What I see alot of in America

[King]

Originally posted by KingCharlesXII
You know, I never once made light of Britain's involvement in the war, not at all. In fact, I always, regardless defend Britain in whatever it may be; however, it seems that you guys, our loyal and honorable allies never ever want to give the U.S. credit, for anything. Let's put it this way, I strongly believe had the United States not entered the war,and or not had supplied the USSR, UK and the allies in exile with money, arms, etc. its a great chance that Nazi Germany would've indeed conquered the whole of Europe. We can debate this for hours, and by all means let's do so since this is why we're here.

All iIcan say is in both wars a lot of people from a lot of countries gave a lot for the sides that won. Who gave the most (or the most important contirbution) depends a lot on your view point. As an America you are hardly going to stand up and say we where not the most important contributer, although being the last major to enter the war you did have alot of catching up to do. As an exmaple take the case of Japan there were a million Japanes troops fighting China, this must of aided the US advance across the Pacific. Now I am in no way talking down the US contribution here, I am just trying to say that if I was Chinese I would stress the million men part in the wider context of winning the war. I happen to think that national pride plays a major part in statement on who won the war. Peoples views are not just influenced by the past but also by the present situation.

 

[unmerged(4953)]

FDR was waiting for the first reasonnable excuse to declare war on Germany.

But the people of America wouldnt have fought a war if Pearl didnt happen. Roosevelt simply would have lost to an isolationist.

Besides, the US was already in a state of quasi-shooting war with the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic, and blood had already been drawn. So it was a matter of time anyway.

Bla bla bla. Officialy they were at peace.

And don't underestimate the British contribution to victory. War exacts its toll in terms of materiel, and there the US contribution was indeed decisive, but also in terms of lost lives, and the British paid a heavier butcher's bill than the US, not least for being involved in the fight much longer.

The British had a tendecny to surrender whole military bases. So they probably did have heavier losses. Russia had the heaviest losses too.

That the US took almost all the burden of fighting Japan is also perfectly logical: Germany posed a vital threat to the very existance of Britain, and was a much more powerful foe.

Why was it a much more powerful foe ? Japan could have captured the whole British Empire. The Germans didnt even have enough transports to invade Germany ?

Allocating so many resources to the Pacific in 1942-44 was a luxury only the US could afford.

Luxury ? Just because the British didnt contribute to the victory in the Pacific doesnt mean you have to peg the whole front as a luxury.

It would have been much more cost-effective to just stop the Japanese and wait for submarine warfare to slowly strangle the Japanese economy while first defeating Germany before turning the Pacific into a really active theater.

Yeah right.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

I will ask this of my citrus-eating friends across the lake. If the Germans beat Britain in 1940/1, do they have the ability to defeat the USSR, even though the USSR has a higher population, greater industrial capacity, and better equipment than Germany??

I believe that even if Germany had fought on only one front against Russia, they still would have been defeated, so maybe Britain's stand only amounted to being able to be the world's largest aircraft carrier???

 

[unmerged(5120)]

ZheShiWO:

Roosevelt took every opportunity to wring ways to provoke the Germans from Congress. The spark could have been one U-boat to many sunk by US warships in the Atlantic and Hitler declares war, or for the US to go escorting US-flag merchantmen all he way to Britain and U-boats sinking one too many, or too many US troops in Iran tending and protecting goods for Russia, you name it, at some point Hitler would have lost his nerve.

And it's the "officially at peace" that deserves the blahblahblah. The last time the US has been officially at war was WWII. Now let's hear your arguments about Korea not being a war? because officially it wasn't?

Sure the Brits had some pretty dismal failures early in the war. The lessons from which the US Army greatly profitted from. I'm not aware that from early 1943 on the US Army fought any better (nor worse, I must add) than the British. What do you think would have happened if the GI's who faced the depleted AK at Kasserine had had to defend against the real stuff at Gazala?

That Germany was a much more powerful foe than Japan is quite obvious when you have a look at those figures:

Total production, 1939-45

coal: Germany 2,420mt, Japan 185mt
crude steel: Germany 159.9mt, Japan 24.1mt
tanks and SP guns: Germany 46,857, Japan 2,515
artillery (inc AA and AT): Germany 159,144, Japan 13,350
combat aircraft: Germany 94,279, Japan 45,363

I don't have the figures for warships, but before you point at that one, consider that Germany built roughly 1,000,000 tons of submarines, by far the most expensive type of naval unit on a ton for ton basis.

Add to this that the Germans where more technologically advanced than the Japanese. They were the ones who fielded jet fighters, guided bombs, ballistic missiles, advanced radar and navigation equipment, IR tank sights, assault rifles, etc...

What's more urgent, defeating Germany before they develop nuke-tipped ballistic missiles or Japan before they starve?

The Japanese could have conquered the British Empire? with their dwindling merchant marine they could have supported sustained operations in India against a mobilized Indian Army? gimme a break. At the height of their offensive drive they declined to try for Ceylan...

And going on the offensive certainly was a luxury. All those ships, planes and guns had to be supplied from the US, @ twice as far from the West coast as Europe is from the East, at a time when available shipping was the main factor limiting US participation in the ETO. Had there been more US troops in Britain in early 1943, the British would have had a harder time pushing through their Med strategy, at the very least! just maybe a real second front could have been opened in 1943 instead of 1944.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by BRYCON316
I will ask this of my citrus-eating friends across the lake. If the Germans beat Britain in 1940/1, do they have the ability to defeat the USSR, even though the USSR has a higher population, greater industrial capacity, and better equipment than Germany??

I believe that even if Germany had fought on only one front against Russia, they still would have been defeated, so maybe Britain's stand only amounted to being able to be the world's largest aircraft carrier???

I'm not so sure. Without Britain in the war, I doubt the US would have supplied the Soviets with anything like the LL it historically sent.

The US supplied the Soviet Union with most of its trucks and rolling stock (letting them concentrate their production on tanks), and most of its bauxite, without which you can't build high-performance planes, not to mention grain.

How would they have fared with wooden planes, half as many tanks and starving soldiers?

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Lend-Lease was a good program for the Soviets, but the industrial capacity and population of the USSR was so great that it was able to outproduce the Germans in all areas. Also, with the great technological advantage in tanks that the Soviets possessed, it is difficult to see the Germans beating the Soviets, even with a neutral or occupied Britain at their back.

 

[unmerged(3408)]

Originally posted by BRYCON316
But the industrial capacity and population of the USSR was so great that it was able to outproduce the Germans in all areas.

Only after the Allied Air Force had pounded German industry into rubble.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Originally posted by Petrus
Only after the Allied Air Force had pounded German industry into rubble.

Before the onset of Barbarossa, Hitler was told that he couldn't produce as many internal combustian engines as the Soviets, and that he would lose a war that he couldn't win within one year. So even without Allied assitance, the Soviets held an advantage in production capacity over the Germans that likely couldn't have been overcome.

 

[unmerged(7443)]

Soviet production and Allied Bombing and

Originally posted by BRYCON316


Before the onset of Barbarossa, Hitler was told that he couldn't produce as many internal combustian engines as the Soviets, and that he would lose a war that he couldn't win within one year. So even without Allied assitance, the Soviets held an advantage in production capacity over the Germans that likely couldn't have been overcome.

The German industry was not at full war production even in 1941. The whole operation was planned as "Blitzkrieg" (in fact, it was the first "planned" Blitzkrieg and the high command thought it would be over at the end of the year.
Thus, production was not raised drastically.
Only in 1943 and 1944, when Albert Speer took over the ministry of armament, the German production began to increase, despite of the heavy allied bombing. But then it was almost to late to have a effect on the war, at least on the possibility to win it.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Re: Soviet production and Allied Bombing and

Originally posted by Chris77Se


The German industry was not at full war production even in 1941. The whole operation was planned as "Blitzkrieg" (in fact, it was the first "planned" Blitzkrieg and the high command thought it would be over at the end of the year.
Thus, production was not raised drastically.
Only in 1943 and 1944, when Albert Speer took over the ministry of armament, the German production began to increase, despite of the heavy allied bombing. But then it was almost to late to have a effect on the war, at least on the possibility to win it.

I have read the same thing. I think that the war (for that whole year) in Russia was not inevitable, as some sugest, that the Germans would have lost. I believe chance and higher up decisions had much influence.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Originally posted by BRYCON316
Lend-Lease was a good program for the Soviets, but the industrial capacity and population of the USSR was so great that it was able to outproduce the Germans in all areas. Also, with the great technological advantage in tanks that the Soviets possessed, it is difficult to see the Germans beating the Soviets, even with a neutral or occupied Britain at their back.

Stalin: "To American production (or maybe he said American workers, I am not exactly sure) , without which this war would have been lost".

1943

 

[unmerged(4953)]

Stalin: "To American production (or maybe he said American workers, I am not exactly sure) , without which this war would have been lost".

1943

And of course in 1943 when Stalin wanted a second front from his allies he wouldnt exagerate...

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by Fredrick II
"If it wasnt for America The Nazi's would have won ww2"

The problem with this statement is that it is true, horribly and terribly true. If Roosevelt had not decided to go to war against germany in late 1937 and lied systematically to his people about his intentions for four years the Nazis would have won WWII.

Some myths are true, dammit ...

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by BRYCON316
Lend-Lease was a good program for the Soviets, but the industrial capacity and population of the USSR was so great that it was able to outproduce the Germans in all areas. Also, with the great technological advantage in tanks that the Soviets possessed, it is difficult to see the Germans beating the Soviets, even with a neutral or occupied Britain at their back.

That is utter nonsense. Soviet industrial capacity was awesome, but suffered from so severe bottlenecks that len'lease was vital to its utilization. It was only in the last half of 1943, when lend-lease strate to make an impact that the Soviet indicators start skyrocketing.

The raw material bottleneck was copper, of which the SU did not produce enough. The US gave them copper, but also manufactured shell and cratdridge casings. The Soviet supply was so limited that they used steel driving bands for theri artillery shells instead of copper. This meant that their guns became worn out very fast which again meant that a lot of theri production only went to replace losses.

The SU (like Britain or most of the worlds countries then and now) relied on German and American machine tools. Without proper machine tools it's impossible to rationalize production. The 200 pct reduction in tank-produciton time between 1941 and 1945 was only possible due to lend-lease machine tools.

Most important of all: The US fed the Soviet army. This made it possible for the Soviets to keep 12 million men and women under arms. If the SU would have had to feed itself it is unlikely that more than 9 million could have been mobilised.

The Soviet Union was in exactly the same position as Britain. Without lend-lease it would not have had access to the resources it needed to utilize its own productive capacity.

There was, an is, only two countries in the world with the broad industrial basis necessary to wage war on its own: The US and Germany. And in WWII the Germans had access to and utilized the entire industrial capacity of the Continent.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Hardu

There was, an is, only two countries in the world with the broad industrial basis necessary to wage war on its own: The US and Germany. And in WWII the Germans had access to and utilized the entire industrial capacity of the Continent.

So the Soviet Union could not wage war on its own, because it lacked the raw resources, but Germany can and could? That's not entirely logical is it?

Regards,

EOE

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
So the Soviet Union could not wage war on its own, because it lacked the raw resources, but Germany can and could? That's not entirely logical is it?

Regards,

EOE

I may have been a bit unclear in my post.

The Soviet Union lacked one very important resource. the Germans lacked a lot more. But in terms of industrial base - how many product clusters a country actualløy produce - Germany was stronger. With access to the Dutch/French/Belgian/Czeck industrial base as well, Germany controlled industrial potential outstripped the Russian. The German problem was one of raw materials (alloy metals, fuel from 1944) and railway rolling stock.

The Russian problem was that some sectors of its industry were feebly developed in the first place and much was destroyed in Barbarossa. This is particularly the case with machine tools and chemicals. Neither of those industries can be stamped out of the griound using unskilled labour in the way a steelwork can be built. In the Russian case Lend-lease deliveries of machinery and raw materials were probably more important than the arms deliveries because they enabled the Soviets to streamline their own production.

Beyond the machine tools the most important leand lease goods were trucks, as this allowed the Soviets to concentrate on tank production, and communications equipment (field telephone wire - copper again) and raw chemicals for explosives production (one third of all Soviet munitons were made using American supplied chemicals).

And of course, the food. It always slips the mind of people discussing this subject that soldiers without food cannot fight regardless of how good theri tanks are.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Hardu


I may have been a bit unclear in my post.

The Soviet Union lacked one very important resource. the Germans lacked a lot more. But in terms of industrial base - how many product clusters a country actualløy produce - Germany was stronger.

I assume you mean that Germany produced a wider variety of goods? I myself am unable to see how this is true, but maybe you could elaborate?

With access to the Dutch/French/Belgian/Czeck industrial base as well, Germany controlled industrial potential outstripped the Russian. The German problem was one of raw materials (alloy metals, fuel from 1944) and railway rolling stock.

The industrial potential might have been bigger. An example: The estimated German steel output was double that of the Soviet Union in 1942. But that hardly matters when compared to the actual output. And the fact remains that Soviet production outstripped the German one. That's what counts.

Of course I agree that Lend-Lease was important for the Soviet war effort - especially non-armament like food, trucks, locomotives etc., but IMHO the Soviet Union could have fought and won without it. It would just have taken considerably longer.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


So the Soviet Union could not wage war on its own, because it lacked the raw resources, but Germany can and could? That's not entirely logical is it?

Regards,

EOE

Well, the Germans lost the war...

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Yep ..

to the Americans ... one of the best hidden facts of contemporary history.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
I assume you mean that Germany produced a wider variety of goods? I myself am unable to see how this is true, but maybe you could elaborate?

They produced the stuff they produce today, only in lesser quantities. About a 1000 productr clusters for exports (Japan. by comparison, produces one hundred). Main strength in anything requiring skilled labour. Machinery and machine tools, chemicals, optics, pharmaceuticals. Heavy engineering. In the 30-ies germany developed the second largest areospace industry in the world (after the US). Main weakness of German industry in wartime was its fragmented structure with too few large-scale production facilities.
(The strong point of german peace-time industry was its weak point in war)

The industrial potential might have been bigger. An example: The estimated German steel output was double that of the Soviet Union in 1942. But that hardly matters when compared to the actual output. And the fact remains that Soviet production outstripped the German one. That's what counts

.
I'm not arguing about Soviet output. My argument is that Soeviet output depended on Lend-lease supplies to a far greater, albeit unknown extent, than is commonly trecognized. A modern historical analysis of lend-lease has yet to be written. It would be too embarrassing for both the Russians and the Brits.

Of course I agree that Lend-Lease was important for the Soviet war effort - especially non-armament like food, trucks, locomotives etc., but IMHO the Soviet Union could have fought and won without it. It would just have taken considerably longer

Stalin certainly did not think so. That was why he bent over backwards to prevent Hitler attacking him. The Germans planned fighting a nine million strong Red Army on the basis of demographics and gross output combined with intimate knowlegde of the economic impact of mass army mobilization. They were three million short in their estimate. IMHO lend-lease enabled the Soviets to take three million men from the economy and put into uniform. I don't think they would have reached Berlin without these extra troops.