Why Were The Allies So Successful

[Bruno]

-- 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.

I didn't forget.  'Second front' is the term Boxboy used in his original post. Germany was fighting a war on many fronts, from Scandinavia to the Med and NA.  From the air to the Sea etc...

[E25280]

Originally posted by Bruno
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.

 Please re-read my post.  I clearly use the word "axis", not "German."

Originally posted by Bruno

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

Answered above.

Simple clarification since it wasn't clearly understood the first time (admittedly due to how I worded it).  

I had no intention of moving the goalposts on you.  

Originally posted by Bruno
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...

 Very good point.  I believe I said something similar earlier in the thread.

Originally posted by Bruno
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.

True enough about the Italian's equipment (especially armor!), but I had always been under the impression that the main problem for Italian war efforts was operational leadership.  I am not sure if that is the correct term.  The Italian invasion of Greece and Egypt were planned by the Italian high command, who did a very poor job.  Attacks were ill defined and uncoordinated, and supply/logistics were dismal.  I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that on the East front, under overall operational command of the Germans, they would have fared much better.  I was also under the impression that the Italian forces in the East actually performed quite well vs. what was typical in the NA campaign.  I haven't read anything on the topic in quite some time -- not that I am at all well read -- but maybe this will be the next subject for me.

Originally posted by Bruno
The much more viable what-if revolves around these decisions not on scrapping together troops from here or there.

This is very true, but was not quite what I was driving at.  Obviously I was trying to illustrate the contribution of the West -- the mistakes of the Axis are many, but don't support the "West's relevance" position.

Simply put, I was curious if you were in with the "West Was Irrelevant" theorists, and you have made it plain you are not.  If you go back and read my post on May 3 (goodness, 10 days ago?) and again on the 5th maybe you will see how my thinking began when responding to Kweassa.  Maybe I have been trying to "defend" against something that isn't really there (call it paranoid if you like).

Thanks for indulging me.  As I have said several times now, I enjoy these kinds of conversations when I can get them.  Unfortunately, outside of AH, most of the rest of my world only talks about American Idol.

[Boxboy]

Buno you have no interest in anything other than your own version of history.  

I made an error on a statement which really didn't change what I was trying to convey, you have continually honed in on that mistake because you can't give an appropreate answer.

You make statements of fact that just aren't.  Saying that Russia had the land war in hand in 1944 is incorrect, you claim that you have no interest in what if's but actually you are playing "monday morning quarterback" after the war is over and you have the advantage of information NOT available to participants at the time.

[Angus]

Now this has all become interesting.
Bruno said:
"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...'"

Look better into this. The axis defeat in N-Africa eventually turned out big and drew resources from the eastern front. Stalingrad was a bloody victory and it took quite some fighting to decide the outcome. If the Axis would have had the resources from N-Africa, I tend to think they'd have won at Stalingrad, - me speculating....

And you:

"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."

If you have any interest at all, parameters can be put quite clear. But it's common to say German instead of Axis for instance.
Anyway, Torch happens at the same time as Stalingrad, and the invasion of Sicily at the time of the battle of Kursk. In both cases AXIS forces were heavily engaged in that front, at a very bad moment.

[Bruno]

I made an error on a statement which really didn't change what I was trying to convey, you have continually honed in on that mistake because you can't give an appropreate answer.

You made a snide remark:

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

Yet it is obvious that you are struggling with 'history' all in the same post. Had you not made that remark I wouldn't have replied to you at all. I gave up on this thread after the French bashing started.

You make statements of fact that just aren't. Saying that Russia had the land war in hand in 1944 is incorrect, ...

Soviet Offensive - Operation Bagration - look it up...

While you do that check up on what was going on in the Baltics at the same time...

you claim that you have no interest in what if's but actually you are playing "monday morning quarterback" after the war is over and you have the advantage of information NOT available to participants at the time.

You have yet to offer one fact.  I left you plenty of opportunity to come back and reply with something relevant.

I am giving my opinion (which is shared by others, including authors and historians) on the questions at hand. If you don't share that opinion fine but don't argue with me over stuff you haven't got a clue about. If you have some point you want argue please post your facts and conclusions.

    
E25280,

Please re-read my post. I clearly use the word "axis", not "German."

It doesn't matter, the Italians would not had made a difference...

I was also under the impression that the Italian forces in the East actually performed quite well vs. what was typical in the NA campaign. I haven't read anything on the topic in quite some time -- not that I am at all well read -- but maybe this will be the next subject for me.

Italians were demoralized before Stalingrad. While they did perform well in the face of bad weather with poor equipment. When facing an overwhelming Soviet attack they broke. The reason they were placed on the flanks along with the Hungarian and Rumanian's was that Hitler underestimated the ability of the Soviets to absorb their early losses and to rebuild as fast. German intelligence had no idea what was to come. They didn't understand the scale of what was happening. Add in what was happening in the center with Operation  Mars, which was a huge defeat for the Soviets, Hitler just could not believe that the Soviet attack on Stalingrad would end up the way it did.

Saying that Torch or NA in general in some made believe fantasy could have impacted the out come at Stalingrad is silly. We can deal with the reality of what happened and narrow the 'what-ifs' to more plausible scenarios.

See this website on The Battle for Stalingrad

A better example would be Operation Cobra which came just over a month after Bagration.

[Angus]

Bruno:
"Saying that Torch or NA in general in some made believe fantasy could have impacted the out come at Stalingrad is silly"

Nope. Saying that it didn't have any impact is silly. Plain Silly.

[joeblogs]

No the Russians were not at the Arcadia conference, but that does not mean Russia was out of Churchill's mind when he was trying to devise a grand strategy with Roosevelt.

At the time of that conference, the Russians had survived the first year of the German invasion, but their winter counteroffensive did not come off well and they knew what was coming in the summer.

I suspect there was a lot of uncertainty in Soviet minds at that time about the outcome of a war without a second front against Germany.

Now by the time the second front actually opened, the Soviet army was going to win in the East. The only question was how many more casualties it would take.

-Blogs

Originally posted by Bruno
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.

[MiloMorai]

So according to some here the MTO was just a sideshow? I seem to remember that German troops were pulled from the EF and transferred to the MTO. No doubt I will be corrected if I am incorrect by the all knowing expert here.

The landings in Normandy was the same time the Western  Allies entered Rome. The Normandy landing was a 2cd Front in the West.

[Bruno]

No the Russians were not at the Arcadia conference, but that does not mean Russia was out of Churchill's mind when he was trying to devise a grand strategy with Roosevelt.

I wrote:

Of course the Soviets wanted a second front

and

The Soivets put constant pressure on the western allies for a second front.

But that's not the point. Boxboy claimed 'history was getting in the way of facts'  but he doesn't know he's talking about. He claimed that at the Yalta Conference, then at Cairo, then at Gibraltar Stalin 'DEMANDED' a second front as if it was a second front that would save the Soviets.

At Arcardia, just over 2 weeks after Germany declared was on America,  the decision to go into N. Africa first was made. Whether or not Churchill expressed the Soviet desire for a second front isn't the same thing as Boxboy claimed.
 

Angus,

The axis defeat in N-Africa eventually turned out big and drew resources from the eastern front. Stalingrad was a bloody victory and it took quite some fighting to decide the outcome. If the Axis would have had the resources from N-Africa, I tend to think they'd have won at Stalingrad, - me speculating....

No it didn't, once Operation torch was under way the German forces in NA were fighting delaying actions and attempting to withdraw. Those German troops in NA would have been been in NA no matter what. They had to re-inforce the Italians and they had a viable strategic objective of pushing through NA into the middle east. There's no indication that Hitler would have re-deployed those troops at Stalingrad any way.

As I pointed out it wasn't the lack of troops that lead to defeat at Stalingrad in the first place. Also there was other stuff going on, like Operation Mars. Hitler had troops that were freed up from the Crimea and he didn't send them to Stalingrad, he sent then north.

MiloMorai

So according to some here the MTO was just a sideshow? I seem to remember that German troops were pulled from the EF and transferred to the MTO. No doubt I will be corrected if I am incorrect by the all knowing expert here.

Sure it was a side show. Rome was even a side show to the west by the time it was it was liberated. Like in NA the Germans fought delaying actions from Sicily up the the length of Italy itself. The amount of troops and equipment sent to NA or re-deployed to Italy would have made no difference deployed in the East.

In NA Rommel was running on starvation rations, if anything the situation in the East had a greater impact on the situation in NA then the other way around.

Take Angus' what-if and switch it around:

If the Axis would have had the resources from N-Africa, I tend to think they'd have won at Stalingrad, - me speculating....

If the Axis would have had the resources from Stalingrad, I tend to think they would have won at El Alamein.

At this point the situation in the East was the primary concern of Hitler. Shifting a few units here or there doesn't change that. What's next Hitler stopped Citadel due to Husky..?

[Angus]

nanananana...Bruno:

"No it didn't, once Operation torch was under way the German forces in NA were fighting delaying actions and attempting to withdraw. Those German troops in NA would have been been in NA no matter what. They had to re-inforce the Italians and they had a viable strategic objective of pushing through NA into the middle east. There's no indication that Hitler would have re-deployed those troops at Stalingrad any way.

As I pointed out it wasn't the lack of troops that lead to defeat at Stalingrad in the first place. Also there was other stuff going on, like Operation Mars. Hitler had troops that were freed up from the Crimea and he didn't send them to Stalingrad, he sent then north."


You have mentioned the NA campaign as a whole. That is all up to the point of Stalingrad/Torch, getting bigger as it went along.

So I put your words here, again:

"Saying that Torch or NA in general in some made believe fantasy could have impacted the out come at Stalingrad is silly"

Now there is a vast difference between just Torch and the whole NA campaign. The what-if's need to be defined much better if that is to be looked into. Crete? Malta? Sicily? The desert? The capacity of the Italian merchant navy? (Rommel's troops were not as bad of as many think)? The Italian battle fleet? (Significant) ....
Boild down to this.
Resources (Supply, Supply lines etc, - imagine heavy docking at the Crimean area)
Troops (Make a wild guess at 500.000 and tell me that it wouldn't have made any difference at Stalingrad)
Hardware (Not but a few hundreds of tanks, however the NA Campaign did cost the Axis more aircraft than the USSR front at the same time, so imagine the airpower over Stalingrad was...double for the Axis)

"Made belive" Fantasy???

[Bruno]

he what-if's need to be defined much better if that is to be looked into.

Here's an example of shifting goal posts with the what-ifs. Each one of you will re-define the what-ifs until you get the answer you want.

I gave my answer:
 
You can't demonstrate that those Axis in NA would have went to Stalingrad. As this situation at Stalingrad developed Hitler made critical mistakes that lead to defeat. It wasn't the lack of troops. What makes you think that Hitler would suddenly wise up and make better decisions in the deployment of those Axis troops in NA?

Your assumption is just silly. There were troops available to be sent to re-enforce Stalingrad, Hitler didn't send them there.

North Afrika would not have been abandoned by the Germans had the British been defeated. Some number would have been left behind as an occupying force the rest would have moved into he middle east.

The choices aren't 'keep troops in NA and loose and Stalingrad' or 're-deploy to Stalingrad and win'. That's just fantasy nonsense.

Axis more aircraft than the USSR front at the same time

nonsense...

Post a comparable lost list for that time frame... Don't give me a source like 'I heard it some where..'

[E25280]

There are definitely two intertwined topics being bandied about, so I understand the complaint about moving goalposts.  One involves speculation, the other "Wild" speculation.

Addressing "Wild" speculation, i.e. the scenario where the Axis won in the West/Med in 1940 and concentrating in the East in 1941-42, and would the Axis have been able to prevail generally vs. the USSR:  I think Bruno has been pretty clear that his opinion is the entire concept is too far fetched to clearly reason out how individual operations in the East would or would not have played out.  That is a fair point.  We can say, for instance, that the number of POWs captured in Tunisa were equivalant to the number captured at Stalingrad, and if those troops had been available in the East, it would have made a difference.  To Bruno's point, something that probably would not have changed is the poor strategic decision making, so you can't guarantee that had the troops been available, they would have been used effectively or where needed.  Again, a very fair point.

So that leaves the more narrowly defined speculation, i.e. did a specific action or operation have enough of a reaction that it impacted other fronts.  Torch / Alamein did cause a reaction.  Rommel was forced to retreat across Lybia and into Tunisia (rather than find a place to make a stand in Lybia) due to the Torch landings in Vichy North Africa.  A mini-2 front "sub war" was developing that he did not have the resources to deal with.  In response, the Axis sent at least 3 German divisions (including 10th Panzer) and 2 Italian divisions to Tunisia to bolster the situation.  They had no intention of abandoning North Africa.  If they could keep the US/UK fighting there instead of mainland Europe, so much the better for the Axis.

So in the narrow view, the question is whether 5 divisions (that were at least available to be re-deployed) would have made a difference at Stalingrad.  I believe the 3 German divisions (especially 10th Panzer) would definitley have been useful had they been deployed in support of the Italians/Romanians/Hungarians.  All three countries were weak in anti-tank capabilities, so the stronger German divisions would have been better equipped to handle the Soviet counter-attack.  But to say they would have averted the disaster altogether is far too big a stretch.  The Italian 8th army alone was hit by three Soviet armies.  Five more divisions may have slowed the tide, but I don't think they could have stopped it.

[Angus]

OOpsie Bruno....So you belive, that no matter how much Axis  power was available at the battle of Stalingrad they'd still have lost?
Because:
"You can't demonstrate that those Axis in NA would have went to Stalingrad. As this situation at Stalingrad developed Hitler made critical mistakes that lead to defeat. It wasn't the lack of troops. What makes you think that Hitler would suddenly wise up and make better decisions in the deployment of those Axis troops in NA?"

NA would have been in Russia, with very little doubt. Southern front at least.
Torch drained sources FROM Stalingrad.
(The lifeline itself....Tante Ju for instance)
The Axis failed resupply at Stalingrad - they were only 20 miles away, just didn't make it to a link. Plonk half a million Soldiers,and a Gescwader for every mile, and some few hundreds of tanks guided by Rommel into that stretch....what do you get? Yes...this:

". What makes you think that Hitler would suddenly wise up and make better decisions in the deployment of those Axis troops in NA"

Of course he would have kept them in his back yard.  He would never have used them where they were needed.

If it looks like a straw, and smells like one, and feels like one, burn it just to make sure

[niklas]

i think in the air the battle was won in the west by the better high altitude performance of allied escort fighters in the mid-war - Superior performance right there where it was required, over 20k.

In the east the battle was won on the ground by the abillitiy to build the T-34 in a serial production, and the american trucks which keeped the red army in motion!

On the sea the war was won by sonar and radar.

niklas

[Boxboy]

I never said history was getting in the way of facts.  I said history was getting in the way of YOUR facts.

You think because you can quote some dates and names of operations that that makes you an expert on the way the war was conducted and what was what at the time.  I wonder what your age is? I was alive for some of the conflict were you? (I realize it has no bearing on the subject)

You made "general" statements that I believe are untrue and also insulting to millions of Americans who had loved ones or were involved in WWII.

I have yet to see a Russian General make a statement that "Lend Lease" was unimportant to them and didn't help them proscute the war in the east.

As a child right after WWII (I was born in 1943) I can't remember anyone talking about how we didn't need to go to Europe and I had D-day Vets on every block back then.  

I resent your statement that I know nothing of history because I made one error on a conference date when the thrust of the statement was that Joe
Stalin demanded that the Brits and Americans open a second front and IMHO did so because of the massive losses to the Russians in the east which to my mind does not indicate a cake walk victory in the east.

While I will admit that I should have checked my dates when dealing with such grogs as yourself I didn't and just relied on what is becoming a fadeing memory I guess.  But I assure you that history is a major interest to me and I should not have made so glaring a mistake.