Why Were The Allies So Successful

[Kev367th]

LOLOLOLOL

[Angus]

see rule #2

[Boxboy]

Bruno I have a question for ya.

Why did Stalin DEMAND a second front at Yalta???

If what you espouse is all true he didn't need us at all and could have won the war without us and have "owned" all of Germany alone with no other "allie" to mess with.

The problem with your arguements is that "history" keeps getting in the way.

[Bruno]

Why did Stalin DEMAND a second front at Yalta???

Your problem is you don't history at all.

The Yalta conference took place from 4-11 Feb '45. I wonder why Stalin would DEMAND a second front then?

Thanks for the laugh...

[Boxboy]

ah hell so I got the wrong meeting but he DID demand it and PRIOR to D-day so answer the question.

I was thinking Yalta but it was obviously before that, Cario?? Gebalter not sure now without looking it up but at one of the first meetings Stalin demanded and got assurances of a "second front"

[Debonair]

The Tehran Conference is probably what you're thinking of

[Bruno]

Don't help him...

However, the Tehran Conference wasn't about reassuring the Soviets of the western allied invasion (or of Stalin's DEMAND  to open a second front) but of coordinating the invasion with a Soviet offensive (among many other things):

(4) Took note that Operation OVERLORD would be launched during May 1944, in conjunction with an operation against Southern France. The latter operation would be undertaken in as great a strength as availability of landing-craft permitted. The Conference further took note of Marshal Stalin's statement that the Soviet forces would launch an offensive at about the same time with the object of preventing the German forces from transferring from the Eastern to the Western Front:

(5) Agreed that the military staffs of the Three Powers should henceforward keep in close touch with each other in regard to the impending operations in Europe. In particular it was agreed that a cover plan to mystify and mislead the enemy as regards these operations should be concerted between the staffs concerned.

The Tehran Conference took place in Dec '43. The Americans were already engaged with the Nazis in NA since Nov '42.

The Soviet offensive, Operation Bagration, originally set to co-incide with the invasion of France was delayed until 22 June '44. This was the largest offensive launched in Europe.

By '43 the Soviets were well on thier way to defeating Hitler. This followed the Nazi defeat at the Gates of Moscow, the defeat at Stalingrad, the defeat at Kursk etc...

Of course the Soviets were happy about the impending invasion of France but the Soviets had the situation in the east well under control.

[Pongo]

"Brute Force, How the allies won WW2"
John Ellis

[Boxboy]

Well if you force it upon me I will look up the exact date when Stalin asked for a second front, I am sure I can find it without much effort.  The facts are that D-day was in response to his request, since we were already on the continant in Italy.

We actually pulled the "Big Red One" out of the line in Italy so they could participate in the D-day landings so there was no need from the US-Brit side to attack Normandy other than to appease and go along with Stalins request.

To attempt to rewrite history based on some facts not in evidence IMO is silly and if I were one of the Merchant Marine who risked my life to bring lend lease to Russia and then be told it wasn't necessary I would be livid.

I simply do not agree with your assement and I doubt many Americans will. but hey if thats your position so be it I just don't buy it.

[E25280]

Originally posted by E25280
see rule #5

Skuzzy, That took me by surprise . . .

I didn't think it was particularly offensive, but since you gave Angus the #2 for his response, a pre-emptive edit must have been in order.

So, I apologize to anyone who found it offensive.

Back to the topic at hand, Bruno, you said:

By '43 the Soviets were well on thier way to defeating Hitler. This followed the Nazi defeat at the Gates of Moscow, the defeat at Stalingrad, the defeat at Kursk etc...

and

The Americans were already engaged with the Nazis in NA since Nov '42.

So do you think the latter had something to do with the former?  If, for example, the axis had been able to deploy the hundreds of thousands of troops to defend against Uranus/Saturn instead of Torch / Monty, would the defeat at Stalingrad have occurred?

More to the point, I guess I am trying to peg down your opinion.  It is obvious you are no fan of the strategic bomber campaign. But are you also saying that without the US and UK, the Soviets would have won anyway?  Kweassa seems to think so, obviously most others do not.  Most of your posts have dealt with bombing only, so I am having difficulty "reading your mind" on that subject.

(Not looking for a fight, just genuinely curious)

[joeblogs]

This was the initial conference between Roosevelt and Churchill only weeks after Pearl Harbor. At the conference they set a timetable for an invastion of the continent, which proved to be unrealistic.

In any case, Churchill's memoirs are pretty clear that Stalin demanded a second front early and often. There were times that Stalin intimated the USSR might seek a separate peace if the ground war was to be fought entirely with Russian blood.

When it was clear the British generals were not confident an early invasion in France could be pulled off, an invasion of North Africa became a political necessity. Both the US and the USSR wanted to see more action in the West than Montgomery could provide on his own.

-Blogs

Originally posted by Bruno
Don't help him...

However, the Tehran Conference wasn't about reassuring the Soviets of the western allied invasion (or of Stalin's DEMAND  to open a second front) but of coordinating the invasion with a Soviet offensive (among many other things):



The Tehran Conference took place in Dec '43. The Americans were already engaged with the Nazis in NA since Nov '42.

The Soviet offensive, Operation Bagration, originally set to co-incide with the invasion of France was delayed until 22 June '44. This was the largest offensive launched in Europe.

By '43 the Soviets were well on thier way to defeating Hitler. This followed the Nazi defeat at the Gates of Moscow, the defeat at Stalingrad, the defeat at Kursk etc...

Of course the Soviets were happy about the impending invasion of France but the Soviets had the situation in the east well under control.

[Bruno]

Well if you force it upon me I will look up the exact date when Stalin asked for a second front,

Aren't you the one that typed out:

The problem with your arguements is that "history" keeps getting in the way.

..?

The problem with your arguments is you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about...

When you figure it out get back to me.

To attempt to rewrite history based on some facts not in evidence IMO is silly

You mean this:

Why did Stalin DEMAND a second front at Yalta???

FYI I quoted the USAAF Startegic bombing Survey:

Allied air power was decisive in the war in Western Europe. Hindsight inevitably suggests

Page 16

that it might have been employed differently or better in some respects. Nevertheless, it was decisive. In the air, its victory was complete. At sea, its contribution, combined with naval power, brought an end to the enemy's greatest naval threat -- the U-boat; on land, it helped turn the tide overwhelmingly in favor of Allied ground forces. Its power and superiority made possible the success of the invasion. It brought the economy which sustained the enemy's armed forces to virtual collapse, although the full effects of this collapse had not reached the enemy's front lines when they were overrun by Allied forces. It brought home to the German people the full impact of modern war with all its horror and suffering. Its imprint on the German nation will be lasting.

My point is that Germany was defeated on the ground and in the east. I am not to worried if that doesn't sit well with some Ami's history channel education.



E25280,

If, for example, the axis had been able to deploy the hundreds of thousands of troops to defend against Uranus/Saturn instead of Torch / Monty, would the defeat at Stalingrad have occurred?

As Operation Uranus was under way the Soviets were engaged with Operation Mars. (See Zhukov's Greatest Defeat by Glantz).

The problem with the German position at Stalingrad arose from bad command decisions and not so much from the lack of troops. Hitler ordered his forces split, Gruppe B heading to Stalingrad (was not an original objective) and Gruppe A to move south toward the oilfields. He split his strength and sent them in opposite directions. They could not support each other.

Also, before moving into Stalingrad the Germans failed to eliminate Soviet bridge heads south and west of the Don. On top of that the flanks were protected by the weakest formations. Hitler had forces to divert to Stalingrad from the Crimea, he sent them else where instead. Hitler also could have ordered his forces to withdraw to better defensive positions and avoid the encirclement.

Now I don't know what units you think Hitler could have pulled from NA but there was active fighting going on in NA which had been going on long before the Americans got there. Those forces would not have significantly altered what happened at Stalingrad. It's not entirely clear Hitler would have reinforced the south with those forces anyway. The center was under massive assault, the North was bogged down around Leningrad.

Of course the Allies coordinated their efforts but don't make the assumption that 'if it weren't for the Americans and Operation Torch Hitler would have won at Stalingrad...'

It is obvious you are no fan of the strategic bomber campaign.

It has nothing to do with being a fan of anything. My opinions aren't mine exclusively and shared by many others. The bomber campaign's impact on the overall course of the war is much smaller then the epic battles fought on the eastern front.

But are you also saying that without the US and UK, the Soviets would have won anyway?

By the time the impact of the American entry in the war was fully realized the Soviets had already turned the tide in the east and were well on their way to victory.

[Bruno]

It was probably the "Arcadia Conference"

IIRC Arcadia Conference wasn't attended by representatives of the Soviet Union.

It was where Churchill and Roosevelt developed their Europe first strategy and the UN etc... This was in Dec '41 - Jan '42. The Germans delared war on America on 11 Dec '41.

What Boxboy is claiming that Stalin DEMANDED a second front because with out one they would lose. Of course the Soviets wanted a second front but even they realized it was unrealistic to expect the United States to be fully moblized in Jan '42.

The Soivets put constant pressure on the western allies for a second front. Stalin even made the statement to the effect that the British were doing nothing more then dropping bombs on German cities. This may or may not have contributed to the futile attempt at Dieppe. The Soviets had the suspicion that the west was content to let the Nazi and the Soviets beat up on each other while the West 'sat on their hands'.

But what ever Stalin 'DEMANDED' or didn't 'DEMAND' a second front in Europe didn't open until 6 June 44. By that time the Soviets had the Nazis by the balls and Bagration was just over 2 weeks away. So it's obvious that this whole 'demand for a second front' is a red herring.

[E25280]

Bruno, thanks for the reply.  I see you are sticking closely with the history and not delving into the "hypothetical" arena as deeply as I am, and the way I posed my question is partially to blame.  My basic question was supposed to be a little more fundamental.  There is an opinion that the Axis - Soviet war was a foregone conclusion before ever being waged, that there was no reason the Axis should have ever dared hope to defeat the USSR.  It often goes so far as to say the US and UK may as well have never played a part in the war at all, as once the USSR was in conflict with the Axis, the Axis were doomed.  It is the exact reverse of the view that the "US won the war by itself" -- it seems to say the US/West was irrelevant.  

Posing hypothetical questions is one way to evaluate competing theories (granted, not the best way, but one way).  A lot of the discussion/debate centers around degree, but there have been hints of the "West was irrelevant" creeping in here and there.  So I pose more specifically now the hypothetical that Britain sues for peace and disarms in 1940 when France surrenders, the US remains pacifist, and in 1941 the Axis invade the USSR.  (After all, that was the goal all along - defeat of the "Bolshevik Threat" was what united most of the Axis countries, Finland as "co-beligerent" the most extreme example of this.)

I brought up Monty and Torch, really meaning the entire NA campaign, as regards to Stalingrad more in that vein.  The area to the Northwest of Stalingrad was defended mainly by Romanian, Hungarian and Italian troops while the Germans were on the offensive elsewhere.  Without the NA campaign to destroy the bulk of the Italian army, the Italians alone have hundreds of thousands more troops in the East, likely concentrated in that area.  Would it have been enough to prevent the encirclement of the 6th Army?  Would it have at least weakened the Soviets enough that a subsequent counter-attack is able to relieve them?

Every hypothetical has alternative hypotheticals that could completely offset (yeah, but the Italians are deployed against Leningrad, so Stalingrad occurs as did historically), so I understand anyone's reluctance to delve in hypotheticals.  But I will also pose the point that the "West was irrelevant" theory itself is a hypothetical.  The USSR did not go it alone, Axis resources were diverted elsewhere, so we will never know with any certainty that they would have prevailed without the West.  In my opinion, they would not have -- but it will always remain opinion, there is no way to "prove."

Once again, thanks to everyone for the opinions and insights.  This has been a truly enjoyable thread.  

-- BTW Bruno, the "second front in Europe" in June 1944 was actually a third -- the west was already in mainland Italy.  Of course, you knew this, but for some reason Italy is easy for people to overlook and/or forget.

[Bruno]

I see you are sticking closely with the history and not delving into the "hypothetical" arena as deeply as I am, and the way I posed my question is partially to blame. My basic question was supposed to be a little more fundamental. There is an opinion that the Axis - Soviet war was a foregone conclusion before ever being waged, that there was no reason the Axis should have ever dared hope to defeat the USSR.

I have no interest into what-ifs because usually the one posing the what-if always re-adjusts the parameters to come up with whatever solution he wants. For example you mention Torch and German troops in NA, now its the Italians.

The inability of the Italians to pacify NA and the Med. was of concern to Germany (so was the Balkans and Greece for that matter). As such German intervention in NA and the Med. was necessary. Torch didn't keep German troops 'tied up' they were already tied up and would not have be withdrawn had Torch not happened.

In fact the push through NA into the Mid East was strategically viable. The Germans had support among some Arabs (in Iraq in particular) and if the British were defeated this could open another lane of attack into the Soviet Union and provide the Reich with resources. I don't think there are any 'what-if' circumstances that free up German troops from NA to be re-deployed at Stalingrad.

So I pose more specifically now the hypothetical that Britain sues for peace and disarms in 1940 when France surrenders, the US remains pacifist, and in 1941 the Axis invade the USSR.

Germany still looses...

Even if the Soviet Union were occupied the Germans would be fighting insurgency and partisan forces that would have eventually lead to defeat. Had Germany entered the USSR as liberators and had achieved their original goals they may have won. They way things went historically the Red Army Service man was fighting a 'patriotic war' against an aggressor who came to enslave them. They never would have given up. In fact in the Baltic states the 'forest brothers' continued to fight against the Soviets until the mid 50s...

I brought up Monty and Torch, really meaning the entire NA campaign, as regards to Stalingrad more in that vein.

Answered above.

The area to the Northwest of Stalingrad was defended mainly by Romanian, Hungarian and Italian troops while the Germans were on the offensive elsewhere. Without the NA campaign to destroy the bulk of the Italian army, the Italians alone have hundreds of thousands more troops in the East, likely concentrated in that area.

Italian troops were a proven liability to the Germans. See the Balkans, Greece, NA, Sicily and mainland Italy itself. More Italian troops on the eastern front wouldn't have made any difference. Italians never had enough modern equipment to be a viable fighting force, especially facing the Soviets. Italians were brave and many fought hard. However, they were under equipped and under motivated for the type of fighting taking place on the eastern front.

But I will also pose the point that the "West was irrelevant" theory itself is a hypothetical. The USSR did not go it alone, Axis resources were diverted elsewhere, so we will never know with any certainty that they would have prevailed without the West. In my opinion, they would not have -- but it will always remain opinion, there is no way to "prove."

I never said the West was irrelevant. The West had it's own reason for war and to open a second front in Europe. All nations who fought the Nazis contributed to victory. That's not the point.

The original poster asked the question:

Why Were The Allies So Successful

The only answer some Ami's will accept is that 'Ami's won the war'.

Axis resources were diverted elsewhere,

Everywhere the Axis forces went that left 'diverted' German forces. What about those tied up in occupying Norway, France, Balkans etc...

Its a bit silly to say well these tied up troops here made the difference. As I said Hitler had troops to reinforce 6th Army. He sent them else where. Hitler had and opportunity to win at Stalingrad. He split his forces and failed to secure his flanks. He failed to recognize the extremity of the situation and ordered 6th to stay put. The much more viable what-if revolves around these decisions not on scrapping together troops from here or there.