AI France And The German Behemoth

[Darkrenown]

I say it was the combined effort of Britain, US, and the USSR. After all because Britain still stood that Hitler had to keep significant forces in the West when he invaded the USSR in 1941, for fear of a Brtish counterattack. All three of the big three did their share to assure victory.

Of course it was a joint effort, but that doesn't mean everyones effort was equal and I'd have to say it was the USSR who did the majority.

 

[Darkrenown]

With all due respect DR. What do you base your measurement on?

Many things. The number of troops involved on the east front for example.
Germany sent 75% of its army to the east front when they invaded, that's 148 divisions or just over 3 million men. Finland and Romania added another 650,000 men. The luftwaffe sent 65% of their strength to fight the Russians.
and the fact that the largest battle in the history of the world was fought between Germany and the USSR at Kursk.

When the Germans launched Bararosa and brought the USSR into the war Churchill said that was the day he knew they would not lost the war

If the USSR did so much, why didnt they join the battle in the Pacific? Or help in the Meditterean?

They were rather busy smashing 3/4s of the Germany army, although they did sent 1 and a half million men to Manchuria in '45 and basicly destoryed the 1,200,000 strong Japanese forces there, including Japan's best field force, the Kwang-tung army.

They fought a one front battle in Eastern Europe and nearly lost their two biggest cities. Their losses were great but that was because of their poor leadership and poor tactics of battle.

The French fought a one front war and were utterly crushed. A war being on only one front doesn't make it easy.

At the start of the war, under the party appointed Generals, sure, they are some terible leaders but the Soviets had several great generals even then and by '42 the red army was top totch. By '44 it was probably the best in the world. Their losses were great because of the size of the conflict

Can you imagine how the Germans would have done if England had signed a peace treaty around 1941 (which they were considering doing if the US did not enter the war). The germans could have sent many more men and panzers against the Russian Hordes.

25% more men (assuming they leave no garrisons at all which is unlikely) and 35% more planes (assuming no fighter cover for the west). Sure, it's no laughing matter, but compare that to what happens to the RAF when their facinf 3 times the planes, or D-day when facing 4 times the troops (again assuming no garrison, but the germans have a host of minor allies in the east to cover for them) is the USSR isn't in the war.

Anyway, again I'm only saying the USSR did the most, not they they fought the war single handed.

 

[Darkrenown]

I'm always amused with people who claim that the USSR is the power that WON WWII. Of course few people here would go as far as Noam Chomsky's famous claim that not only did the Soviets beat the Nazi's single handed, but that at the same time the Western Allies were busy supporting Hitler against the Red Army. I suppose that is why my grandfather got shot full of holes from an MG-42 in the Normandy bocage...because he was rushing to the East to help the Germans fight Stalin.

Try overlord without most of the Germany army in Russia. Not to mention the Germans were already on the ropes by that point.

I think its farily obvious that if the Germans were engaged in a single front war against the USSR they would have won. Even as late as mid-1944 they stood a fair chance of holding the Red Army off if they could have secured a peace with the US and UK.

Nope, mid 44 was when the eastern front was totally smashed open. Assuming the allies peaced out at this point for some reason and it jut drags the war on longer, but doesn't change the outcome.

If the USSR beat the German's single handed...then what about the massive supply shipments that were sent to the USSR (such as approx. 10,000 trucks) via Iran by the United States? I think often the Russians do not get the credit they deserve for the incredible contribution they provided for the Allied cause...but is was just that, a contribution to a cause that transcended any one country.

Did anyone say the USSR won the war single handed? If so please quote it as I must have missed it. All I've seen here are some people saying the USSR made the greatest individial contribution.

Moreover, if you were to ask an old timer from a country such as Poland, I'd be willing to bet they would have given their left nut to have be liberated by the Americans and British instead of the Red Army.

Moreover what? The fact that Stalin was a monster and the USSR was not a fun place to live does not affect their contribution to the war.

 

[Darkrenown]

Wow, that's some interesting stuff boss. The Russian's never fought the Japanese during WWII except for the last 3 days of the war.

More like the last month of the war, when they destroyed a million man army in manchuria.

although they did sent 1 and a half million men to Manchuria in '45 and basicly destoryed the 1,200,000 strong Japanese forces there, including Japan's best field force, the Kwang-tung army.

They never fought in the incredibly bloody campaign up the Italian pennisula either.

And the allies didn't fight at Kursk, what's your point?

 

[Darkrenown]

the point I would like to make is that USSR and/or Great Britain (my apologies Iain to the ealier England comment) very well may have lost the war without the support of the allies.

I know:

Of course it was a joint effort, but that doesn't mean everyones effort was equal and I'd have to say it was the USSR who did the majority.

Anyway, again I'm only saying the USSR did the most, not they they fought the war single handed.

Did anyone say the USSR won the war single handed? If so please quote it as I must have missed it. All I've seen here are some people saying the USSR made the greatest individial contribution.

I know it was a joint effort, ALL I am saying is the USSR made the greatest individial contribution! Please stop reading this as "The Russians beat up the Axis single-handed! USA sucks!"

Imagine how many more troops USSR would have sent to Asia to stop Japanese expansion that would have been unchecked without the US Navy and Marines.

None? The Japs never wanted to expand into Siberia, and their brief spat with the USSR in 39 showed them they did not want to get into a full scale war with the Soviets. It was the Japanese that DoWed the USA, not the other way around. Of the Americans don't contest that they still have the allies to fight.

I think the world has a distorted view of Americans. We are not the warhawk, chest pounding, arrogant jerks as many people view them. There are some of us like that but it is a minority. I am like the majority of Americans who are proud of our accomplishements throughout history but we also acknowledge the help we have received and given our friends.

Did I ever say anything against americans?
<kidding>
You arrogant american pigs! Whenever someone disagrees with you it must be because they hate americans rather than you being wrong?
</kidding>
Seriously though, why do you bring that up? I like americans fine, my girlfriend is american.

 

[Darkrenown]

I What no-one seems to acknowledge though, is that there was a single overall reason that the Russian army was so poorly led, and sufferred such horrendous losses.

By the same token, there was a single- HUGELY influencial reason for Germany to 1) have started the war in the first place, and 2) Conducted it in such an erratic and inefficient way.

Those reasons: Joe Stalin & Adolf Hitler.

I'm not really sure that's relevant. Of course these two leaders had a great effect on the war, so much so that there's not much point debating how the war would have gone without them since it would have been totally different

 

[Darkrenown]

Someone mentioned how Kursk was a big mistake for the German generals. This is true, but it was far from a disaster. The Germans inflicted many casulties on the Soviet Union while suffering relativly few.

Few? The Germans lost 1500 tanks, 1500 planes and 3000 guns and basicly gutted Army group centre and heavily damaging Army group south.

 

[Darkrenown]

Yes, I see DR. Your stance is that USSR has contributed the most to the war effort. You seem to forget that this war was called World War II. "World" meaning that it was waged over many theaters across the globe. Yes it is true that USSR had the largest Army and fought against the largest portion of the German Army. But that does not mean that they contributed the most to the war effort. Contribution is not measured by the number of men participating but rather it means who had the greater impact on the outcome. The combined arm teams of the UK and USA fought across many theaters of war and not just in eastern Europe like USSR ( you can state that USSR participated in the Manchuria but they fought when the war in the Pacific was nearly decided and against a underfed, under supplied Japanese force.

I know the war was a world war, but surely you must admit europe was the most imprtant theater? Even if you don't, you can't contest that Germany was the most powerful Axis country and it was the USSR that did the majority of the fighting against them. Just because the allies fought on many fronts doesn't mean they had a greater effect on the putcome of the war. "just in eastern Europe" as you call it covers from Moscow to Berlin as well as most of the Balkans.

The US and UK fought in Africa, Italy, Western Europe, the Pacific, South East Asia, not to mention the battle in the skies and seas. It was victories in these locations that isolated Japan and Germany, cutting and limiting valuable supplies that would have greatly increased the Axis military capabilities. Several allied experts even stated that bombing of German military producing industries was effective enough to win the war. The US and to a lesser extent the UK, fought over a larger portion of the globe and had a greater impact on the outcome of the war. Thus you can state that they contributed more to the war than any other country

Had the USSR not been tying up 3/4ths of the Germany army and 2/3rds of the luftwaffe you can pretty much forget about the allies fighting in Africa, Italy, or Western Europe. 2 or 3 times as many planes can bomb Britain, reduced need to build armoured units frees up lots of resources for advanced subs which historically were delayed to feed the war effort in the east, so the battle in the skies and seas gets a whole lot tougher.

I don't see how anyone can say allied bombing was enough to win the war, it sure hasn't been enough in modern wars with much better equitment. Allied bombing was never enough to even deccrease German industry, it only slow the rate of expansion. Plus bombing gets a lot harder when 2/3rds of the lufwaffe aren't in Russia anymore. I also have to wonder if the change in industrial priorities from not fighing Russia would let germany produce jets and SAMs in useful numbers.

If the USSR is not in the war Germany can relocate critcal industry east, the romanian oil fields do not get taken by the soviets and I'd assume Germany's trades for raw materials are still active with Russia so suddenly Germay has a lot more resources.

 

[Darkrenown]

Nice number of lost German tanks, where did it come from ?

'The great patriotic war' by Peter G. Tsouras.

 

[Darkrenown]

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point

You don't think europe was the most important theater and Germany was the most powerful Axis nation? I don't think we'll agree on anything then

At no point did I mention the USSR not participating in the war.

No, but you say "The allies did X" When X is only possible because of much of Germany's armed forced being tied up in Russia. Aside from all the USSR did in the war, just as important is what it prevented Germany from doing. Of corse the allies tied up German resources in other areas, but to a much lesser degree.

But if they were no involved, the Germans could not have transported troops to Africa.

Why?

When the US entered the war, North Africa was virtually sealed off to Italy and Germany. The Axis could not transport any substantial troops or materials via the sea.

Mainly due to allied planes sinking transports. Why can the allies do this? Because the Luftwaffe is tied up fighting the Red air force and Germany does not have the resources to take Malta.

The Allies would have difficulty breaching the defensive lines south of Rome but they could have made another landing north of this line similar to the Anzio landings.

With the number of troops not fighting the USSR would free up, I think Germany could cover Italy fairly well.

Only 1 out of 4 german sailors who served on u-boats survived to the war thanks to the English ASDIC. Even the better designed subs that saw action later in the war were detected by combined air and sea sub hunters. I agree that the war would have been tougher but the results would have been the same albeit it would have taken longer.

When the war broke out U-boats were sinking ships left and right. Allied ASW improved as the war went on and suddenly being a U-boat sailer was no fun anymore. However, the next generation of subs were VASTLY more effective, and would have much a huge strain on allied shipping if produced in useful numbers. Historically they weren't, which is why so many German sailors never returned.

Just look at the 1st Persian Gulf War and in Afghanistan to see the effects of a modern air compaigns. The US and their allies were vastly outnumbered in both wars and the air campaign had crippling effects.

That's exactly what I was looking at. The bombings were never enough, ground forces still had to move in and take ground to win them. And in these wars, the tech advantages of the bombers were much greater than the allies enjoyed in WWII.

In WWII, german tanks could only travel at night thanks to allied air interdiction. Plus the tranportation system in Western Europe was tagerting daily and it tooks weeks for Germany tanks to get to the front instead of hours. Not to mention Operation Cobra were carpet bombing was the sole reason the allies broke out of the French bocage country.

But would this be possible with 3 times as many, and most likely better, german planes?

Yes the Germans would have jets sooner but they did not have the adequate rocket fuel to fly the planes nor the petrol for their panzers thanks to Allied bombing.
What good is Romanian oil when the German refineries were being bombed.

Can allied planes reach refineries in Poland? I don't actually know, but if they could they have to fly over a lot more German AA and the Germans have much longer interception times.

One other note on the effectiveness on Allied bombing: the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (one city in the US) produced more steel between '41-'45 than the entire countries of Germany and Japan combined.

That's more a note on American industrial might than he effectiveness of Allied bombing. Could Germany have matched that even totally unbombed?

Anyway, it seems pretty clear we're not going to convince each other. Want to call it quits? I'm happy to continue, but I don't think you're going to change my mind