Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Anaxogoras on October 28, 2008, 02:50:20 PM
-
I'm bringing this topic over from the general forum: Who deserves the most credit for defeating Germany in WWII? The Western Allies, i.e. USA and UK, or the USSR? We're all pretty familiar with the arguments and counterarguments, so this should be interesting.
Arguments in favor of the USSR:
- 80% of the Wehrmacht was deployed in the East.
- German aircraft production peaked in '44 underneath allied bombing
- More German military died fighting Russia than the allies.
Arguments in favor of the Western Allies:
- Destroyed more of the Luftwaffe than the VVS
- Disrupted German military production and supply with strategic bombing
- Gave large quantities of raw materials and military hardware to the USSR, and therefore partly responsible for its success.
The larger question is whether the USSR could have repelled Germany without the help of the USA and UK. As an armchair historian, I tend to think the USSR could have prevailed without western help because of its unflinching ally, the Russian winter, not to mention all that Germany (Hitler) did to defeat itself with strategic blunders like the Fall advance of '42. However, I know a lot of you are experts in this stuff, and would love to hear your view.
-
Im pretty sure the majority of credit ges to Germany. The leadership of Adolf Hitler failed Germany and was more destructive to the nation then anything Russia or the Allies overall ever did. Why do you look at Russia as separate from the other Allies?
-
It's funny you ask this. One of my coworkers spent a week in Ft. Lauderdale last month and spent a night hanging out with 2 late 20-something women from Russia. The topic of "who beat Germany" was brought up by one of the women.
-
It's funny you ask this. One of my coworkers spent a week in Ft. Lauderdale last month and spent a night hanging out with 2 late 20-something women from Russia. The topic of "who beat Germany" was brought up by one of the women.
My understanding is that Russian textbooks are firmly of the opinion that the USSR deserves the lion's share of the credit for defeating Germany (no surprise there), but part of their argument is that the USA and UK were reluctant to help and desired to see Russia defeated before they attacked Germany.
Im pretty sure the majority of credit ges to Germany. The leadership of Adolf Hitler failed Germany and was more destructive to the nation then anything Russia or the Allies overall ever did. Why do you look at Russia as separate from the other Allies?
Mostly because of their vastly different post-war strategic aims. One liberated Europe, and the other did the opposite, but that's for another thread. ;)
-
The Russians certainly paid the price, but I think geography had alot to do with it. People always forget the battle of the Atlantic. Plus at that time Russia had mainly 1 enemy, not sure where Italians fit into the Russian scheme, but the western powers had 3 enemy. It was a slugfest in the east for sure, but I cant all the credit to Russia.
-
Which deserves more credit for getting a car down the road?
The engine or the transmission?
Wab
-
Which deserves more credit for getting a car down the road?
The engine or the transmission?
Wab
Exxon
-
Arguments in favor of the USSR:
- 80% of the Wehrmacht was deployed in the East.
- German aircraft production peaked in '44 underneath allied bombing
- More German military died fighting Russia than the allies.
[/list]
The larger question is whether the USSR could have repelled Germany without the help of the USA and UK. As an armchair historian, I tend to think the USSR could have prevailed without western help because of its unflinching ally, the Russian winter, not to mention all that Germany (Hitler) did to defeat itself with strategic blunders like the Fall advance of '42. However, I know a lot of you are experts in this stuff, and would love to hear your view.
But at what cost to the USSR hehe
-
All factors and sides came together to defeat nazi Germany including the nazis themselves. Even Germans who were not nazis helped. Basicly none of the parties involved pulled in favor of nazi Germany even if it may have been the intent.
What i find intersting is all the lesser known factors that played a bigger part in the war effort than they are given credit for basicly because they are not common in history lessons.
There are ofcourse a few nations that doesnt need mentioning that tried to work for both just to save themselves.
-
Clint Eastwood and Oddball.
-
No one can deny that the Soviets carried a
heavy burden during the preinvasion days..
Many of their massive deathlists were filled
by the stupidity of "the boss" himself... Hell,
"the boss" was thinking about giving up in
the summer of 42.. Hitler should have taken
the deal!!!
Be reminded that although some say 80% of
the WM was in the east, (80%???) It was a
large proportion to be sure... But during the
spring of 44 many elite WM and W/SS units were
sitting in France, waiting for the invasion..
That their own intel said was coming SOON..
The LAH, DasReich, Hohenstoufen, Frundsberg,
HJ, Pnzr Lehr, and many others, were fattening
themselves up on cheeze and wine... And cheeky
hairy legged french chicks...While the
Ruskies were rampaging thru the Don bend, Crimea...
Driving into the baltic states, encircling masses of
german/axis troops in Hitlers so called fortress cities..
The Germans had taken more ground than they could
hold, especially since they wasted the cream of the
crop at Kursk...
After that, they didn't have enough population left
to maintain all their conquests... And so began the
slide into defeat..
Ya can't say that those elite units sitting in france
didn't make the Soviets job easier.. They and their
brother units were the dam against the Soviet flood
on many occasions..
When they were removed from that theater, the Red
Army overwhelmed the elite units left, NORD, Polizie,
Totenkopf, etc.. Which after kursk were never the same!!
If the allies had not waged the bomber war, and
german production had not been retarded or delayed,
Soviet production would not have outstripped them
so quickly... Hmm, what would the prod #'s be without
the the bombing? What would have happened if the
Germans had been able to give the Soviets their
uninterrupted and undivided attention?
Many Stalinist ideas still exist in Russia, and their national
paranoia in virtually bred into them... Like part of their
cultural heredity... So ya have to keep that in mind as well!!!
WWII history is full of SOOOO many "what if's?" that it can
boggle the mind.. Just sitting here thinking about it, takes me
off on so many tangents, that its hard to keep it all in mind...
It would be really interesting to see a graph that displayed
unit deployments vs the war timeline...
Interesting question.. I'm sure it will get many great replies..
<S>RC
-
If three guys with additional help beat up one guy in a bar fight, is there really someone that deserves the individual credit for beating him up?
the fact of the matter is really simple, Germany suffered under the rule of egotistical incompetance. They defeated themselves by violating every major rule of inteligent war (if war can ever really be intelligent). fought on two fronts, left an enemy strong hold at his velnerable point, over stretched his supply lines, didnt supply the army with winter clothes before entering russia, built over complicated weapons that could not be mass produced when fighting a war of attrition ect ect ect.
no one or even two of the allies could have beaten germany on their own, it took all three plus others not counted on the primary list as well as multiple undergrounds and traitors.
i guess just be happy that it happened.
FLOTSOM
-
Difficult question.
It's very easy to say that had America not been in the war, the allies would have lost.
Russia was extremely close to utter defeat, literally measured out in feet. While it would be damn near impossible to quantify what the effect of lend lease and all the materials we gave to the USSR, with the Soviets having their backs 100 feet away from losing the war, they would have lost without the US.
However, would the US have won without the USSR? Probably not. However judging what would have happened is extreme conjecture.
-
It was too intertwined of a team effort to single out and credit one country. As stated above, the Battle of the Atlantic, Hitler's ego, the Russian scorched earth policy, the defeat of the LW, strategic bombing of the Third Reich, the Russian winter, Bletchley Park, the relentless US Liberty Ships, the resistance, the success of Normandy... Man, it's just too involved.
If Germany hadn't taken on Britain and Russia at the same time, and Hitler had taken the advice of his Generals I think it's possible that with enough time the Nazis could have overtaken all of Russia. But that just wasn't how the Nazis and Mr. H. rolled. (http://hallbuzz.com/images/unlinked/hitler.gif)
-
Would it be reasonable to say that the Soviet army played the majority role in breaking the Wehrmacht?
ack-ack
-
I have to agree with Chalenge. It boils down to Hilter biting off more than Germany could chew. He had his hands full to the west and what does he do? He decides to betray his neighbor to the east. Not too smart :lol
-
Would it be reasonable to say that the Soviet army played the majority role in breaking the Wehrmacht?
ack-ack
actually i would disagree with a statement as plain as that. yes it was the Russians who threw millions of bodies into the blender, but the Russian war machine was dead if not for the supplies sent to them in enormous volume by the west.
also, had the west not maintained the constant bombing and air campain on the German war machine the Luftwaffe would have had free reign over the eastern front and the German soldiers would have had plenty of supplies.
the Russians would have run out of weaponless soldiers to feed to the grinder long before they had managed to even annoy the Wehrmacht had the west not fed the need of the Russian army and systematically depleted the military supplies needed by the germans while tying up a good portion of the Luftwaffe.
as i said before, no one or even two of the Allies stood a chance, if it wasn't all of them then the world would be a very different place today.
FLOTSOM
-
i would have to say the credit goes to america. thier resources were out of the axis bomber range, they had a large force of men, had lots of factories and ports to produce war machines, had good commanders to deploy the troops, and had the mentality that we could do anything,
so overall america helped the most, though credit should go out to all the allied forces who took on the axis.
-
The Allies defeated the Germans...with the Russians taking the lions share of the killing and being killed
Tronsky
-
The Germans invaded Russia at the worst possible moment for the Russians. The Soviet army was disorganized and severely weakened from the purges and their dispositions were poor as they had left their previous well prepared positions in the USSR and were occupying only partially prepared positions in Poland. During the first summer they repeatedly suffered horrific defeats due to Stalin's poor handling of the campaign. In the first 4 months of a 4 year war the Soviets took something like half of their total military losses for the entire war. Despite having almost every piece of good luck they could possibly have in 1941, the Germans still did not defeat the Soviets. By the end of 1941 the Soviets inflicted a serious defeat on the Germans before the US properly entered the war, much less before the West gave them any substantive help from the Western Allies.
IMO the Soviets did by far the Lion’s share of defeating the Germans. And they would have done it with or without help from the West (although at a far greater cost). Germany did not have the staying power to win a prolonged war against either the Soviet Union or the Western Allies. Either the West or Russia would have had the resources to prevail over Germany alone, as long as Germany did not manage to force an early victory.
Hooligan
-
One thing about the Russians , they may have stopped the Germans . They would never have driven them out without lend lease . 100 % of the Russian motorised transport were International Harvesters .
-
i would have to say the credit goes to america. thier resources were out of the axis bomber range, they had a large force of men, had lots of factories and ports to produce war machines, had good commanders to deploy the troops, and had the mentality that we could do anything,
so overall america helped the most, though credit should go out to all the allied forces who took on the axis.
I waited for this one :aok
-
The Germans invaded Russia at the worst possible moment for the Russians. The Soviet army was disorganized and severely weakened from the purges and their dispositions were poor as they had left their previous well prepared positions in the USSR and were occupying only partially prepared positions in Poland. During the first summer they repeatedly suffered horrific defeats due to Stalin's poor handling of the campaign. In the first 4 months of a 4 year war the Soviets took something like half of their total military losses for the entire war. Despite having almost every piece of good luck they could possibly have in 1941, the Germans still did not defeat the Soviets. By the end of 1941 the Soviets inflicted a serious defeat on the Germans before the US properly entered the war, much less before the West gave them any substantive help from the Western Allies.
IMO the Soviets did by far the Lion’s share of defeating the Germans. And they would have done it with or without help from the West (although at a far greater cost). Germany did not have the staying power to win a prolonged war against either the Soviet Union or the Western Allies. Either the West or Russia would have had the resources to prevail over Germany alone, as long as Germany did not manage to force an early victory.
Hooligan
Sorry Hooligan with this over view I must disagree.
if your going to bring into this topic the upper mismanagement of the Russian military then you must, in a perfect world, bring in the complete incompetence of the German leaders.
Hitler redirected the Wehrmacht how many different times? pulled men or materials out of the original battle plan to accomplish missions that could easily have waited until after the Russians fell?
had say Rommel or one of the other professional soldiers of the Wehrmacht been in complete control of the military instead of Hitler then the Russians would have been crushed in the first summer.
the battle of Stalingrad would have never happened, the battle of kursk would have never happened these battles that allowed the Russians to use their massive numbers in body wave after body wave would have not happened. no mechanized commander allows his army to fall into a static siege war nor would he allow the precious materials, fuel, food, ammunition, air support ect to be diverted away from his front line troops.
so incompetence was rampant on both sides of that fight.
the western allies kept Hitler busy in Africa, Italy and building fortress Europe. had these massive depletion on the Wehrmacht not been a constant and steady reality, then the Wehrmacht would have been over double its initial strength when they invaded Russia. it would not have had to split its supply between multiple fronts, the Luftwaffe would have been immeasurably stronger.
if not for the war on two fronts the Russians would have been crushed without pause.
the Russians did alot, yes i will credit them for their massive sacrifice of men. but that is all they had, the advantage of having more soldiers than the germans had bullets.
the human wave attack is not a tactic or strategy. it is the form of war practiced by those without skill.
it didn't work for china or the north Koreans it didn't win any major battles in Vietnam. it is a losing strategy. unless you have more bodies than your enemy has bullets in the end you will lose.
so i respectfully disagree with you.
i would have to say the credit goes to America. their resources were out of the axis bomber range, they had a large force of men, had lots of factories and ports to produce war machines, had good commanders to deploy the troops, and had the mentality that we could do anything,
so overall America helped the most, though credit should go out to all the allied forces who took on the axis.
but you forget, without having England as a staging area, then the American military would have been unable to get a foot hold anywhere in Europe.
without the bulk of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe being tied up elsewhere, America even launching from England, would have never successfully managed a landing in Europe. or if by some fluke they managed a beach head, they would have been pushed into the ocean in record time if they had to face the entire military might of Germany.
so America cannot take the majority of the credit for the victory.
no one or combination of two of the allies could have done it. even with all three together, if Hitler and his cronies had not been so incompetent Germany would have won. if not total victory then at the least a negotiated peace in the end.
FLOTSOM
-
Well, lets not forget about many thousands of
German troops coolin their heels in Norway...
They never did make it into play... Allied air
and subs would have slaughtered them in the
transport ships...
The Germans had many resources that
were never tapped...
Could the US have forced a landing in France
without using Britain as a staging area..
Yes, of course... But it would have been much
later... After the defeat of Japan, after der Nookie...
With the 1st Amphibious Army, and the WHOLE USMC,
all transferred to the eto... AND, all those B29's LOL!!!
Oh yeah!! Remember, Olympic/Coronet would have
Dwarfed the Dday and Okinawa operations.. Just
picture that landing in Normandy in 46 or so...
UNSTOPPABLE!!!
LOL, "what if's" are very interesting...
RC
-
Voss Did it... my himself, if he ever shows up again.... ask him he will tell you how he did it!
-
The US fought a two front war, and the US was in Europe (Italy), before D-Day.
-
I'm bringing this topic over from the general forum: Who deserves the most credit for defeating Germany in WWII? The Western Allies, i.e. USA and UK, or the USSR? We're all pretty familiar with the arguments and counterarguments, so this should be interesting.
Arguments in favor of the USSR:
- 80% of the Wehrmacht was deployed in the East.
- German aircraft production peaked in '44 underneath allied bombing
- More German military died fighting Russia than the allies.
Arguments in favor of the Western Allies:
- Destroyed more of the Luftwaffe than the VVS
- Disrupted German military production and supply with strategic bombing
- Gave large quantities of raw materials and military hardware to the USSR, and therefore partly responsible for its success.
The larger question is whether the USSR could have repelled Germany without the help of the USA and UK. As an armchair historian, I tend to think the USSR could have prevailed without western help because of its unflinching ally, the Russian winter, not to mention all that Germany (Hitler) did to defeat itself with strategic blunders like the Fall advance of '42. However, I know a lot of you are experts in this stuff, and would love to hear your view.
I don't think the Russians could have defeated the Germans without help form the other Allies. America had to loan Russia planes when the conflict first started. Even towards the end of the war Russia suffered more causalities than at the beginning. Russia had no way of even attacking German ground during most of the conflict. They had no strategic means to bring any sort of fight to Germany. It was American and British pressure in the west that kept the Germans form engaging Russia at full strength. The reason aircraft production was at an all time high at wars end was primarily due to the cottage underground industry that Germany had set up. Fighter production was also at an all time high to deal with the constant bomber threat. All Russian aircraft were designed for close battlefield type sorties. They had nothing that could reach out and touch the Germans much past the front lines.
-
Clint Eastwood and Oddball.
Yo?
-
There are of course a few nations that don't need mentioning, that tried to work for both just to save themselves.
..or AGAINST both of them at different times ;)
-
I spent a lot of research on this, or close to this topic.
My conclusion was, that had the Russians been left alone for the Axis (say with a peace treaty between the British and the Germans after the fall of France as offered by Hitler in his "last appeal for reason"), the USSR would have lost, and probably so by Christmas 1941.
Bear in mind that Moscow was saved by mere 10 divisions and some 30 miles. The Axis had 90 or more tied up elsewhere because of the Brits. Half the LW was scattered all over for the same reason, - not including the part who was killed between the fall of France and Barbarossa. The Krigsmarine's main effort was in the Atlantic, and the Italian Navy (Being stronger than the USSR black sea navy) had it's hands full against the Brits. The seaways down to the USSR underbelly (through the Black Sea) were closed by the RN, both at Gibraltar and deep in the Med.
With all those factors nullified (And there are more), Germany would have struck earlier (Perhaps), with vastly more strength, much more swift supply, twice the airpower, and more resources. Something that easily would have "eaten" Moscow.
Had the USSR not collapsed from the fall of Moscow, the campaign remained in the south. And there is the big question of a southern front fuelled from the Black Sea as well as through Romania.
Bear in mind, that the Eastern front war lasted years, with Germany being bombed, and having her fights all over the Med, while the USSR was being supplied by the Western Allies as well.
So, in short...had Hitler made Peace with the UK in July 1940 and getting his Naval embargo lifted, I think there is no doubt he would have defeated Stalin. The Wehrmacht would have slept in the Kremlin before Christmas....
-
My understanding is that Russian textbooks are firmly of the opinion that the USSR deserves the lion's share of the credit for defeating Germany (no surprise there), but part of their argument is that the USA and UK were reluctant to help and desired to see Russia defeated before they attacked Germany.
Mostly because of their vastly different post-war strategic aims. One liberated Europe, and the other did the opposite, but that's for another thread. ;)
There is a book called "Swastika in my Gunsights" or something like that that was written by a Russian pilot. It's pure propaganda almost to a laughable degree. This guy totally down plays everything from how superior soviet training was to how much more advanced Russian aircraft was. I also read about another book on German armor and how the King Tiger as far as this Russian tanker was concerned was poorly constructed tank and was not even in the same category as Russian tanks. You can decide for yourself how valid Russian books are in dealing with reality regarding the Eastern war.
-
Hitler kept waiting for the ENY to kick in but he got screwed by server code. :D
-
Hitler kept waiting for the ENY to kick in but he got screwed by server code. :D
:O
:huh
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
:aok
-
Allies did
-
Allies did
Who would of know.
-
Who would of know.
Well, i first thought that the Spartans did.
-
Well, i first thought that the Spartans did.
Now your getting some were. :aok
-
Well general paulus was kinda screwed by hitler because hitler didnt allow his 250,000 man army breakout from being encircled at Stalingrad. Paulus's army was pretty much had a huge chance of breaking out but hitler waited to long and paulus's troops were running outta supplies they were suppose to receive from air support, but due to the weather they could not. A 250,000 man army just written off there was no way Germany could recover from that. So i believe USSR won the war with the help of hitler. On another note A quote from Otto Carius "We were glad that our comrades in the east continued to fight bitterly to hold up Ivan for as long as possible. Unfortunately, their sacrifices were in vain! The Americans stopped at the Elbe. Our hopes for a joint struggle against the Russians dwindled with that. How easy this advance would have been and how willingly our units would have marched east! All the units were still together. The Yanks would only have had to takeover the supply! The last opportunity to lead a low-risk preventative war was thrown away, when, blinded by hate , the allied themselves with the devil against germany. The only goal that held the Allies together had been reached: Germany ceased to exist. The Americans could not have war anyway; it had already been decided before their intervention. They had the option of losing the peace." From the book " Tigers in the Mud" written by Otto Carius German Tiger Commander.
-
Well, i first thought that the Spartans did.
well in reality the coalition of all of the Greek city states banding together to fend off the invasion of an overwhelming aggressor is one of the first in recorded history.
without a coalition of all the allies involved then germany would have dominated each in its turn independently. actually i don't believe that America would have ever entered the European theater of the war if Britain had fallen in the early part of 1940.
this is also the first time in recorded history that the strategy of the few holding the line at a bottle neck so that the many will gain time needed to gather their forces and prepare for the advance of the invaders.
had Britain not held the line and stay in the game then the back of germany (in the west) would have been protected by distance from the US for at least 5 years or more. leaving the Russians to face the full onslaught of the German military alone. as well as had the Russians not held the line and chewed up the German strength and resolved for war in battles such as stalingrad then the military might of germany without an enemy at their back (to the east) would have been overwhelming to any beach head attempt made in Europe.
knowing that all of the most important commanders (excluding Stalin) of the allied forces were classically educated and believed in the romantic war, and that the coalition that was created resembles the one originally crafted by the Greeks thousands of years before, well in your jest you may be more correct than you think.
FLOTSOM
-
I'm bringing this topic over from the general forum: Who deserves the most credit for defeating Germany in WWII? The Western Allies, i.e. USA and UK, or the USSR? We're all pretty familiar with the arguments and counterarguments, so this should be interesting.
Arguments in favor of the USSR:
- 80% of the Wehrmacht was deployed in the East.
- German aircraft production peaked in '44 underneath allied bombing
- More German military died fighting Russia than the allies.
Arguments in favor of the Western Allies:
- Destroyed more of the Luftwaffe than the VVS
- Disrupted German military production and supply with strategic bombing
- Gave large quantities of raw materials and military hardware to the USSR, and therefore partly responsible for its success.
The larger question is whether the USSR could have repelled Germany without the help of the USA and UK. As an armchair historian, I tend to think the USSR could have prevailed without western help because of its unflinching ally, the Russian winter, not to mention all that Germany (Hitler) did to defeat itself with strategic blunders like the Fall advance of '42. However, I know a lot of you are experts in this stuff, and would love to hear your view.
ITALY was to blame!! If those morons could have just made headway in afrika and stayed away from the greeks!! would have been a different story!
-
ITALY was to blame!! If those morons could have just made headway in afrika and stayed away from the greeks!! would have been a different story!
The greatest tool the Allies had in their pocket was the Italians. carrying the burden of the Italian army was without a doubt the next greatest hindrance that the Germans had to suffer under after Hitler and his cronies.
hell the mechanised Italian army lost to the Ethiopians carrying spears!!!!!!
If that kind of incompetence isn't a burden to your allies i don't know what would be.
FLOTSOM
-
Well general paulus was kinda screwed by hitler because hitler didnt allow his 250,000 man army breakout from being encircled at Stalingrad. Paulus's army was pretty much had a huge chance of breaking out but hitler waited to long and paulus's troops were running outta supplies they were suppose to receive from air support, but due to the weather they could not. A 250,000 man army just written off there was no way Germany could recover from that. So i believe USSR won the war with the help of hitler. On another note A quote from Otto Carius "We were glad that our comrades in the east continued to fight bitterly to hold up Ivan for as long as possible. Unfortunately, their sacrifices were in vain! The Americans stopped at the Elbe. Our hopes for a joint struggle against the Russians dwindled with that. How easy this advance would have been and how willingly our units would have marched east! All the units were still together. The Yanks would only have had to takeover the supply! The last opportunity to lead a low-risk preventative war was thrown away, when, blinded by hate , the allied themselves with the devil against germany. The only goal that held the Allies together had been reached: Germany ceased to exist. The Americans could not have war anyway; it had already been decided before their intervention. They had the option of losing the peace." From the book " Tigers in the Mud" written by Otto Carius German Tiger Commander.
Stalingrad was not just a military catastrophe, but also a human tragedy. Only a small handful of the thousands taken prisoner survived the Soviet POW camps and lived to see their families again.
As for the western allies uniting with Germany to defeat Russia...yeah right. :lol I do agree that Churchill and Roosevelt vastly underestimated what the post-war Soviet Union would be like; they replaced one evil country with another.
-
According to Richthoffen, Paulus (an old school general) also screwed the Stalingrad campaing by himself. He failed to capture it in the initial attack when it was still capturable. He advanced too cautiously (avoiding casualties) and allowed the enemy to retreat into the suburbs where they dug in began their determined resistance. Instead he could have encircled a whole army before it got to the suburbs.
Hitler had also made it more difficult at Caucasus area by spreading the forces too thin. They could have captured one target at a time, but not Stalingrad and the southeastern targets (oil fileds etc.) at the same time. The supply lines grew too long. The air support grew too thin while receiving too few replacements, spare parts and too little fuel.
Destiny of a megalomaniac corporal's army.
-
There were huge differences between the 41 opening assault,
and the 42 offensive in the south... The Germans played the
same pattern.. But the Russians played it differently...
In 41, Stalin had personal control of the frontier armies.. He sat
in his bedroom weeping like a child for 45 days, while his field
officers were screaming for orders, and being slaughtered..
He honestly thought that his commie buddies were going
to put a tokarev bullet in his ear for trusting Hitler... Then, when he
finally realized how cowed his lackies were, begging him "save us
comrade stalin" he came out and ordered whole armies to
hold their ground, (Kiev).. Or make idiotic attacks, (Smolensk)..
Wasting what forces had survived the initial German assault...
Almost cost the whole shebang...
In 42 stalin had given control of field ops to his Marshals...
Zhuchov and Koniev had shown their worth at Moscow and
Leningrad, so (luckily for all involved) Stalin was allowing
them to make militarily LOGICAL decisions.. In the spring
of 42 the Russians launched a sizable offensive in the south..
But it ran headlong into the German army that was staging
for the their big 42 push.. The Russian marshals realized what
was happening, and called their offensive off... Then Switched over
to Delay and run/scorched earth tactics as the gemans marched
forward.. German generals made comment in reports that they
knew major Soviet forces were in their area, but refused to fight..
When Russian troops quit running, (stalingrad) we all know what happened...
It was perfect gameplay by the rooskies, the same as they worked
against Napoleon.. Space for time!!!
The diff between victory and defeat was made by Stalin, when he decided
to let his generals DO THEIR JOB... Didn't matter to him, he took all the credit
for winning the war anyway... But he was sooo afraid of Zhukov, that he
couldn't kill him, had to send him away instead... To vacation land by the black sea..
All credit to the Russian ppl, they properly honor Zhukov now...
Now that the Egotistical Maniac Stalin is dead...
RC
-
As for the western allies uniting with Germany to defeat Russia...yeah right. :lol I do agree that Churchill and Roosevelt vastly underestimated what the post-war Soviet Union would be like; they replaced one evil country with another.
Churchill didn't really fancy the SU either. But the enemy's enemy is a friend. However Germany wasn't a declared enemy to the britons until the war of France. Had the germans stopped after Poland they could have had a chance to stay at peace with France and the UK until the SU attacks germans. With a succesful propaganda campaign demonizing the communists germans could've had a chance to draw the UK, France and perhaps the USA into war against the SU. The question is what would've happened after the attack at Pearl Harbour - it would've allied the UK and USA against the japanese, while the SU could been a potential ally - without a war in the west they could have launched a full scale attack against the japanese. Unless the SU attacks japanese before they decide to attack due to lack of resources, which would further demonize the communists, leading to the US and UK to back up Japan with resources. Although it could be that Japan would've never suffered from the lack of resources in the first place, if the USA wouldn't have had to preserve oil due to war in Europe and therefore cut off the oil to the japanese.
-
Britain and The Few denied his final victory in Europe.
Who in turn continued to support Russia whose army/winter defeated the lion share of the Wehrmacht.
The USA was very much a backbone of the Allies. Defeating Japan in the pacific whilst profiting from supplying the tools to do the job.
I would argue that Hitler defeated himself aswell but the facts are the combined effort of ALL the ALLIES defeated Germany.
(Except France :t)
J/K :D
-
Here's my take on "the allies did it together." While it is true that the allies defeated Germany together, that none of the allies could succeed alone does not preclude the possibility that Russia, or the USA/UK, contributed more to Germany's defeat. So, answering that the allies did it together does not resolve the original question.
Not picking on anyone here, btw, lots of have given this answer.
-
I would have to say that the majority of the credit goes to the USSR, I'd probably pick out July 43-Kursk as the end of Offensive Operations in the East for the Germans, Don't forget that there was Italians, Romanians etc also on the Ost front, That's how the USSR managed to encircle the Germans at Stallingrad, drove south right through the Italians and Romanians etc and then swung round to encircle the 6th Army. Even if Eisenhower had allowed the Allies to advance on to Berlin, The USSR would still have wiped out the Germans facing them.
-
Stalingrad was not just a military catastrophe, but also a human tragedy. Only a small handful of the thousands taken prisoner survived the Soviet POW camps and lived to see their families again.
What perecentage of Soviet POWs survived thier captivity at the hands of the Germans? How many Russian civilians died at the hands of the Germans in this battle? War is a human tragedy period. Not just what happens to the side you happen to be enamored with.
-
From the Wikipedia "Prisoner of War" entry:
Germany treated the Soviet Red Army troops that had been taken prisoner with neglect and deliberate, organized brutality. The first eight months of the German campaign on their Eastern Front were by far the worst phase, with up to 2.4 of 3.1 million POWs dying. Soviet POWs were held under conditions that resulted in deaths of hundreds of thousands from starvation and disease.
Hooligan
-
Big numbers both ways.
Anyway, with Germany refused for a total European Victory, and under an embargo and bombing, the USSR was slightly too big a climb.
Also bear in mind, that had Britain not been an enemy of the Axis, Japan's next go would possibly have been the already weakened USSR. After all, they'd been enemies since 1904 or even before.
Japan did indeed consider this option, but decided on the big game and went for the USA/UK.
That descision saved Moscow, and with Moscow fallen, there might not have been any Stalingrad....
-
The Japanese were scared witless of the Red Army...
They got their butts whipped soundly in large scale
border skirmishes around Khalkin ghol (spelling?)..
More than one fight, during the 30s.. Zhukov again!!
Thats why they never honored their commitments
as part of the tripartite pact... Signed a nonagression
pact similar to the one with Hitler, but neither side
violated it, until the Russian attack in 45 manchuria..
Played Hitler for a sucker.. Germany declared war on
the US, but Japan failed to return the favor against
the USSR... LOL, oh man.. LOL...
The west is supremely lucky that Hitler wasn't more
pragmatic about his worldview.. If Hitler had pursued
a course of co/op with Stalin, and the Soviets became
allied with Germany/Japan??? That was looking very
likely in 39 and 40... Dark days indeed!!!
The world would be a very different place today...
Just an interesting thought..
Good thread <S>
RC
-
The Japs were thinking of the USSR indeed. But with Britain being an enemy of the Germans, and seemingly on their last legs, Japan got tempted.
Bear in mind, that the main conquest were the British and Dutch colonies as well as the US held Philippines. The main object of making war with the USA was to get them out of the way, and the hope of the Japanese was that when/if the USA got on its legs again, all the surrounding would be different, with the Axis holding the cards.
It was a gamble, and Axis lost...
-
"The west is supremely lucky that Hitler wasn't more
pragmatic about his worldview.. If Hitler had pursued
a course of co/op with Stalin, and the Soviets became
allied with Germany/Japan??? That was looking very
likely in 39 and 40... Dark days indeed!!! "
Hitler did have his pact with the USSR, pumping vast resources into the German warmachine during the conquest of W-Europe as well as in the BoB.
But the USSR was having a "cold" war with Japan. They both had their grudges, Japan had been beaten in a land war while the USSR had before suffered big and humiliating naval defeats.
Late autumn 1941 it first became clear (Through the famous USSR spy "Sorge" in Japan) that Japan had cancelled a conquest vs the USSR and turned their eyes "elsewhere". That is why Zhukov could move his great divisions from the far east to the aid of falling Moscow.
-
What perecentage of Soviet POWs survived thier captivity at the hands of the Germans? How many Russian civilians died at the hands of the Germans in this battle? War is a human tragedy period. Not just what happens to the side you happen to be enamored with.
No doubt. I think neither side had the resources to properly care for their POWs, and in some cases lacked the desire or deliberately abused them. You're overreacting when you take my statement about a tragedy for the soldiers of the German army to be an exclusion of other tragedies. I mention it because it's frequently ignored or overlooked.
-
The Soviets were very brutal to their pow's. I do not know if it was the standard or as a revenge, for the Germans already set the standards during Barbarossa, - where the USSR were not taking captives in any numbers.
Hitler's plan was (against some advices) to ANNIHILATE the USSR strength rather than rushing for the vital points of the campaign like the Germans did in the Blitzkrieg.
This was called "Kesselschlacht", or "The Cauldron Battle", where the whole deal was about spearheads encircling the Russian armies and breaking them completely before carrying on.
This lead to insane numbers of captives, complete brutality, and eventually opposition where there were fights to the last bullet and beyond.
Also bear in mind that the USSR was not a member of the Hague convention, while Germany had the deals there with i.e. the British....
-
ITALY was to blame!! If those morons could have just made headway in afrika and stayed away from the greeks!! would have been a different story!
YOU win the prize!!! Benito Mussolini was responsible for the "tipping point" on the Eastern Front!
The OKW were forced to delay the jump-off for "Operation Barbarossa" for an entire month because the Germans had to bail out their Italian allies in the Balkans, additionally the order of battle on the German side was significantly reduced as a result of having to station an occupying force in the Balkans. If the invasion of the USSR had gone according to plan, the Whermact, would have been resting comfortably in Moscow when the snows of winter came, Stalin would be heading a rump state east of the Urals , and there would have been no Practical way to supply the rump USSR with lend-lease munitions via the Atlantic.
-
If the invasion of the USSR had gone according to plan, the Whermact, would have been resting comfortably in Moscow when the snows of winter came
Yes and fighting for their lives night and day in the ruins of Moscow. You think Moscow would of just fell without resistance? Resting comfortably? :lol
-
I rather think it would have fallen like Warshaw.
Some units had the Kremlin towers in their binoculars BTW.
-
Yes and fighting for their lives night and day in the ruins of Moscow. You think Moscow would of just fell without resistance? Resting comfortably? :lol
At this point in the war Russia was absolutely no contest to Germany, gaining a month or so to subdue moscow and change the rail lines to german gauge allowing supplies to flow freely into moscow, essentialy making it a forward logistics hub would have been too much for Russia to overcome, no matter how desperate and patriotic the sporadic defenders of the great city fought. The great Russian national defiance did not develope till later in the war! Delay caused by the Italian failures and winter restored russian confidence. The month or 2 delay because of the Italians was a MAJOR MAJOR set back for the very well planned conquest of Russia! At the very minimum if Italy could have prevailed in Afrika, this would have been an uncontested jumping off point for Germany to begin another attack into russia from the south, easily capturing the Baku oilfields and forcing immense pressure onto an already defeated and demoralized Russian army---> would have been to much for the defenders of the motherland to endure at that time in the war--> IMHO Blame it on Italy!
-
....You think Moscow would of just fell without resistance? Resting comfortably? :lol
Why not?Its been done before.
-
Britain and The Few denied his final victory in Europe.
Who in turn continued to support Russia whose army/winter defeated the lion share of the Wehrmacht.
The USA was very much a backbone of the Allies. Defeating Japan in the pacific whilst profiting from supplying the tools to do the job.
I would argue that Hitler defeated himself aswell but the facts are the combined effort of ALL the ALLIES defeated Germany.
(Except France :t)
J/K :D
Profiting? We gave England over 30 Billion $$ in lend lease and recieved only 650 million $$ back. And then after the war we spent countless billions rebuilding Europe under the Marshall plan. Some profiteering!
-
The first shipments of the lend-lease were obsolete destroyers, so their value was on paper whilst being paid in gold.
Not accounted as $$$ were naval bases, information access and blueprints.
And BTW, what figure is the one quoted? Both UK and USSR or just one, and prior to Pearl Harbour or all the war?
Bear in mind that the USA got war declared upon it by Germany....the USA did NOT jump in to save the day.
And here is a bone to Barbarossa...
The LW lost more aircraft to the Brits and French in the 15 months before Barbarossa than they had available there. Those they had were about 50% of their strength, - the rest was guarding the western front or active in the med. As well as some odd 90 divisions.
Now throw that on a 20 mile depth vs none of Zhukov's divisions, and I think that Moscow would have fallen like Paris....
-
I guess we all forget about the Soviet Counter-Offensive of December 5th 1941.
Reinforcements were being pulled from East, Ski Troops and Tanks attacked and drove the beleaguered Germans back. Had they been occupying some or even all of Moscow, I believe the attack would of been sufficient enough to at least gain some of the city back (had it been occupied).
The Attack was successful enough to encircle pockets of German troops (Demyansk, Velizh, Kolhm, etc.), some which were supplied by air drops and gliders until May of 42!
It is of my opinion that the Germans may have been able to make Moscow possibly even take some of the city, but they would have had to deal with that Counter-Offensive and I don't think they had the logistics to do it. No winter clothing, Extended supply lines, etc.
-
The counter offensive was Zhukov, and it was only possible because of the information that the Japanese went for the weakened Brits and sleepy USA instead of the USSR.
It was 10 divisions sent from the east, a very much smaller force than the Axis had tied up all over the place.
-
Sorry Hooligan with this over view I must disagree.
if your going to bring into this topic the upper mismanagement of the Russian military then you must, in a perfect world, bring in the complete incompetence of the German leaders.
Hitler redirected the Wehrmacht how many different times? pulled men or materials out of the original battle plan to accomplish missions that could easily have waited until after the Russians fell?
had say Rommel or one of the other professional soldiers of the Wehrmacht been in complete control of the military instead of Hitler then the Russians would have been crushed in the first summer.
the battle of Stalingrad would have never happened, the battle of kursk would have never happened these battles that allowed the Russians to use their massive numbers in body wave after body wave would have not happened. no mechanized commander allows his army to fall into a static siege war nor would he allow the precious materials, fuel, food, ammunition, air support ect to be diverted away from his front line troops.
so incompetence was rampant on both sides of that fight.
the western allies kept Hitler busy in Africa, Italy and building fortress Europe. had these massive depletion on the Wehrmacht not been a constant and steady reality, then the Wehrmacht would have been over double its initial strength when they invaded Russia. it would not have had to split its supply between multiple fronts, the Luftwaffe would have been immeasurably stronger.
if not for the war on two fronts the Russians would have been crushed without pause.
the Russians did alot, yes i will credit them for their massive sacrifice of men. but that is all they had, the advantage of having more soldiers than the germans had bullets.
the human wave attack is not a tactic or strategy. it is the form of war practiced by those without skill.
it didn't work for china or the north Koreans it didn't win any major battles in Vietnam. it is a losing strategy. unless you have more bodies than your enemy has bullets in the end you will lose.
so i respectfully disagree with you.
but you forget, without having England as a staging area, then the American military would have been unable to get a foot hold anywhere in Europe.
without the bulk of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe being tied up elsewhere, America even launching from England, would have never successfully managed a landing in Europe. or if by some fluke they managed a beach head, they would have been pushed into the ocean in record time if they had to face the entire military might of Germany.
so America cannot take the majority of the credit for the victory.
no one or combination of two of the allies could have done it. even with all three together, if Hitler and his cronies had not been so incompetent Germany would have won. if not total victory then at the least a negotiated peace in the end.
FLOTSOM
I would beg the differ about human wave attacks not being a valid tactic or strategy.The idea in war is to make the other guy quit.Being involved in a defense that is set up with all the correct positions,artillery,and air support,and still not being able to stop the human wave attack,has a demoralizing effect on everyone involved.I would hesitate to place "Charley" or the NVA as skill less.
IronDog
-
The Russians weren't ded yet around Moskow..
Those 10 divs from the east were only part of
what were launched in the December counter/attack.
Russian civilians had been digging belts of antitank
defenses completely around the city.. Have you seen
those ditches??? They look like the Suez Canal!!!
The "Workers Battalions" (cannon fodder) had the
Germans stopped at the first ring of defenses.. Some
30k short of Red square.. The city was never in any
real Danger of falling...I'm sure recon units could
see the onion domes thru their Binkies.. But the HARD
FREEZE came during that same week.. That is what
Zhukov was waiting for... Case closed!!!
To Stalin's Credit, after he recovered from his episode
of depression, (some reports say, after being chastised
by a well known Soviet general) He issued his, "Kill the
Germans, Kill them all" speech... And as the Germans
approached the city's defenses, he Refused to leave
the city.. WTG unkie Joe!!!
(Hmmm, maybe that's why Stalin didn't have Zhukov killed
after the war ended, even tho he was Stalin's only
possible rival?) Always wondered why, because he surely
killed EVERY other rival, even rivals that existed only in his
paranoid mind...
The politburo was loaded into an armored train, ready to
depart for points east... By this point in time, the war
wouldn't have ended, weather the Germans captured
Moskow or not... Russian troops were standing their
ground, (and holding on) for the first time.. The righteous
fury of the Russian ppl, was just coming into play.. The
realization was sinking in, that territory was not enough
for the invaders, they sought the entire extinction, or
enslavement of the slavic race... Hitler wasn't talking
BS, he really meant it!!!
That will toughen your ppl up in a hurry...
In truth, the battle for Moskow was lost by the germans
months before.. When 1/3 of army group center was
redirected south to complete the encirclement of Kiev..
And again, when the autumn rains began... Both delayed
their time schedule, so by the time of the first frost,
(ground hard enough to roll tanks) the Germans were
rolling again... But resistance stiffened, and the HARD
FREEZE had arrived, so it was over...
lots of guys have hit the books in this BB..
Ya know your stuff as well as I do... <S>
RC
-
lots of guys have hit the books in this BB..
Ya know your stuff as well as I do... <S>
Yup, I'm impressed! I started this thread expecting to hear a bunch of interesting stuff from people who know the topic better than I! :aok
-
I rather think it would have fallen like Warshaw.
Some units had the Kremlin towers in their binoculars BTW.
If Whermatch could've fought into the city - theres no way to know if they could've kept it. As Nefarious stated Zhukov would most likely be still able to commit to the counter offensive during the winter months when the Germans probably would've suffered the exact same logistical problems.
Tronsky
-
but you forget, without having England as a staging area, then the American military would have been unable to get a foot hold anywhere in Europe.
Incorrect. American Forces that invaded Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, and Italy were not staged out of England they staged out of North Africa. Seems that they managed a pretty good foothold in Europe via the MTO. The invasion of southern France was staged out of North Africa, Sicily and Italy.
Even if England had been invaded and defeated, the Royal Navy would have sailed to North America and the Commonwealth nations would have continued the fight.
Oh, and avoiding war with the Soviet Union would have been impossible. Hitler and Stalin could not have co-existed.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I personally think we beat germany, and we beat japan, cause if you think about it, there would have been NO WAY britain coulda done it without us, we had been sending them guns, ammo, food/water, tanks, cars, all that good stuff
-BigBOBCH
-
Incorrect. American Forces that invaded Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, and Italy were not staged out of England they staged out of North Africa. Seems that they managed a pretty good foothold in Europe via the MTO. The invasion of southern France was staged out of North Africa, Sicily and Italy.
Even if England had been invaded and defeated, the Royal Navy would have sailed to North America and the Commonwealth nations would have continued the fight.
Oh, and avoiding war with the Soviet Union would have been impossible. Hitler and Stalin could not have co-existed.
My regards,
Widewing
What you are forgetting is that we Americans could not have defeated Rommel in the desert without the help of the British soldiers, the attrition against German supply lines and the constant pressure that was maintained against the germans in the Mediterranean by the British.
we only managed a semi quiet landing in Africa because of the battles the British had fought to weaken the German military present there. also lets not forget that the French forces didn't put up any real fight against us when we landed.
the American soldiers learned immediately after their first contact with the German military that they were in way over their heads and stood no chance against the Wehrmacht as things were. not until the Americans had the opportunity for more training and exposure to war could they hope to compete against Germany. Without the British there to provide the time, experience, knowledge and guidance that the Americans needed, all Americans sent to Africa would have been butchered.
without the staging point in Africa we never could have made the Mediterranean landings in Italy southern France Sicily ect.
without the British we had no landings in Africa.
so we needed the British to invade any part of Europe at that time.
the British navy wouldn't have amounted to very much more than cannon fodder for the Americans to use in the pacific theater. without England under direct threat (due to having been hypothetically captured already) and with no place to stage an invasion of Europe from, America would have turned its full attention to japan and put off any western Atlantic invasion indefinitely.
FLOTSOM
-
Incorrect. American Forces that invaded Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, and Italy were not staged out of England they staged out of North Africa. Seems that they managed a pretty good foothold in Europe via the MTO. The invasion of southern France was staged out of North Africa, Sicily and Italy.
Even if England had been invaded and defeated, the Royal Navy would have sailed to North America and the Commonwealth nations would have continued the fight.
Oh, and avoiding war with the Soviet Union would have been impossible. Hitler and Stalin could not have co-existed.
My regards,
Widewing
Sorry Pal, have to disagree-a-wee
North Africa was available because of the Brits.
Had N-Africa fallen to the Axis and/or Gibraltar being grabbed by the Axis, the USA could only have staged offence from Britain itself. And N-Africa and the Med was in quite some amount supplied from the UK, hence the convoys through the med, - but there was oil and other goods through Suez.
With Britain defeated, say in 1940/41, I think you'd have been looking at USSR being defeated as well, and 2-3 basic blocks of power in the world, - very much like in that novel "Fatherland" by Robert Harris. I do not see the USA making war and invasion on mainland Europe for "the cause" had Britain fallen. After all, the USA didn't make war on Germany, it was the other way.
And Redman: I think in case of the US aid, well, it didn't save Britain from falling, since the crucial moments of the struggle (1940) were some year before even the lend-lease pact.
US out of the game might rather have lead to the USSR getting all the way to the Atlantic in 1946....
-
What you are forgetting is that we Americans could not have defeated Rommel in the desert without the help of the British soldiers, the attrition against German supply lines and the constant pressure that was maintained against the germans in the Mediterranean by the British.
we only managed a semi quiet landing in Africa because of the battles the British had fought to weaken the German military present there. also lets not forget that the French forces didn't put up any real fight against us when we landed.
the American soldiers learned immediately after their first contact with the German military that they were in way over their heads and stood no chance against the Wehrmacht as things were. not until the Americans had the opportunity for more training and exposure to war could they hope to compete against Germany. Without the British there to provide the time, experience, knowledge and guidance that the Americans needed, all Americans sent to Africa would have been butchered.
without the staging point in Africa we never could have made the Mediterranean landings in Italy southern France Sicily ect.
without the British we had no landings in Africa.
so we needed the British to invade any part of Europe at that time.
the British navy wouldn't have amounted to very much more than cannon fodder for the Americans to use in the pacific theater. without England under direct threat (due to having been hypothetically captured already) and with no place to stage an invasion of Europe from, America would have turned its full attention to japan and put off any western Atlantic invasion indefinitely.
FLOTSOM
You are assuming that Germany would have any forces in Africa had Britain surrendered. Again, Germany had too many other immediate problems to dither around in Africa. They only put forces in to prop up the hopeless Italians who were butchered by the Brits.
You have to stay within the "what if" scenario.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Who defeated Germany?
first, who defeated Nazi-Germany?
second, it was plain luck ;)
-
You are assuming that Germany would have any forces in Africa had Britain surrendered. Again, Germany had too many other immediate problems to dither around in Africa. They only put forces in to prop up the hopeless Italians who were butchered by the Brits.
You have to stay within the "what if" scenario.
My regards,
Widewing
Had Britain surrendered, Germany would have held Gibraltar,- which we today know that they really wanted. So, there would be no getting-into N-Africa from the med.
The Italian Navy was also something to consider. They just were unlucky enough to face Cunningham, probably the best naval commander of WW2...
The French navy in N-Africa must also get into the equation. Same fate though....
Anyway, had Britain surrendered, I would see no reason for the Japs to make war on the USA, nor the Germans, nor the USA on the Axis, since they didn't in the first place in RL. The British colonies being handed on a plate would have solved the embargo, making the USSR a natural enemy for the Japs, and the USSR was uhhmm, a big slice:D
A British surrender would also have handed the Suez canal to the Axis, linking all their naval power.
So, in my opinion, British surrender in 1940=NO WAY for an allied victory.
-
That puts things into perspective and makes me wonder what Roosevelt was thinking. Apparently, when Roosevelt was corresponding with Churchill after the fall of France, and everyone expected the UK to surrender in a few weeks, Churchill asked for help one last time before the showdown. Roosevelt responded with "Don't let them capture your fleet; let us have it..." or something along those lines. Of course, I know that the USA was in no mood for global warfare at that point, but it's surprising that the USA had no treaty obligations to come to the UK's defense (never signed up for the League of Nations, though that also failed).
On the topic of why collective security in the League of Nations failed, Stanley Baldwin said:The real reason, or the main reason, was that we discovered in the process of weeks that there was no country except the aggressor country which was ready for war...
-
I'm happy to report that my grandfather defeated Germany. This was told to me in great detail when i was 5 or 6 years old and i believe it. I would sit on his stomach (he was a big guy) while he laid on his hammock. He had a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other and related all the exploits he and his buddies went through. They killed everyone and broke everthing. They were the ones responsible for every defeat Germany suffered. Then he would sing dirty songs he and his buddies made up about women and my grandmother would come out of the house and smack him on the head for exposing me to "such language". So now we know , my grandfather defeated Germany! :D
zuii
-
Wow, you gents really need to research the British government's contingency planning. Britain would not have surrendered the "Empire". There were plans to govern from Canada should an invasion of Great Britain occur and prove successful. No colonies would have been handed over, nor the Suez, nor Gibraltar, nor the Royal Navy.
Of course, anyone who has researched the plans for Operation Sea Lion will realize that the plan was horribly flawed and virtually doomed to failure. Several major studies were conducted since the war, and every one of them demonstrated that it was a recipe for a major German defeat. Certainly the Wehrmacht was unenthusiastic about the plan and greatly relieved when, in a rare moment of clarity, Hitler called it off. Besides, he had been obsessing over the Soviet Union all along.
Also, the US invasion of Morocco was from the Atlantic, not the Med. It seems you have forgotten about North Africa's Atlantic coast.
As usual, more credit is given to Germany than is truly deserved. Indeed, Germany lacked anything approaching an effective surface navy. As Germany was to discover, the U-boat fleet was vulnerable to hunter-killer tactics and was systematically destroyed. Germany did not have the resources to effectively control more than they occupied by the end of 1941. As we were to see, large numbers of German troops in eastern Europe were tied down defending against partisans. Germany's reach consistently exceeded its grasp, as did Japan's.
Germany's best chance for winning was centered on a negotiated peace with Great Britain. That may have occurred had Lord Halifax become Prime Minister after Chamberlain. However, with Churchill in command, a negotiated peace was completely impossible.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'm happy to report that my grandfather defeated Germany. This was told to me in great detail when i was 5 or 6 years old and i believe it. I would sit on his stomach (he was a big guy) while he laid on his hammock. He had a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other and related all the exploits he and his buddies went through. They killed everyone and broke everthing. They were the ones responsible for every defeat Germany suffered. Then he would sing dirty songs he and his buddies made up about women and my grandmother would come out of the house and smack him on the head for exposing me to "such language". So now we know , my grandfather defeated Germany! :D
zuii
Well <SALUTE> to your Gramps ZUII!!!!!!
we the free world owe him and your family a debt of gratitude that could never be repaid!!
:aok :aok :aok
:salute
FLOTSOM
-
Wow, you gents really need to research the British government's contingency planning. Britain would not have surrendered the "Empire". There were plans to govern from Canada should an invasion of Great Britain occur and prove successful. No colonies would have been handed over, nor the Suez, nor Gibraltar, nor the Royal Navy.
Of course, anyone who has researched the plans for Operation Sea Lion will realize that the plan was horribly flawed and virtually doomed to failure. Several major studies were conducted since the war, and every one of them demonstrated that it was a recipe for a major German defeat. Certainly the Wehrmacht was unenthusiastic about the plan and greatly relieved when, in a rare moment of clarity, Hitler called it off. Besides, he had been obsessing over the Soviet Union all along.
Also, the US invasion of Morocco was from the Atlantic, not the Med. It seems you have forgotten about North Africa's Atlantic coast.
As usual, more credit is given to Germany than is truly deserved. Indeed, Germany lacked anything approaching an effective surface navy. As Germany was to discover, the U-boat fleet was vulnerable to hunter-killer tactics and was systematically destroyed. Germany did not have the resources to effectively control more than they occupied by the end of 1941. As we were to see, large numbers of German troops in eastern Europe were tied down defending against partisans. Germany's reach consistently exceeded its grasp, as did Japan's.
Germany's best chance for winning was centered on a negotiated peace with Great Britain. That may have occurred had Lord Halifax become Prime Minister after Chamberlain. However, with Churchill in command, a negotiated peace was completely impossible.
My regards,
Widewing
from the Atlantic or the Mediterranean is of no real matter. the us could not have sailed an invasion force of the size needed to make a formidable landing in Africa without the ability to stage them from a closer and secured location.
the British government had plans to evacuate, but would it have survived the move as a formidable government? doubtful.
yes some of the studies of today suggest that operation sealion would have ended in failure, but then again they also say that the invasion of Normandy with less than a full day window (approximately an 18 hour window) of anticipated clear weather would be impossible and doomed to failure. but Rommel was at home and no one wanted to wake up Hitler, flukes of timing and circumstance that changed the face of the war.
more credit given to germany than is deserved? reread your history. they accomplished far more than any of the allies would have hoped to accomplish on their own.
i have never read anything that would suggest that the Wehrmacht was anything less than exalted at the thought of invading their snotty nosed neighbors in Britain. I have also read no where that said definitively that operation sea lion was doomed to failure, troubles yes, but inevitable failure no.
the German u-boat threat to England by itself almost defeated the British by starvation. the British could not defend against the wolf packs until after the Americans provided them sonar and destroyers to use as sub hunters. the allies could not even be said to have held a solid victory against the wolf packs until late in 43 early 44, long after England would have starved to death without American intervention.
FLOTSOM
-
Ships were provided to the RN by the US , however take a look at the list in the link below
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/lend_lease_destroyers.htm
These were basically world war one ships , also we had sonar , it was called ASDIC by the RN .
The wolf packs were finally sorted once BOTH the US and the UK had suitable patrol aircraft .
-
Who deserves the most credit for defeating Germany in WWII?
Hitler.
-
id go along with that the man started out well but really lost it beeg style
-
Been fun reading everones take on this. I don't have an opinion on who deserves the most credit for defeating the Germans. :(
Undoubtedly, the allies pace would have been slowed w/o the Russians battling the Germans, and vice versa. However, as soon as B-29's with that Special Delivery started showing up I think the results would have been the same. :t
-
Ships were provided to the RN by the US , however take a look at the list in the link below
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/lend_lease_destroyers.htm
These were basically world war one ships , also we had sonar , it was called ASDIC by the RN .
The wolf packs were finally sorted once BOTH the US and the UK had suitable patrol aircraft .
The deal was done in 1941, when Britain was out of its worst part.
Widewing, I am aware of the "evac" thoughts of Britain, in case the island fell. But what they'd have left behind was a lot of their power (Industries, population, technology, and the face). A very bad position regarding Gibraltar for instance, since Franco also wanted it. A long distance as well from any strongpoint to hold out the connection to the colonies. An Open atlantic to all Axis shipping, since the UK and the GIUK gate held a certain plug on the Kriegsmarine.
And at last, do not forget, that technically Germany could trade with the USA until 1941, it was just not feasible because of the RN. In 1940 even, German POW's transported to Canada could escape and have their freedom in the USA.
Sorry, I do not see an allied Victory had the UK fallen.
-
The deal was done in 1941, when Britain was out of its worst part.
Actually, the early part of 1942 was also a bad time for allied shipping. And quite a lot of tonnage was sunk in early '43, too, resulting in low fuel supplies in Britain.
-
Something I picked up off the web a long time ago.
***********
1939:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Sep39 48/178,621
Oct39 33/156,156
Nov39 27/72,721
Dec39 39/101,823
Tot39 147 (36.75/month)/509,321 (127,330.25/month)
British merchant ship construction capacity from 1939-1941 did not exceed 1.2 million GRT per year.
US merchant ship construction in 1939 was 0.242 million GRT.
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Aug39 19/2
Sep39 3/0
Oct39 13/3
Nov39 10/1/1
Dec39 5/1/1
Tot39 50/7/2 (an average of 10 patrols per month and 14% lost)
Thus for 1939, an average of 2.94 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 21 ships sunk (note that throughout these averages will be slightly inflated since they do not include the minor contribution of the Italian submarine fleet.)
1940:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan40 53/163,029
Feb40 50/182,369
Mar40 26/69,826
Apr40 6/30,927
May40 14/61,635
Jun40 66/375,069
Jul40 41/301,975
Aug40 56/288,180
Sep40 60/288,180
Oct40 66/363,267
Nov40 36/181,695
Dec40 46/256,310
Tot40 520 (43.33/month)/2,462,867 (205,238.91/month)
US merchant ship construction for 1940 was about 0.5 million GRT.
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan40 8/2
Feb40 10/3
Mar40 10/2
Apr40 19/3
May40 8/0/2
Jun40 18/3/1
Jul40 4/0
Aug40 16/2/1
Sep40 12/0
Oct40 13/2
Nov40 14/1
Dec40 6/0
Tot40 138/18/3 (an average of 11.5 patrols per month and 13% lost)
Thus for 1940, an average of 3.77 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 28.89 ships sunk.
1941:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan41 23/129,711
Feb41 47/254,118
Mar41 41/236,549
Apr41 41/239,719
May41 63/362,268
Jun41 66/325,817
Jul41 26/112,624
Aug41 27/85,603
Sep41 57/212,237
Oct41 28/170,786
Nov41 15/76,056
Dec41 23/93,226
Tot41 457 (38.08/month)/2,298,714 (191,559.5/month)
US merchant ship construction 1941 0.804 million GRT
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan41 10/0
Feb41 18/3/2
Mar41 15/3/3
Apr41 14/2/2
May41 21/0/2
Jun41 22/2/3
Jul41 24/1/9
Aug41 42/5/9
Sep41 38/0/2
Oct41 37/0/6
Nov 41 27/5/5
Dec41 49/4/6
Tot 41 287/25/49 (an average of 23.9 patrols sailing per month and 8.7% lost)
Thus for 1941, an average of 1.59 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 18.28 ships sunk.
1942:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan42 56/310,224
Feb42 72/429,255
Mar42 93/507,514
Apr42 81/418,161
May42 129/616,835
Jun42 136/636,926
Jul42 96/467,051
Aug42 117/587,245
Sep42 96/461,794
Oct42 89/583,690
Nov42 126/802,160
Dec42 64/337,618
Tot42 1,155 (96.25/month)/6,158,473 (513,206.08/month)
British and Canadian merchant ship construction 1942 1.8 million GRT
US merchant ship construction 1942 5.433 million GRT
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan42 50/2/5
Feb42 29/3/2
Mar42 32/2
Apr42 37/2/2
May42 23/3
Jun42 39/9/5
Jul42 45/7/3
Aug42 58/10/4
Sep42 52/8/8
Oct42 62/6/10
Nov42 54/8/6
Dec42 59/8/7
Tot42 540/68/57 (an average of 45 patrols sailing per month and 12.6% lost)
Thus for 1942, an average of 2.14 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 16.99 ships sunk.
1943:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan43 44/307,196
Feb43 67/362,081
Mar43 110/633,731
Apr43 50/287,137
May43 46/237,182
Jun43 17/76,090
Jul43 46/237,777
Aug43 20/92,443
Sep43 16/98,852
Oct43 20/91,295
Nov43 9/30,726
Dec43 8/55,794
Tot43 452 (37.67/month)/2,510,304 (209,192/month)
US merchant ship construction 1943 13.081 million GRT
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan43 61/13/11
Feb43 72/8/9
Mar43 59/16/10
Apr43 95/35/18
May43 55/23/9
Jun43 46/23/9
Jul43 39/27/7 (49 total patrols of all types)
Aug43 33/12/6
Sep43 32/11/10
Oct43 62/23/9
Nov43 36/9/4
Dec43 31/10/2
Tot43 621/210/104 (an average of 51.75 patrols sailing per month and 33.8% lost)
Thus for 1943, an average of 0.73 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 2.15 ships sunk.
So, overall, the most successful year for the U-Boats was 1940, before the expansion of the force allowed for an increase of more than about a dozen patrols sailing per month, and well prior to the entry of the US and its shipbuilding capacity into the war. Worse, the performance of the U-Boat force in 1941 and 1942 never exceeded its performance in the first months of the war. And, after 1943 the U-Boat campaign became ever less relevent to the outcome of the war.
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Tot44 125/663,308
Tot45 63/284,476
US merchant ship construction for 1944 was 12.257 million GRT
US merchant ship construction for 1945 (through 1 May) was 3.548 million GRT
U-Boat Fleet to 1Sep42
On 19Aug39 there were 57 U-Boats in commission, 20 sea-going U-Boats and 18 ‘ducks’ were fully ready to put to sea
Total number U-Boats deployed to 1Sep42 275
Total number lost 94
Total number retired 10
Total number available 171
U-Boat Fleet 1Sep42 to 1May45
Total number deployed 1Sep42 to 1May45 531
Total number lost 1Sep42 to 1May45 568
British controlled merchant shipping over 1,600 GRT (number/in thousands of gross tons)
3Sep39 2,999/17,784
30Sep40 3,75721,373
30Sep41 3,608/20,552
31Dec41 3,616/20,693
Thus, despite the ‘success’ of the U-Boat force in 1940 (relative to its performance in 1941 and 1942) it had no appreciable effect in reducing the size of the British merchant fleet.
Numbers of ships arriving and losses in North Atlantic convoys inbound to Britain (ships arriving/losses)
1939 700/5 (7.1%)
1940 5,434/133 ((2.5%)
1941 5,923/153 (2.6%)
1942 4,798/80 (1.7%)
1943 5,667/87 (1.5%)
1944 7,410/8 (0.1%)
The operational U-Boat force from 1943-1945 never approached a "steady 400-500 boat." Rather, during 1942 the peak strength of boats assigned to combat flotillas (including those under repair for combat-damage and breakdowns, but excluding those assigned to school flotillas, experimental projects, or otherwise retired from combat) was 202, during November. The low in 1942 was 89 in January. The average monthly strength during 1942 was 143.83. The strength of the force peaked in May 1943 at 237. It had declined to a low of 159 by November. Average monthly strength during 1943 was 197.58. The peak strength during 1944 was 168 in February, the low was 146 in November. Average monthly strength in 1944 was 157.83. The peak strength in 1945 was April with 165, the low was May with 134, prior to the surrender. <http://www.onwar.com/ubb/smile.gif>
At that, these were much better than 1939 (average of 19.5 monthly), 1940 (average of 18.75 monthly) and 1941 (average of 47.5 monthly). OTOH, the 'bang for their buck' was probably highest in 1940, which was also arguably the U-Boats most 'successful' year in terms of ships sunk per patrol and U-Boats lost per ship sunk (see my previous reply).
-
Something I picked up off the web a long time ago.
Awsome job!!
good research!!
:salute
-
Actually, the early part of 1942 was also a bad time for allied shipping. And quite a lot of tonnage was sunk in early '43, too, resulting in low fuel supplies in Britain.
I was referring to daylight bombing and the threat of invasion as well.
And 1942 includes the Arctic convoys as well, who started late in '41
-
It is inconcievable that THAT generation of
Britons would have handed control of the empire
to the axis powers... Weather the British isles had
fallen or not.. (The current generation is a diff story.)
To quote the Brit ambassador to the German
ambassador in 1940 Switzerland, "Don't presume to
dictate to us, until you are marching up Whitehall...
AND EVEN THEN, WE WON'T LISTEN!!!"
Yes, that actually happened!!! Gotta love those Brits!!!
If the home islands HAD fallen, the war would have
been waged from Iceland.. Her Majesty's fleet would
have joined the US atlantic fleet on the US east coast,
The British Gov in exile would have set up shop in
Canada, and the war would have gone on anyway...
The ONLY reason Germany achieved the success they
did, is because the rest of Europe wasn't ready for
war, (except the french)...
But French troops were betrayed by inept leadership,
and then governmental collaberation...
To the honor of the French soldiers, they bided their time
and survived, until they could join the Free French forces..
Then they fought a savage, very personal, war of redemption
for their nation and ppl!!! <S>
The French and Polish ppl never gave up... Even with the
full weight of the nazi yoke on them!!!
The Brits would have never given up either...
Ppl were just tougher in those days...
RC
-
Surrender was Widewing's scenario if I understood right.
I would not have belived in Surrender of the home isles. In a what-if scenario, it would rather be about a truce with some "cold" peace as an answer to "Hitler's last appeal to reason" in july (?) 1940.
I worked on an essay on that (There are threads about it) .
It was not that far from possible, but IMHO Churchill was the point of pivot there. Britain with Churchill would not surrender at all, nor make a truce.
Hitler would have wanted entrance to the seas and seize fire with the UK. He also belived that the British empire was a necessary "ballast" for global affairs. If he had played such a possibility cleverly, there might have been a "release" truce to the occupation of some area, time by time.
I think he underestimated the strength and the will of the Brits, and the first demonstration was the BoB...
-
I guess we all forget about the Soviet Counter-Offensive of December 5th 1941.
Reinforcements were being pulled from East, Ski Troops and Tanks attacked and drove the beleaguered Germans back. Had they been occupying some or even all of Moscow, I believe the attack would of been sufficient enough to at least gain some of the city back (had it been occupied).
The Attack was successful enough to encircle pockets of German troops (Demyansk, Velizh, Kolhm, etc.), some which were supplied by air drops and gliders until May of 42!
It is of my opinion that the Germans may have been able to make Moscow possibly even take some of the city, but they would have had to deal with that Counter-Offensive and I don't think they had the logistics to do it. No winter clothing, Extended supply lines, etc.
Since we are talking "what if", a look at the lines of Communication as they existed in 1941 Russia is revealing... Moscow was (and is still) the hub around which all roads and rail lines in the USSR radiated from. With the Soviet government "exiled" to the east, away from the vast majority of it's productive capacity and population, the counter offensive of which you write would have been "too little and too late". The Dec. 5th offensive was successful because the German advance had stalled, the Army was not properly equipped and living in the open West of Moscow. None of this would have happened if the German plan had followed it's original timeline (posponed by the Italian debacle in the Balkans) With Moscow occupied, the USSR would have (IMO) collapsed and/or sought a separate peace with the NAZIs. Not wanting to take anything away from the bravery of the Russian Soldier, the Red army had virtually no experienced field commanders prior to the Spring of 1942 thanks to Stalin's purge of the officier Corps in 1935-1937. The lack of leaders coupled with the loss of the Capitol would have been the end for the USSR!
-
Ok. Wanted to answer this for awhile now . I needed to find some German O.B. data first . First off argueablly the most decisive arena of battle in Europe during WWII was the land arena . The most decisive instrument there was the Panzer/Armored/Tank divisions of each nation ,Corps in the case of USSR . The deployment of these units by the Germans by front I think answers this question best . Even after the Normandy invasion German Panzer strength never exceeded 6 Army and 5 SS Panzer divisions . The deployment as of January 1945 was as follows .
2nd Panzer
9th Panzer
11th Panzer
116th Panzer
Panzer Lehr
3rd Panzer Grenadier
15th Panzer Grenadier
17th SS Panzer Grenadier
Italy
26th Panzer
29th Panzer Grenadier
East
1st Panzer
3rd Panzer
4th Panzer
5th Panzer
6th Panzer
7th Panzer
8th Panzer
12th Panzer
13th Panzer
14th Panzer
16th Panzer
17th Panzer
19th Panzer
20th Panzer
21st Panzer*
23rd Panzer
24th Panzer
25th Panzer
10th Panzer Grenadier
18th Panzer Grenadier
20th Panzer Grenadier
25th Panzer Grenadier
1st SS Panzer*
2nd SS Panzer
3rd SS Panzer
4th SS Panzer
5th SS Panzer
9th SS Panzer*
10th SS Panzer*
11th SS Panzer Grenadier
12th SS Panzer Grenadier*
16th SS Panzer Grenadier*
18th SS Panzer Grenadier
23rd SS Panzer Grenadier
GD SS Panzer Grenadier
Fuhrer Panzer Grenadier*
Fuhrer Begleit Panzer
Brandenburg Panzer Grenadier
Kurmark Panzer Grenadier
Muncheberg Panzer
Holstien Panzer
Feldherrnhalle Panzer
Herman Goering Panzer
Herman Goering Panzer Grenadier
To be sure all of these units were at varying states of readiness . I added asterisk to indicate divisions that saw service in the west to give an idea of % of Panzer troops that never fought in the west .
Sources available on request .
-
Just reading this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Victories-Memoirs-Hitlers-Brilliant/dp/0760320543/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225890317&sr=1-1
I can recommend.
-C+
-
Ok. Wanted to answer this for awhile now . I needed to find some German O.B. data first . First off argueablly the most decisive arena of battle in Europe during WWII was the land arena . The most decisive instrument there was the Panzer/Armored/Tank divisions of each nation ,Corps in the case of USSR . The deployment of these units by the Germans by front I think answers this question best . Even after the Normandy invasion German Panzer strength never exceeded 6 Army and 5 SS Panzer divisions . The deployment as of January 1945 was as follows .
2nd Panzer
9th Panzer
11th Panzer
116th Panzer
Panzer Lehr
3rd Panzer Grenadier
15th Panzer Grenadier
17th SS Panzer Grenadier
Italy
26th Panzer
29th Panzer Grenadier
East
1st Panzer
3rd Panzer
4th Panzer
5th Panzer
6th Panzer
7th Panzer
8th Panzer
12th Panzer
13th Panzer
14th Panzer
16th Panzer
17th Panzer
19th Panzer
20th Panzer
21st Panzer*
23rd Panzer
24th Panzer
25th Panzer
10th Panzer Grenadier
18th Panzer Grenadier
20th Panzer Grenadier
25th Panzer Grenadier
1st SS Panzer*
2nd SS Panzer
3rd SS Panzer
4th SS Panzer
5th SS Panzer
9th SS Panzer*
10th SS Panzer*
11th SS Panzer Grenadier
12th SS Panzer Grenadier*
16th SS Panzer Grenadier*
18th SS Panzer Grenadier
23rd SS Panzer Grenadier
GD SS Panzer Grenadier
Fuhrer Panzer Grenadier*
Fuhrer Begleit Panzer
Brandenburg Panzer Grenadier
Kurmark Panzer Grenadier
Muncheberg Panzer
Holstien Panzer
Feldherrnhalle Panzer
Herman Goering Panzer
Herman Goering Panzer Grenadier
To be sure all of these units were at varying states of readiness . I added asterisk to indicate divisions that saw service in the west to give an idea of % of Panzer troops that never fought in the west .
Sources available on request .
I think a few more * need to be added. The 2nd SS Panzer Division did see action in the west. I also think the 3rd SS saw action in Italy as well. There most likely is a few more I'd have to check. Feldgrau is a pretty comprehensive panzer site that would have all the answers.The reason that all of these Panzer units were in the east is because that's where all the figting was. Allied armor was not on equal terms with the German armor so few units were needed to contend with the Allied armor threat.
-
A professor of mine was once asked this question in a WW2 type class. I've been looking for his sourcing, but he answered in quite simple terms. At peak (and these times were different for each front) there were 196 German divisions on the Eastern front - 12 On the west. Again, I've been searching for the sourcing here, but in my studies I've found similar numbers. 80% doesn't even represent the ratio.
Also keep in mind that by the time allied troops were on the ground in southern and western Europe, Russia was already on the offensive in the east. Some German troops were re-deployed back to the west to aid in the Italian campaign and to fortify the French coast, but the vast majority of the wermacht remained in the East where they were getting bloodied.
Now this is not to say Great Britain, the US, Canada, Anzac forces, etc did not play a role. They kept the Luftwaffe largely occupied, and forced Germany to split forces to several theaters. I'm in no way downplaying the sacrifices made by any of those nations. Additionally, I realize how important the supplies and equipment shipped to the soviets were. However, to claim anyone but the Soviets defeated Germany is a tough argument to maintain.
-
I think a few more * need to be added. The 2nd SS Panzer Division did see action in the west. I also think the 3rd SS saw action in Italy as well. There most likely is a few more I'd have to check. Feldgrau is a pretty comprehensive panzer site that would have all the answers.The reason that all of these Panzer units were in the east is because that's where all the figting was. Allied armor was not on equal terms with the German armor so few units were needed to contend with the Allied armor threat.
Yep missed 2nd SS Panzer . The only one I missed . Sources Gotterdamerung 1945 by Russ Schneider . Also used was O.B. from Fire In The East , and 2nd Front from the Europa series of wargames . Paul Carrells books as well . TotenKopf was not used in the west ever . Not all of the fighting was in the East . IMHO it took both fronts to defeat the Nazis . The anti climatic sense one gets from western histories is caused by the Germans abandoning the western front in the end . By February 1945 for example there was only a single battalion of SS Panzer's fighting in the west ! Note I seperate West and Italy for simplicity .
-
A professor of mine was once asked this question in a WW2 type class. I've been looking for his sourcing, but he answered in quite simple terms. At peak (and these times were different for each front) there were 196 German divisions on the Eastern front - 12 On the west. Again, I've been searching for the sourcing here, but in my studies I've found similar numbers. 80% doesn't even represent the ratio.
Also keep in mind that by the time allied troops were on the ground in southern and western Europe, Russia was already on the offensive in the east. Some German troops were re-deployed back to the west to aid in the Italian campaign and to fortify the French coast, but the vast majority of the wermacht remained in the East where they were getting bloodied.
Now this is not to say Great Britain, the US, Canada, Anzac forces, etc did not play a role. They kept the Luftwaffe largely occupied, and forced Germany to split forces to several theaters. I'm in no way downplaying the sacrifices made by any of those nations. Additionally, I realize how important the supplies and equipment shipped to the soviets were. However, to claim anyone but the Soviets defeated Germany is a tough argument to maintain.
The soviets did win the ground war for the allies no question about that but America and Britian did win the air and sea war for the Allies. I very much doubt that Russia would have won on their own. I also doubt that America and Britian could have won WW2 without Russia. Germany did not want Britian so I would assume that after a long drawn out bloody war with Germany Britian would have setted for peace.
-
My numbers go for some 90 divisions NOT on the eastern front at the very point of pivot ini december 1941.
Numbers anyone?
-
The soviets did win the ground war for the allies no question about that but America and Britian did win the air and sea war for the Allies. I very much doubt that Russia would have won on their own. I also doubt that America and Britian could have won WW2 without Russia. Germany did not want Britian so I would assume that after a long drawn out bloody war with Germany Britian would have setted for peace.
Yea I'm not making the claim that Russia would have beaten Germany mono-e-mono. I'm just saying that given the conditions as they were, the Soviets deserve the most credit. Additionally, I'm well aware the Soviets would have gotten *spanked* had Japan not been tied up with the US/GB in the pacific / Indian sub-continent. I'm just trying to answer the "who defeated Germany" question. Certainly a team effort, but by far the most credit goes to Soviets in my mind.