retaliation in kind.

I don't know if this option was ever considered by the Germans. Luckily German chemical munitions production was way behind schedule throughout WWII. It may also be that the "Führer" had the ingrained antipathy to gas as a weapon of war typical of all WWI Frontschweine, regardless of nationality.

(The British of course planned to use gas against a German landing as part of their literal "kamikaze" strategy of national defense in the summer of 1940).

But any use of chemical weapons by the Germans was out of the question after the spring of 1942 due to the retaliatory capability of the Bomber Command.

"Wonder weapons" are not nice and interesting machines, they are the ugly things that kill people.

-- posted by Hardu

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» easy_green - Heisenberg, V-2, and Amerika Bomber

Did Heisenberg deliberately scotch the critical mass data? Probably not.

What's for certain though is that facism drove a legion of Europe's best theoretical physicists right out of Europe and into Great Britain and the United States -- Niels Bohr, Enrico Fremi, and Leo Szilard worked on the Manhattan Project. But the list of distinguished refugees is endless: Einstein, Shrodinger, Otto Stern, Wolfgang Pauli...a horde of Nobel prize winners. And the list doesn't stop at physicists. It includes chemists, engineers, and designers of all stripes.

This must have given the Allies some kind of advantage in the research/development field. It couldn't have helped the Nazis any.

Re the A-4: This weapon had no strategic value at all during WWII. Payload 2,200 lbs, and some 3600 fired during the war -- it sum, fewer than 4000 tons of HE. 8th AF had the capacity to drop that tonnage in a day. For comparison's sake: a B-17 carried 17,600 lbs of bombs and Boeing built more than 12,000 of them.

Re the "Amerika Bomber": reference to a German bomber that could travel the distance from Berlin to NYC is pressumably to one of Horten's "flying wings": probably the Ho XVIII B. This plane did not exist, not even in prototype. In fact, it was just a drawing. The war ended months before work was scheduled to begin. Might have been ready late in 1946; 1947 is likelier. On the other hand, the B-29 was a real plane with a real range of 5,600 miles and a production figure really running into thousands.

If the U.S. tended to favor conventional technologies, it wasn't because its engineers were dunces but because U.S. war planners (correctly, I believe) assumed that radical new designs would invariably run into production delays. This is why the U.S. Army kept on asking for more and more Shermans, not because American engineers didn't know how to build a Tiger.

The one area where the Nazi had a big technical advantage was in liquid-fueled rockets. They also built marginally better jet airframes. But the idea that Nazi technology was light years ahead of the Allies is a myth.

-- posted by easy_green

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» pod_ - easy_green

In the summer of 1941 the Germans put off the development of the jet and other projects for the invasion of Russia ,if the war in the Soviet Union had been going well they probably would have reintroduced these designs much earlier and the development of the jet would have been even farther ahead the allied so the Amerika bomber probably would have been developed earlier.

-- posted by pod_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hardu - Re the A-4 and German weapons development.

I did write "potential". The A-4 had a range of 300 kms (190 miles) and was thus a short-range ballistic missile, a FROG rather than a SCUD. It did, however, carry a useful payload and A-4s with chemical warheads would have been perfect for terrorizing London if they had been operational in 1940. They were too inaccurate to have any usuful "military" purpose.

But they were not operational at the time when they could have had any influence on German military fortunes. End of story. Almost.

To pod:
The story of the German high-tech weapons are the story of the German mobilization for "total war". The Germans never prepared for a long war. They never planned it becaus ethey did not want it. When industrial mobilization occured during 1942 it was too late.

For any of the German high-tech weapons systems to have had any effect on the course of the war they would have had to be operational by 1941, meaning that their development would have had to have started at least five years earlier. That's the time it takes to develop new eapons. The only candidate for this is the A-4. The German army missile program started in 1932 and by 1937 testing of the A-3 convinced the Army that the SSM was a practical weapon. That was when the decision to go ahead with the A-4 was taken. Historically the engine was first tested in 1940 and first flight of the missile was in October 1942. Given higher priority it is possible that the A-4 could have been fielded in 1941.

But: A weapon like the A-4 had no place in German Army doctrine. It was too inaccurate to take out tactical targets and thus mesh with the manouvre war doctrine of the Army. It had no place in Hitler's strategy of "limited war" either. The success of that concept meant that the development of strategic weapons was not accellerated.

For the guided missile, in my view, represents the "second stage" of German interwar (ie Weimar republic) rearmament. It gave Germany the deterrence it needed, but was not allowed to have under the Versailles Treaty.

As a strategic weapon the guided missile is a Douhetian wet dream. There is no defence against it. It can deliver large quantities of chemical weapons - the interwar equivalent of nucler weapons. Germany could, without breaking the Treaty, develop and deploy a weapon that gave it a strategic retaliatory capacity with which to counter the air forces of its neighbours. It did away with the need to build a strategic bombing force, which among other things needed vast quantities of aviation fule that Germany did not produce. From the vantage point of the eraly thirties, the SRBM was a cheap (and natural) medium term solution to Germany's strategic predicament.

Military interest in guided missile development began at the time when the Versailles Treaty restrictions were still in force. But that Treaty did not ban guided missiles because guided missiles did not exist in 1919 any more than air-cooled machine guns capable of sustained fire. (The Treaty also banned the Germans from developing new water-cooled heavy machine guns, spurring the development of the first modern multi-purpose machine gun, the MG34).

Guided missile development remained an army responsibility even after air matters assigned to the new Luftwaffe. Whether this was a conscious policy decision or just a reflection of the flyboys' obsession with flying as such I don't know. Within the framework of German planning the Luftwaffe's concentration on air defence and operational warfare was natural. But the long-term development of strategic weapons remained the reponsibility of an Army embarking on an unplanned expansion and an "unplanned" war (at least one it felt itself ill-prepared for). Given the actual historical events of the later '30s the need to develop a strategic deterrence based on guided missiles waned in proportion to Germny's capacity for agression.

Which is a good thing. If the A-4 had been deployed in numbers in 1940/41 the air war against Germany would have had to have taken a different course.

-- posted by Hardu

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - to easy green

There is far more to air technology than engine design. And german air designs and aeronautics were years ahead of the Allies.

An American air desiger himself said that the Me 262 was far superior to anything the allies had.

And explain the hundreds of German scientists that allies nicked after the war, to modernize their air force.

German supersonic aerodynamics and materials science was years ahead of the Allies. THESE two areas alone are just as crucial as jet technology, if not more so, the Germans lead here was immense.

Remember german were almost at the point of producing supersonic aircraft, of a speed and performance beyond the imagination of the allied air designers of the time. And don't forget that jet aircraft produced by the allies in the 50's and 60's were heavily influenced by german advances in design.

That on balance german air technology was far ahead.

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - The scope of German technical achievement during the war was daz

The scope of German technical achievement during the war was dazzling.

When you take into consideration the scale and range of the German technical achievement, they left the Allies for dead. True, there were some areas were the Allies where ahead, radar and atomic weapons, but on average, the Germans performance was superior.

From ballistics, to tank design, from materials science to chemical warfare agents, from optics to advanced aircraft design, from electronics (TV, infrared, telemetry, missile control systems) to advance submarine design.

The Germans lead was considerable, this contention is overwhelming established in the hundreds of reports written by Allied investigators who did not shy from describing the Germans’ ‘astonishing achievement’ and ‘superb invention’. German scientist had pioneered so many inventions that many Allied experts would complain that their plunder could do no more than scratch the surface. (The extensive investigation program lasted more than 6 years) .

The defeat of the blockage is also evidenced of German technical superiority. The blockage on essential mineral, chemical and petroleum products, it was argued, would cripple weapons productions. But the very opposite happened, because German scientists developed an astonishing range of substitutes which not only neutralized the blockage but heralded the dawn of a new scientific era.

A small faction of the Allied reports which support this contention:

Major-General Hugh Kerr, deputy commander of the US Air Force in Europe reported that he had discovered five German scientist ‘ who would be of immense value in our JET ENGINE and airplane development program’ advancing the American program by at LEAST TWO YEARS’.

In a report to General Tooey Spaatz (commander of the US Air Force in Europe) he stated: ‘ Occupation of German scientific and industrial establishment has revealed the fact that we have been alarmingly backward in many fields of research. If we do not take the opportunity to seize the apparatus and the brains that developed it and put the combination back promptly, WE WILL REMAIN SEVERAL YEARS BEHIND WHILE WE ATTEMPT TO COVER A FIELD ALREADY EXPLOITED’.

Here is a another US intelligence report to the joint chiefs of staff:

"Unless the migration of important German scientists and technicians into the soviet zone is immediately stopped, we believe that the USSR within a relatively short time may equal the US in developments in the fields of atomic research and guided missiles and may be ahead of US developments in other fields of importance, including Infra Red, television and JET PROPULSION".

W.S. Farren the director of Franborough (the British air R & D Centre) stated: "the scale on which science and engineering have been harnessed to the chariot of destruction in Germany is indeed amazing"
and " the Messerchmitt factories, were packed with American specialists spending weeks in a single plant learning everything they could from the Germans"

Thus contention that the Germans were only being marginally ahead in air technology, is bullshit!

The reports of the top Allied specialists, clearly shows otherwise.

The later version of the ME 262 had a top speed of 540 miles per hour at 20,000 feet, this aircraft had a performance and firepower advantage vastly superior to any other Allied aircraft at that that time.

To easy green ( obviously a proud YANK)

The US performance in technology

The US greatest performance was in the development of the atomic bomb, yet this heavily relied on European talent (Jewish and political refugees from Europe and Germany).

The US was years behind Germany in nuclear physics prior to the war, it was this European talent which became the core genius behind the bomb program.

(One thing that is not often mentioned, is Germany suffered a considerable brain drain in this area, which greatly retarded their bomb program).

If you remove this European expertise (Fermi, Teller etc.) I believe the Americans would have been left sucking their thumbs, as far as building a bomb was concerned.

Here is what a Pentagon report stated about the US’s performance in research and development during the war "while British and German research had forged ahead" in American " research and development of new weapons had been quite ‘ unsatisfactory’.

Thus it is my believe, and the Pentagon agrees with me, that the performance of American scientists and technicians compared to their German and British counterparts were quite mediocre in comparison.

Finally, some will say that Germany still lost the war, but this was not due to the inability of German scientists and engineers, but do to the stupidity and shortsightedness of the Nazi leadership and bureaucracy, which wasted much of Germany’s technical ability.

Also some will say that the Germans achievement were created by desperation.

Interestingly, when the Allies were in similar circumstances during the war, their technical achievement was nowhere near as great (in scale and diversity ) yet they had far more human and natural resources.

Plus you have to balance (the desperation incentive) with the massive bombings, much more limited resources and stupid interference and inefficiency of the Nazi bureaucracy.

Thus on balance, what the German scientists and engineers achieved was astonishing

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - i neglected to mention by source

The scope of German technical achievement during the war was dazzling.

When you take into consideration the scale and range of the German technical achievement, they left the Allies for dead. True, there were some areas where the Allies were ahead, radar and atomic weapons, but on average, the Germans performance was superior.

From ballistics, to tank design, from materials science to chemical warfare agents, from optics to advanced aircraft design, from electronics (TV, infrared, telemetry, missile control systems) to advance submarine design.

The Germans lead was considerable, this contention is overwhelming established in the hundreds of reports written by Allied investigators who did not shy from describing the Germans’ ‘astonishing achievement’ and ‘superb invention’. German scientist had pioneered so many inventions that many Allied experts would complain that their plunder could do no more than scratch the surface. (The extensive investigation program lasted more than 6 years) .

The defeat of the blockage is also evidenced of German technical superiority. The blockage on essential mineral, chemical and petroleum products, it was argued, would cripple weapons productions. But the very opposite happened, because German scientists developed an astonishing range of substitutes which not only neutralized the blockage but heralded the dawn of a new scientific era.

A small faction of the Allied reports which support this contention:

Major-General Hugh Kerr, deputy commander of the US Air Force in Europe reported that he had discovered five German scientist ‘ who would be of immense value in our JET ENGINE and airplane development program’ advancing the American program by at LEAST TWO YEARS’.

In a report to General Tooey Spaatz (commander of the US Air Force in Europe) he stated: ‘ Occupation of German scientific and industrial establishment has revealed the fact that we have been alarmingly backward in many fields of research. If we do not take the opportunity to seize the apparatus and the brains that developed it and put the combination back promptly, WE WILL REMAIN SEVERAL YEARS BEHIND WHILE WE ATTEMPT TO COVER A FIELD ALREADY EXPLOITED’.

Here is a another US intelligence report to the joint chiefs of staff:

"Unless the migration of important German scientists and technicians into the soviet zone is immediately stopped, we believe that the USSR within a relatively short time may equal the US in developments in the fields of atomic research and guided missiles and may be ahead of US developments in other fields of importance, including Infra Red, television and JET PROPULSION".

W.S. Farren the director of Franborough (the British air R & D Centre) stated: "the scale on which science and engineering have been harnessed to the chariot of destruction in Germany is indeed amazing"
and " the Messerchmitt factories, were packed with American specialists spending weeks in a single plant learning everything they could from the Germans"

Thus contention that the Germans were only marginally ahead in air technology, is bullshit!

The reports of the top Allied specialists, clearly shows otherwise.

The later version of the ME 262 had a top speed of 540 miles per hour at 20,000 feet, this aircraft had a performance and firepower advantage vastly superior to any other Allied aircraft at that that time.

To easy green ( obviously a proud YANK)

The US performance in technology

The US greatest performance was in the development of the atomic bomb, yet this heavily relied on European talent (Jewish and political refugees from Europe and Germany).

The US was years behind Germany in nuclear physics prior to the war, it was this European talent which became the core genius behind the bomb program.

(One thing that is not often mentioned, is Germany suffered a considerable brain drain in this area, which greatly retarded their bomb program).

If you remove this European expertise (Fermi, Teller etc.) I believe the Americans would have been left sucking their thumbs, as far as building a bomb was concerned.

Here is what a Pentagon report stated about the US’s performance in research and development during the war "while British and German research had forged ahead" in America " research and development of new weapons had been quite ‘ unsatisfactory’.

Thus it is my believe, and the Pentagon agrees with me, that the performance of American scientists and technicians compared to their German and British counterparts were quite mediocre in comparison.

Finally, some will say that Germany still lost the war, but this was not due to the inability of German scientists and engineers, but do to the stupidity and shortsightedness of the Nazi leadership and bureaucracy, which wasted much of Germany’s technical ability.

Also some will say that the Germans achievements were created by desperation.

Interestingly, when the Allies were in similar circumstances during the war, their technical achievement was nowhere near as great (in scale and diversity ) yet they had far more human and natural resources.

Plus you have to balance (the desperation incentive) with the massive bombings, much more limited resources and stupid interference and inefficiency of the Nazi bureaucracy.

Thus on balance, what the German scientists and engineers achieved was astonishing

The major source of information "The Paperclip Conspiracy" by Tom Bower 1987.

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» easy_green - To Hardu

Yes, I agree about the brain drain Germany suffered; this was the main drift of my previous post. Allow me to go further: Oppenheimer, though American born, was German trained.

And in addition to what you said about Messer., you might also have mentioned that the Junkers plant (complete with engineers) was packed off to the Soviet Union. The jet battles over Korea were fought with planes which on both sides largely owed their existence to the WWII German jet program.

Nevertheless, the U.S. armaments industry did adapt to German innovation to the degree necessary to win the war. This should be obvious. It's one of the big reasons the war ended the way it did, and not the other way around.

The U.S. had, I believe, a more instrumental approach when it came to the application of technology. The Shooting Star is one example of this. Simply put, it flew faster, higher and longer than the Me262, even if the latter was in many respects a more advanced aircraft. If nothing else, it was a remarkable job of playing "catch-up."

Another example is the M26 tank, which in essence matched the Tiger I for firepower and protection (101mm frontal hull armour, and a 90mm AT gun, like the German 88, based on an anti-aircraft weapon). It was a lot lighter than the Tiger, addressing the latter's primal flaw; and, seeing combat at Remagen, the Pershing probably erased the German's qualitative advantage in armour (though the war ended before heavy campainging could punctuate this point for latter day AFV enthusiasts).

But to get to the kernel of my argument: a whole lot of German engineering was expended on developing weapons designed to win the next war, and not the war Germany was fighting. A technologies program divorced from a rational, coherent, and winnable strategy is useless. By the time most of the wonder weapons were being dreamed up, weapons development and material exigency were widely out of joint in Germany. On the Allied side, a Higgins boat is what happens when the two coincide.

Or to put it another way, instead of trying to build supersonic interceptors the Germans might with more immediate effect on the Allied bomber campaign have concentrated on designing proximity fuses for their AA rounds.

In sum, whereas the Allies' technologies ultimately produced victory and the Germans' did not, I can't help but feel the Allies's was "better" in the only sense that matters.

By the way, Hardu, I love your posts. They're the main reason I check this board every day.

-- posted by easy_green

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» easy_green - To Neutral/Hardu

Oops, last post obviously meant for Neutral!

Final comment applies to both of you. I love both of your posts!

-- posted by easy_green

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» easy_green - On technology again - To Neutral

By the bye, since we're all enjoying the internet here, I may as well point out that the most important technical innovation of the last 50 years isn't the jet, it aint even the nuke. It's the computer.

This contraption was born at Harvard and Bletchley Park in 1943. The Harvard Mk1 was an all purpose electromechanical computer built with the backing of IBM -- a commercial enterprise.

The Colossus, on the other hand, developed within the framework of the British Ultra program and should be considered a weapon. Taken as a whole, Ultra was the most significant/decisive application of scientific brain power undertaken by either side during WWII.

Do you disagree?

-- posted by easy_green

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» not_him_again - Wonder Weapons

The weapon that could have won Germany the war was the Walther u-boat, if they could have mass produced it by 1943 or earlier.

-- posted by not_him_again

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hardu - Heisenberg flunked maths at university.

I read recently in article celebrating the centennial of Heisenberg's alma mater, the Technical University of Berlin, that he flunked maths as an undergraduate. Which explains his error.

-- posted by Hardu

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» lbk497 - Hardu

I have to disagree with you on this one. I think that it is more probable that he would tell Hitler it wasn't possible so he couldn't use it. Just look at what the American scientists did once they developed it they said it should never be used because of the mass destruction it caused.

-- posted by lbk497

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hardu - It was meant to be a flight simulator from the start

I think it's time to let the secret out. The PC is not descended from the Mark sereis or ENIAC or any other electronic calculator. Remember that the boss of IBM at that time predicted that five such machines would satisfy the entire global need for computing. It's the outcome of Project Whirwind, a MIT project to build a flight simulator for the US Navy that transmuted into an attempt to build an interactive digital computer. The keyword is interactive (what we're doing now). Mainframe technology was time-sharing. (You punched your cards, handed them to the men in white and got your error statement four hours later - still it was great to be anundergraduate in the early 1970-ies).

Anyway, the development of the PC began with a flight simulator. Just don't belive the people who tell you that PCs are there for serious purposes. PCs are for fun and games - for running flight simulations and playing wargames !

-- posted by Hardu

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hardu - To LKB

I wish you were right. But cfr. the posts above.

-- posted by Hardu

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - as far as computers are concerned.

According to Bill Gates the most important development in computing was the integrated circuit (developed in the 60's). It was this development that revolutionised the computering industry and made possible the tremendious power versatility and compactness that computers today enjoy.

Before this development, computers were little more than oversized calculators.

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» nuetral - in regard to computing

True, the Allies made great achievements in computing technology, but the Germans also achieved in this area as well.

According to the book "The Age of Spiritual Machines" by Ray Kurzweil. The first fully programmable digital computer was the Z-3, developed by Konrad Zuse, of Germany.

Plus, the Germans made major breakthroughs into computerized flight( the V 2 employed a very advanced computerised system, for it's day).

Colossus was the first fully programmable electronic computer, developed in 1943, where Z-3 was electro-mechanical.

The most important miltary development however, was the atomic bomb. This weapon offered a tremendious strateic and destructive power which till this day is unmatched.

The Allies advantage in code breaking would have mattered little, if the germans had gained this weapon first.

Plus, where the war was largely won, the Eastern Front, Enigma intercepts had little influence.

The Russians largely beat the Germans without it's help and also had their own excellent intelligence sources.

Finally, if the Western Allies really got in trouble, the Atomic bomb was their great strategic equalizer.

-- posted by nuetral

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Emperor - The Russian Side III

Wow, I'm pleased that so many have joined in this ongoing discussion! There has been a lot going on since I last contributed to Suite 101. It would appear there are more solid discussions backed up by reference sources. There's even a spell check!
To Mr. Zuljan, my apologies for making an Augumentum Ad Hominem. I will carefully restrain my positions advanced and remember the posting etiquette.
To begin with, many responders have advanced a "team approach" argument that won the Second World War. This is the usual position of many Western historians and is usually taught to students in the typical U.S. History classrooms and written into U.S. history textbooks. I used to be a firm believer in this argument, but after doing the research and visiting Russia so often, I now have a hard time believing this viewpoint.
The "team approach" position does not address the issue of not opening the second front in 1942 or 1943. I have not read any viable counter argument to not opening a Second Front except for Mr. Zuljan's response that Roosevelt and Churchill could also act Machiavellian and would be irresponsible if they did not keep the interests of their own countries in mind. This would appear to negate the overall "team approach, everyone does their part for victory" argument. Mr. Zuljan also makes the point that the Allied help to Russia was mostly "behind the scenes" in air attacks, supplies, and threatened invasions from the Atlantic or the Mediterranean.
Many responders have done much more research than I, but still cling to the typical "team approach" argument, even though their positions can discredit this main argument. Many agree that the western allies' did their part in the overall victory in Europe by supplying Russia with Lend-Lease materials, tying down numbers of Nazi troops in Western and Southern Europe with a threat of continental invasion or small campaigns, destroying German industry with the bomber offensive and tying down large numbers of German manpower in Reich defense Luftwaffe squadrons and anti-aircraft batteries. Another offshoot position is showing that the Germans were technically superior to the Russians and without Allied help, the Russians would have been outclassed and eventually defeated by superior German aircraft, tank doctrine and eventually, the atomic bomb.
Many responders pointed to the impressive Lend-Lease figures that the USA supplied to the Soviet Union and believe that the USA and Britain did their part by supplying the USSR with an enormous amount of equipment without which the USSR would not have won. I did my own brief check and (of course) have come to a different conclusion.
By Jan. 1944 the Allies had supplied the USSR with : 7,800 aircraft
4,700 tanks and tank-destroyers
170,000 trucks
Plus: millions of tires, millions of pairs of boots, a couple million tons of steel, oil products, lots of rubber, much food, etc...

Impressive figures...I just question how much of all this made it to the front lines. It may very well be that Alan Clark in his book, Barbarossa, is right on the money that the majority of the tanks were rejected by the Red Army as "unfit for combat roles." The majority of the western tanks supplied to Russia could have very well been distributed to non combat areas, like the Far East, and played an indirect role in the victory on the Eastern Front by releasing the better Russian-made equipment for combat. This is not much different from what the USA does now when we sell arms to friendly countries, we don't sell our best stuff. We sell our "export versions" (second rate stuff) and let the countries think they bought the best.
There were three ways to send Russia supplies in WW II. The Far Northern route (Murmsnsk and Archangel), through Iran, and across Siberia. The Siberian route was not viable. That leaves the Murmansk route or through Iran.
Louis L. Snyder in The War, A Concise History 1939-1945 says that, "Large numbers of locomotives and freight cars were sent to the repaired Trans-Iranian Railroad, which ran from the Persian gulf to the Caspian."
I hope these locomotives were modified for the Russian Gauge track because it is wider than the western gauge track. If these locomotives and rolling stock were not modified in some way they would have been useless.
The majority of the U.S. equipment was delivered to the ports of Murmansk and Archangel. From what I know and saw about the Russian railroads, I cannot help from imagining a large stockpile of equipment sitting and rotting in Murmansk by the Russians' inability to get it all distributed in a reasonable amount of time. I have the sinking feeling that most of the Lend-Lease equipment just sat and rotted in Russia either rejected by the Red Army or the Russian railway incapability to distribute all of it in a timely manner.
On another note, a counter argument to the allied bomber campaign tieing down a million Germans just for the defense of the Reich in flak batteries, I say that by 1944 it just didn't matter. The Red Army was too much on a roll.
From July, 1943 to April 1944 the Russians advanced in southern Russia about 650 miles from Tananrog to the Carpathian Mountains! They liberated about 38,000 towns and villages including Sevastopol, Odessa, Kiev, Kharkov and Smolensk. They also crushed the German "Operation Citadel" offensive, broke the back of the German's panzer forces and inflicted about 1,000,000 casualties on the Germans.
At this time the Russian front got an evil reputation in Germany. Soldiers were not enthusiastic about serving there.
Against these facts, the bomber argument helping the Russians just doesn't pan out. It sounds good on paper, but the reality appears to be that it had a small impact. The western Allies have blown it out of proportion to it's value.
Mr. Zuljan argued that the sprawl of Moscow really did had no value in the Blitzkreig of 1941 because the Russians were able to take a large city like Berlin in a few weeks and with light casualties in 1945. In 1945, Berlin had taken a pounding from air attacks for five years. Many buildings were just heaps of rubble. Much of population had fled in terror at the approach of the Red Army. Read the book, Defeat in the East, for a picture of the civilian population leaving and the terror the Red Army invoked on civilians in Germany. It was like a horde of Huns were approaching killing, burning, plundering and raping.
Moscow was not like this in late 1941, the civilians were told to stay put. Few appear to have ran. Masses of civilians were put to work preparing the city for defense. I would agree that there were only a few Partisans, most of the "partisans" I was referring to in my original writing would more correctly be called Workers' Battalions, or some type of Special Unit.
There was relatively little bomb damage and due to Communist practice, few people possessed accurate maps of Moscow.
It is curious that the German defense of Berlin crumbled so quickly in 1945. It should have been more like a Stalingrad-like battle. Cornelius Ryan's book, The Last Battle, describes it to be a short death agony of the Third Reich.
I am not convinced that Moscow in 1941 would have been like this. Like I said before, Moscow is a giant spread-out city, the population was hostile, there were too few Germans to do an impossible job, the Russian winter would have froze the Germans in any Moscow battle.
If, by some good fortune, the Germans would have captured part of Moscow in 1941, they would have been driven out during the winter by the Russians' winter offensive.
An interesting historical tidbit: A Panzer Mk I was destroyed in a suburb of Moscow in 1941. It was kept in situ as a reminder to the Muscovites of how close the Germans came in 1941. It apparently is gone now.
My last point to make is about Prince Heisenberg and the German atomic bomb project. He made the list of Time magazines top 100 influential people in the 20th century. I also have heard he ran the A-Bomb research project like Oscar Schindler ran his shell factory. Heisenberg was convinced Hitler was too dangerous to have an atomic weapon. Heisenberg made sure he never got his hands on an A-Bomb. The research was purposely strung out and critical calculations contained a fatal mathematical error to ensure an A-Bomb would NEVER be produced. Hitler was duped by Heisenberg!
In the final summary, I believe not every one is convinced that the western allies were important partners with Russia in the Allied victory in WW II. I certainly am not. I think we have to keep in mind the Americans and British would fight to the last Russian.
Even by Mr. Zuljan's account, Churchill and Roosevelt could act Machiavellian-like and would have few qualms letting the Germans and Russians destroy each other. Perhaps they would even save their forces to attack in the final year of the war and claim they played a big part in the victory. The air offensive having a big impact on German production is mostly fiction. Because of Albert Speer, most German factories spread out their production in smaller workshops or built workshops underground.
The Lend Lease numbers sound impressive, but was all that equipment really put to use by the Russians? Was it just stockpiled or did it rot away in Arctic Circle harbors? One reader wrote in that he believed Sherman tanks were used as the main tank in Russian armored divisions in the Balkans in the summer of 1944? Is he right?
I am not convinced that the western Allies really helped the Russians to a significant degree in World War II. Why not a second front in 1942 or 1943 in western Europe? There are just no convincing answers, just American and British excuses. With "Allies" like these, who needs them?

-- posted by Emperor

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Iszy - ww2

I am only 15 years old but I have spent a great deal of time reading and researching about war. Primarily WW2. I like this war because it has a great deal of flexibility in the fact that if a few events changed Germany could have won. I also believe that the lend lease program saved Russia from defeat.

-- posted by Iszy

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» SGB - Russian Side III, Allied help tp USSR

Overall you give a good argument and discussion though I must disagree with you on several counts.
First, Siberia was a viable option for Lend Lease Aid. The US supplemented the Soviet Pacific fleet of cargo ships with a number given by the USA. These, under Soviet flag carried aid from North America to Siberia without interference form the Japanese, as japan and the USSR had a non-aggression pact. A large number of Lend Lease aircraft flew directly from Alaska to Siberia.
Second. Most Lend lease tanks were perfectly fine for service on the Eastern Front. Over 4000 M4A2 diesel Shermans were supplied which was a much appreciated tank, in many ways equal to the T-34 and more reliable. The Valentine (over 4000) were produced longer than used by the Commonwealth, at the requested of the Soviets as they valued them as scout tanks. Even the M3 Lee was useful as an infantry support tank. Much of the denigration of the lend Lease Armor appears to be Cold War propaganda on the Soviets part.
3rd. We must also keep in mind that the US and Commonwealth had a two front war (Atlantic & Pacific) to fight while the Soviets had the luxury of a one-front war. Goods and troops from the US had to be transported across wide oceans which used up time, materials, fuel, people in the form of sailors and logistics personnel, and cargo (when it was sunk). If the US had a single warfront on its doorstep or its interior it also could have caused the casualties that the red army caused on the Germans. Without all these other middlemen and the distance I suspect that the western allies could have been in Berlin and given the Soviets a good race.
4th. The transport given may have been the most valuable aid. The Studebaker was more reliable and could carry a larger payload (about 5 tons on a road) than any of the common Soviet trucks like the GAZ and Zis. The amount given was over 100,000, along with 70,000 jeeps. Total transport in Land lease to USSR was over 300,000 not 170,000.
5th. Do not underestimate the bombing campaign. By 1944 it drew 2/3 of German fighter strength and 70% of AA guns to Germany. That is a lot of fighters, Flak 88's and ammunition that could have challenged Soviet air and ground supremacy. The destruction of the fuel and transport system made it so more tanks were abandoned because of lack of fuel than combat. The lack of fuel grounded pilots and severely cut into training.

-- posted by SGB

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Snead - BTW

Just found this article on the way to the new one on Midway. Don't discount the fact Hitler bit off more than he could chew, regardless of all the ifs ands or buts. The atom bomb makes a person wonder why we island hopped so mercilessly and tediously all the way across the Pacific when all we needed was an airfield to launch two B25s to Japan. Hitler would have been the recipient of one or two shortly thereafter. Therefore, I have to question one idea put forth in the article and one in the discussion. The breaking of the enigma code and machine made the biggest difference until the Bomb was finally developed. We will never know how much intelligence was fed to the Russians since the west must have known the magnitude of what was going on around Kursk in 43'. The Axis did not have a realistic chance of holding Europe in 44' and would have held only long enough to get Fatman or Little Boy there if Russia had given up in 41' or 42'.

-- posted by Snead

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» tdunn1 - Re: in regard to computing

In response to message posted by nuetral:
Your coments on the computing may be right but as for the Russians beating the Germans remmeber who kept them in the war who supplied them so they could fight. Granted they had there own production facilites but they could not produce to the capacity neccessary sustain a fight as to where they would be a threat. Also keep in mind as deadly as the V2 was it was a terroristic weapon not one of stratigy the fact that Germany collapsed on the Eastern Front was also LARGELY due to the bombing of the B-17's

-- posted by tdunn1

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» keltman77 - russian side

in Russian defence
i thing that while lend lease helped a lot one must pause to look at what actually did the allies sent to the rusians.anny allied tank could not be compared to r/g tanks.argument that sherman was comparable to t34 is a joke .British tanks were even worse.this is reflected by us/Brit tactics in Normandy and by stories of single tiger shooting up entire allied formations of shermans.
the questionable value of lend lease can be seen by closely examining the types of planes sent to the soviets.moust of them were planes which were of little value especially like us types Aircobra etc.the best plane given to the soviets was hurricane and dc-3 dakota.this is clearly illustrated by a fact that when the french squadron normandy-nemen was formed its pilots took jak-3 planes instead of any supposedly superior allied planes from lend lease.(the pilots were given choice of any plane Russians had)
this leads me to the another argument.it is the myth about technical superiority of the western weapons,(continues till today)lets face it if you had to face tiger what tank would you pick? sherman ?don't think so.rusian tanks were very good,so series were capable of taking the tiger on on more then equal terms,t34/85 was a superb tank capable of dealing with anything the Germans can possibly come up with.horewer the most unjust treatment is the continuos denial of Russian planes and their capabilities.jak-3 was underlay feared by German pilots,jak-9 was on equal footing with mustang ,while la-7 was capable of completing with me262 on almost equal terms .
argument about allied help by A)bombing Germany is more than contraversial.the bombing did seriously affected transport and fuel production ,and little else.producrion of planes was steadily rising thought the war,dispersed manufacture was very difficult to destroy by bombing.
invasion in Normandy vas not a invasion to save Europe from Germans but soviets.at that time Germany was already on its way to defeat.moust of the units in west were second rate.after Stalingrad and kursk the Germans had no chance of fighting back.
as to he two front argument i would like to point out that actions in pacific were usually fought by regiments and platoons.realy big actions involved one or two divisions with casualties in region of hundred or more.on eastern front the actions involved entire armies with casualty rates of hundred thousands.
to conclude lend lease and allies in the west were not needed by soviets to win the war(eventually)the were needed to win it by 1945
final remark ,i read somewhere that total amount of lend lease was about 4% of the stuff used by red army

keltman77

-- posted by keltman77

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» ef99 - The Russians, Allies, and Germany

Fact of the matter is that the combined effort of the allies and Russia brought about the great defeat of Germany. Hitler's poor judgement and military capabilites helped hasten the defeat. Just think about it. If Hitler had been smarter and wiser Germany could've won the war no questions asked! His evil prejudice ran away vital chemist,physicist,etc. from Germany and nearby regions. This same group built "fat man" and "little boy" for the U.S. Hitler could've had those vital persons and the nuclear weapon which would have won the war. This would've been done with one or two, maybe three nukes($350,000,000.00+ each please!). If he had insisted on the centralize production of high tech weapons and would've encouraged their production before the war started not when he's about to lose, Germany would've been unstoppable. Think about it. An airforce full of Me262 jet fighter(Note:If Hitler didn't insist that they be used as bombers."Any child can see that it isn't a bomber but a fighter"(General in Chief of the Luftwaffe Herman Goering). On top of that he could've had jet bomber, plenty of V-1 and V-2 missiles,enzian missile,rheintochter missile(a very impressive looking SAM),wasserfall,and many more bells and whistles.Sheer number defeated Germany.Especially this is the case in the eastern front. The allied bombing campaign played a major and decisive role in helping to weaken Hitler's fortress europe and soften up germany and divert its forces for both the russian and the allies

-- posted by ef99

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Traveller63 - Re: Re: in regard to computing

In response to message posted by tdunn1:

The equipment supplied to the Russians by the allies was minimal. It is wrong for us to overly take credit for the efforts achieve by the Russians on the eastern front, where 25 million Russians sacrificed there lives to holt Hilters Nazi's. Indeed it was not supplies from the allies that allowed towns like Stalingrad to survive sieges. Nor was it the B-17s that slowed Hitlers advance, indeed even in 1944 when the German had already been turned back on the eastern front output but German industry due to the brillance of Albert Speer was still at its hightest level ever.

-- posted by Traveller63

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Traveller63 - Re: in regard to computing

In response to message posted by nuetral:

What has this topic got to do with computers
Nuetral?

-- posted by Traveller63

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» keltman77 - well its me again

while i would not say that allies contribution was too small i would like once again to point that moust of it was stuff rejected by their armies as obsolete etc.the rest usually could not compare itself with its Russian counterpart.for example large portion of fighter planes sent in to Russia was composed of aircobras .now these planes ended up in Russia after the allies could not figure out where to put them.when they tried to use them against Germans it was a dissaster.in pacific the situation was bit better but i bet that the pilots were happy to get replacements.actualy the best plane the Russians did get out of the deal was probably the dc-3 ,the best fighter plane send to them had to be without doubt hurricane mk1. also i would like to say that luftwafe was broken over the eastern front not during the battle of Britain and not during the b-17 raids which by the way often resulted in bigger us losses than german.the bombing itself was not very effective with the exception of fuel production and transportation.it was however totally ineffective in its attempts to destroy German war production.

-- posted by keltman77

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» keltman77 - i finally got the numbers

the total lend lease in to russia was somwhere around 12000 planes the moust important types were
aircobra 4578 planes
curtiss p-40 of warious modifications 2097
included are planes rejected by RAF
hurricane 2952
kingcobra 2421
douglas A-20 havoc 2900
b-25 mitchell 870
douglas dakota 709

-- posted by keltman77

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions