Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ketara wrote:

LordofHats wrote:I didn't say decline, or at least didn't intend to.

*coughs*

Germany had already stalled out and began its decline by the end 1942, before the Russians had even started their push into German held areas of Eastern Europe.

And it appears I did

LordofHats wrote:But they did. As I just pointed out, extensively, with academic citatations, facts and figures, the US/UK forces had a minimal effect on the resources of Nazi Germany until 1943 at the absolute earliest, by which stage the Soviet Union had rearmed, learned how to launch a successful offensive, and were forcing the Germans back. By the time we began to noticeably affect Germany's ability to defend itself, the war was already a foregone conclusion. Germany had lost. And the main reason for this was Russia.

So they had an effect after 1943? Hmm. Sounds like they helped... Being the main reason and being the sole reason are completely different creatures.

You do realise that Germany almost successfully won the Battle of Britain by targeting airfields right? RAF command estimated we were a week away from complete destruction, only Hitler(enraged at a British bombing run against a city), ordered Goering to change the focus of the aerial campaign to cities, as opposed to military targets. When you factor in the relatively successful U-boat campaign to sink shipping, it's not impossible to envisage Britain being defeated if Germany had decided to focus all it's resources on it, as opposed to striking for Russia.

The state of the RAF wasn't in my argument. I merely stated a fact (rather poorly I admit as I often express what I'm trying to say in next to the worst way possible ). The British Isles could have persevered for several years without the Russian invasion. So long as the UK remained uninvaded, US intervention in Europe was bound to happen because the isles provided an excellent location to gather the materials needed, and the US had the industry to make said materials. Even without the RAF Germany didn't have the capacity to invade the British Isles. Their navy was too small to attempt it, which is one of key reasons Sea Lion was called off.

That said, IF the British Isles surrendered, then I agree with you. It's hard to invade a land mass when your staging area is 3000 miles away.

You seem to like dealing in absolutes. I admit, I stated an absolute when I said Russia would have defeated Germany with or without US/UK forces, but I have the statistics, and factual evidence to back that statement up. I would be interested in seeing your ironclad evidence for the two absolutes you have delivered above.

If I felt like digging through the internet and pouring through books I'd try. I'm not as dedicated as you are I'm afraid

And again, I never said Russia couldn't have won without others. I said that in the war we have, they didn't. Just because they made Germany bleed the most doesn't mean they were the only ones responsible for victory in the war.

Not really. For the British, it was incredibly important, as it was the only surviving land front they had against Germany, and losing it would have been terrible for morale, whilst a victory immensely good. For Germany it was a sideshow. As stated above, less than 2% of Germany's military resources went into that campaign. Less than 2%. Had it been 5%, the British would have most likely been swept out of Africa. But Hitler simply didn't regard that front as even a slight priority. I've read communications between him and Rommel, several discussions involving the two above and the General Staff, and I can tell you right here and now, Germany did not regard this front as important. If you'd like, I'll dig around and find the exact quotations and documents necessary for you, but in exchange, I'd like you to present evidence pointing to contrary first, otherwise it's unfair that I do all the legwork.

I'm well aware of the disagreements between Rommel and Hitler concerning North Africa, as well as Hitler's preference for focusing on the Eastern Front. But ultimate goals in Africa were to beat the British and capture the Suez canal, and later push into the middle east and take control of its oil fields.

He never thought he'd need to until the Russians had him on the back foot, and by that stage of the game, his defeat was, as you like to say, 'inevitable', regardless of whether he'd had the oil supplies or not. Germany was incapable of matching the sheer industrial power and weight of numbers that Russia was capable of putting in the field, by the time oil was an issue.

You go through oil fast when you have tanks, ships, and aircraft. Considering the wretched fuel economy of vehicles back then, what Germany took early in the war wasn't going to last them long. Hence why they pushed for more. It's also well documented in both the North African Campaign and the Eastern Front that the Germans were having trouble with their oil supplies. It was an issue from the start of the war till its end.

I never said they should be. What I did say, was that our military intervention on continental Europe was entirely unnecessary in toppling Hitler in 1943/4, as the Russians already had it in the bag. We sped up the demise of Nazi Germany by a year or two, but most of the hard work and fighting was already done by the Russians. Case in point.

Wait... We agree :

I think the main problem here was simply that you thought I was trying to hand 100% of credit for winning the war to the Russians. That's not the case, I simply believe that the Allies weren't a major enough factor to have swayed the final outcome, the Russians would have won regardless.

I still believe you're overstating the importance of the desert campaign though. You say:-

But ultimate goals in Africa were to beat the British and capture the Suez canal, and later push into the middle east and take control of its oil fields.

I disagree. The main German objectives were to support and prop up the Italians. Rommel led a token force in order to show Reich support for Mussolini. There were never any plans for a serious campaign in the desert. Rommel kept on slipping his leash, and envisaging grand objectives, and due to the incompetence of Auchinleck in Operation Crusader, he got far further than he should have done. However, what Rommel wanted, and what German High Command and Hitler wanted, were two very different things.


And I may come across as 'dedicated', but I'm afraid as an actual degree level War Studies student, I have most of this material readily to hand anyway. I'm not normally this clued up!

Andrew1975 wrote:

China doesn't need us.

Hmm, I don't know about that. I'd have a read over "Chimerica" if you haven't read it. Not saying you are wrong I just think it's too much of a blanket statement.

Chinas domestic market is rapidly growing, but the foundation of their economy is most definitely still export driven, with the U.S. by a long stretch being it's largest trading partner. The chinese state would likely collapse if we simply stopped trading with them.

However so would we.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

China doesn't need us.

Hmm, I don't know about that. I'd have a read over "Chimerica" if you haven't read it. Not saying you are wrong I just think it's too much of a blanket statement.

Chinas domestic market is rapidly growing, but the foundation of their economy is most definitely still export driven, with the U.S. by a long stretch being it's largest trading partner. The chinese state would likely collapse if we simply stopped trading with them.

However so would we.

Actually China are hedging their bets, they have managed to create new markets in India and Africa and a large market in Europe to counter the problem of having only one major client. They are exporting because thats where the power is, not out of dependency. They are creating our dependency, not a mutual interpredency, and western politicans are too short termist to realise the implications.

No, they realize the implications. Its simply that the pain caused by the process of cutting off Chinese exports is at best no worse than the pain caused by living in a Chinese, hegemonic world.

Regardless, China is dependent on the US by simple numbers. They will not be dependent on the US in the future, but they are now. Both countries are trying to break the dependency, and both countries have a difficult road ahead of them.

Andrew1975 wrote:Two words Lend-Lease. Russians with out a doubt did the heavy lifting and probably could have won the war without US/UK stepping onto Europe. What is questionable weather they would have been able to weather Barbarossa without lend lease. Especially when you consider the Japs being able to freely engage without being tied up with the allies.

I can also buy that a major consideration for the Invasion of Europe was to stop the red army from taking it all. It would have been interesting to see the U.S./UK versus Russia back then. It would have been air power, vs a giant land juggernaut, (without nukes anyway, nukes may have played a role in stopping Russian expansion (had that been a goal) to all of Europe as U.S./UK ground forces would more than likely just been a speed bump). We know air power is king, but the red army was really giant.

The effects of the lend lease program have been vastly overstated in western history, it was honestly more moral support then anything. The japanese were a non threat, they were absolutely useless in large scale ground warfare. When the russians fought them in Manchuria the japs just crumbled.

The effects of the lend lease program have been vastly overstated in western history, it was honestly more moral support then anything. The japanese were a non threat, they were absolutely useless in large scale ground warfare. When the russians fought them in Manchuria the japs just crumbled.

It's an interesting statement. I think without the U.S. occupying the japs, the combined power of the Japanese and Germans would have been crushing, especially without lend lease to keep help keep Moscow supplied during the initial push and siege. I think it can be said that Moscow almost fell (the Germans were stopped only miles short) with lend lease and without the extra pressure that an unfettered Japan would have exerted.

Your lend lease argument is integrating, got any references? .

Andrew1975 wrote:

The effects of the lend lease program have been vastly overstated in western history, it was honestly more moral support then anything. The japanese were a non threat, they were absolutely useless in large scale ground warfare. When the russians fought them in Manchuria the japs just crumbled.

It's an interesting statement. I think without the U.S. occupying the japs, the combined power of the Japanese and Germans would have been crushing, especially without lend lease to keep help keep Moscow supplied during the initial push and siege. I think it can be said that Moscow almost fell (the Germans were stopped only miles short) with lend lease and without the extra pressure that an unfettered Japan would have exerted.

Your lend lease argument is integrating, got any references? .

Nope, the Soviets were going to hold anyway. The Germans stopped within sight of ther Kremlin due to interference from Hitler. Lend Lease didnt really make any sizable difference until mid 1942 and was mainly a political token in the Soviet Union.

Once Barbarossa failed Soviets were going to win the war by themselves, that was inevitable once the one chance was blown and the snows came in 1941.

No-one can say for sure.

It's easy to fall into the error of considering that history is practically predetermined, because we view it from the fixed side. But things could have changed for all sorts of reasons.

One thing worth remembering, if the Soviets had not allied with the Germans in 1939, the history of the whole war would have been very different.

Andrew1975 wrote:

The effects of the lend lease program have been vastly overstated in western history, it was honestly more moral support then anything. The japanese were a non threat, they were absolutely useless in large scale ground warfare. When the russians fought them in Manchuria the japs just crumbled.

It's an interesting statement. I think without the U.S. occupying the japs, the combined power of the Japanese and Germans would have been crushing, especially without lend lease to keep help keep Moscow supplied during the initial push and siege. I think it can be said that Moscow almost fell (the Germans were stopped only miles short) with lend lease and without the extra pressure that an unfettered Japan would have exerted.

Your lend lease argument is integrating, got any references? .

Honestly the japanese had one of the worst fighting forces ion the world at that time, they only won their early battles because of vastly superior numbers, and the only reason it was so had hard to dislodge them form the islands was because they were able to dig in and hide in the mountains and jungles

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).[7]
Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.[citation needed]U.S. supplies of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.

The greatest contribution from lend lease were trucks, the soviet military was ridiculously large, the 19,000 aircraft we gave them only accounted for 1/5 of their military aircraft, they had over 100,000 military aircraft the largest air force in the world, and those planes were one of are largest contributions yet had very little actual effect

Albatross wrote:Well, yes. But that level of interdependence means that the USA lacks the sort of leverage over China that they enjoyed over the Soviets. It also means that the USA would not be able to 'win' a conflict with the Chinese. I use parentheses here because although the US could win a military conflict, the massive damage caused to the global financial market, and thus the US, would mean that it would be hard to call any victory a 'win'. The USA is the world's biggest debtor and much of that debt is held by China - militarily attacking your creditors isn't the best way to attract investment. There are precedents for this sort of situation - the British Empire and German Reich were so interdependent in the 19th century that war between the two was thought to be impossible, although the Germans had less exposure to British sovereign debt (and vice-versa) than China currently does to the US. We all know how THAT turned out...

Sure, but it needs to be remembered that interdependance goes both ways. The Chinese would be equally crippled by hostile actions with the US.

It's not all that solveable - they are staring down the barrel of a $45 trillion gap in the public finances over the next 50 years, a number which will increase as long as people keep being born, getting sick, or growing old.

The US has no significant liability that the rest of the developed world doesn't share. We have the political will to tax sufficiently to cover the liability (well, more so than the US anyway) but it isn't as if the US just can't ever cover the liability.

Actually, you've just highlighted the problem. The US doesn't actually do enough of that. The vast majority of capital flows between 'developed' countries at the moment - a much larger proportion than during the British Empire's period. The problem is that the US doesn't do enough to encourage investment in the third world. The Empire, for all it's faults, actually DID do this by occupying the territory and making sure property rights were enforced, thus encouraging investment. It also helps a territory to have a financial juggernaught underwriting your finances and acting as guaranteur when you try to sell your bonds. It makes them a safer bet.

There is a lot of capital flowing into the developing world, although not just from the US. There is a reasonable argument to be made that this capital is not sufficiently improving the lives of the people living there, but in terms of accessing resources and cheap labour and thereby enhacing the wealth of the countries providing the capital, it's a very effective system.

LordofHats wrote:The Red Army had lost most of its man power by the end of 1942. In early 1943 they had little. Rather than make a dedicated push Germany spent it's time reconsolidating to prepare for larger engagements, and by mid 1943 the Red Army was back to strength. Perhaps saying Russia would have lost isn't correct. A dedicated attack at that time would have prolonged the Eastern War, and it would have taken Russia longer to begin its push into German occupied Eastern Europe.

You're making the mistake in assuming the Germans cuold have simply decided to continue going. Consolidation after the early stages of Barbarossa was a product of German logistic shortages

By the time you get to Kursk, which from your earlier post seems to be the point when the Germans should have attacked sooner the war was, in hindsight, over. A quicker attack there would have fed less German troops into the meatgrinder, but a victory was beyond them.

I didn't say decline, or at least didn't intend to. They stalled out in 1942, by which I mean their advances halted. The failures in El Alamein and Stalingrad were defeats Germany never recovered from. Technically one could say Barbarossa was where the war turned about, but there were still events following Barbarossa that could have allowed Germany to win. After El Alamein and Stalingrad failed, Germany had lost its chances of winning the war (In hindsight, I don't know what German leadership thought at the time).

Basically, you have to drive a really long way into Russia to conquer them. It's a hell of a hard thing to keep supplying a war machine that far from home, so they really couldn't ever have afforded to give the Russians time to prepare a proper defence. Barbarossa needed to take more Russian troops out of the war than it managed, and from there Germany didn't really have the capability to destroy Russian forces faster than it was replacing them.

I never claimed Russia couldn't have won the war. I claimed that to say Russia won the war as we know it was incorrect.

I don't think anyone is saying Russia alone won the war. The presence of one soldier somewhere else in the world shooting a single German trooper makes that an incorrect statement. But the vast majority of the losses inflicted on Germany were inflicted by the Russians. As in 85% or more of German casualties were inflicted by the Russians.

You underestimate the importance of the North African campaign and how starved for oil Germany was.

No, as Ketara's excellent series of figures shows Northern Africa was a sideshow.

My point isn't that Russia wasn't vital. It's that there are factors other than "Russia is an unstoppable juggernaut" that played a role in how the war turned out, and the Soviets can hardly be given full credit for victory. EDIT: I admit any claims of how the war would have played out without <insert nation> will boil down mostly to opinion and conjecture.

No-one said full credit. It would be incorrect to say "the US beat Japan singlehandedly" but it would be correct to say "the US was the overwhelmingly dominant partner in defeating Japan, and could have defeated Japan by itself". We're just saying the same thing about Russia and Germany.

Andrew1975 wrote:Two words Lend-Lease. Russians with out a doubt did the heavy lifting and probably could have won the war without US/UK stepping onto Europe. What is questionable weather they would have been able to weather Barbarossa without lend lease. Especially when you consider the Japs being able to freely engage without being tied up with the allies.

Lend lease was important, but it wasn't the difference between the Soviets surviving or not. I mean, trucks and bazookas are cool but they don't turn an army from a loser into a dominant winner.

Thing is, Stalin was very good at hiding Russian strength. When Operation Uranus was launched and the sixth army encircled in Stalingrad, the overwhelming Russian reserves weren't just a shock to the Germans, they were a shock to the Western Allies as well. Stalin hid his strength in part because he paranoid, and in part because if the Western Allies ever realised how powerful the Russian war machine was, they would have stopped giving him all those tanks.

I can also buy that a major consideration for the Invasion of Europe was to stop the red army from taking it all. It would have been interesting to see the U.S./UK versus Russia back then. It would have been air power, vs a giant land juggernaut, (without nukes anyway, nukes may have played a role in stopping Russian expansion (had that been a goal) to all of Europe as U.S./UK ground forces would more than likely just been a speed bump). We know air power is king, but the red army was really giant.

Certainly, it needs to be remembered that if it wasn't for D-day the Russians would never have stopped at Berlin. Bloody good things the Americans did that.

As to the possibility of the Soviets continuing on against the US/UK, it's a good question. The Allies had overwhelming air superiority and they would have inflicted tremendous losses on Soviet offensives, but the sheer scale of the Soviet war machine was a long beyond what the US and UK had in the field. Any meaningful level of counter attack would have been impossible, the question really becomes if the air superiority of the Western Allies could have forced a stalemate before the Soviets reached Paris.

Then you consider the idea of a US that was dedicated to wiping out the Soviets. What if the US had tuned its economy to war production on the same scale as the Nazis and Soviets. Politically not an option, but this is a what if...

Andrew1975 wrote:It's an interesting statement. I think without the U.S. occupying the japs, the combined power of the Japanese and Germans would have been crushing, especially without lend lease to keep help keep Moscow supplied during the initial push and siege. I think it can be said that Moscow almost fell (the Germans were stopped only miles short) with lend lease and without the extra pressure that an unfettered Japan would have exerted.

I think you have a fairly limited understanding of the capabilities of the Japanese war machine and it's threat to the Russians. When the Japanese and the Russians did meet in the early stages of the war in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, the result was an overwhelming defeat of the Japanese that saw the Japanese sign a non-aggression pact and turn their focus entirely to the south. The Japanese had a first rate navy but the Imperial army was grossly under supported and had no effective tactical doctrines for overcoming a modern military. The Japanese only managed to survive against the US due to the difficulty of capturing islands, as Guadalcanal shows the Japanese were not capable of initiating an effective military offensive against a prepated, effective resistance.

For the rest of the war the Japanese were stuck piling more and more troops into China, even without the US and their incredibly effective submarine campaign, the Japanese were not capable of moving North against Russia.

By the end of the war, when the Russians turned their attention East, you see what happens when a serious war machine takes on an Imperialist power dependant on it's navy in a land war. In the week of the atomic bomb being dropped, 1.6 million Soviets piled over the border, within a few days they'd killed almost a hundred thousand Japanese troops for the loss of about ten thousand, and gotten within 50 miles of Japan's northern most island.

Seriously, outside of Axis and Allies there was no real issue of Japan being any more than a nuisance to Russia.

As soon as the russians realised the japanese,were not going to attack from the east.

All those troops stationed in sibera were sent westward to fight the germans.
Used to fighting in cold weather, they had better equipment.
The t34/76 had wide tracks to travel over the snow, Where the german tanks were designed for western europes more temperate climate.
I.E. Narrow tracks smaller tanks for fighting in built up areas. When the german panzer III /IVs czech 38ts came up against the russians they were outclassed.

North Africa was a sideshow in military terms but it was politically important because it kept the British physically in the war and got the Americans into combat against the Germans as early as possible.