Who won WWII?

[Kadagar_AV]

Who won WW2? (http://dylankissane.com/blog/who-won-wwii/)

No silly, it's not about weather the Axis or Allies won... It's about what nation won the war FOR the Allies...

This is what French people thought 1945:
Soviet Union: 57%
United States: 20%
Great Britain: 12%

This is what French people thought 2004:
Soviet Union: 20%
United States: 58%
Great Britain: 16%

US propaganda seem to work, no?

[Kadagar_AV]

Well from an economic and geopolitical standpoint, the USA won. That's pretty much concrete. The USSR sent more young men to die, and was in a much more intense theatre of the war, but in terms of coming out with an advantage? Eh, not really. Not compared to us.

IMHO, Soviet Union would have won the war even without the US...

The US only got in on the action when the war was already decided, and it was about who got what piece...

[Kadagar_AV]

That's a load of uneducated garbage. The US got in on the action when Pearl Harbor got bombed. Had Hitler not declared war, there's a possibility we actually never would have invaded Europe. Once we did get in, why shouldn't we have looked out for our own interests? Soviet Russia was only a little better than Nazi germany, and letting them bleed each other was probably the right idea.

That said, I don't think you understand the economic and logistical support that the US gave. Or you simply discount it. Without US Aid and British intelligence, there never would have been a Soviet counter-attack in 1942 (the same year we were turning the tide in the pacific, mind you! We fought two wars at once, but Europeans always like to discount the Japanese in a backhanded sort of modern racist way). There certainly wouldn't later have been a decisive Battle of Kursk in conditions the Soviets were 100% prepared for.

*When talking about who "Won" ww2, in terms of who fought the hardest, any answer that doesn't mention how much more the USSR bled than everybody else is quite wrong. But any answer that doesn't include the Arsenal of Democracy is also wrong.


Well... Before the US got engaged:

1. Italy surrendered in Africa...
2. Germany had launched it's attack on Moscow, got repelled, and Soviet Union had started to push back...

I think Germany war more or less spent by the time USA got in on the action, logistics aside.

As to US logistics helping Britain, sure thing!! But is it worth more than Soviet Union being the force who stopped, repelled, and pushed back against the German war machine? Debatable, to say the least.

Also, I think people in 1945 had a better grasp, wouldnt you say? Eventhough it was British, Canadian and US troops who did D-day and liberated them, they still opted for Soviet Union as the war winner... Must be a reason for it, no?

[Pannonian]

Well from an economic and geopolitical standpoint, the USA won. That's pretty much concrete. The USSR sent more young men to die, and was in a much more intense theatre of the war, but in terms of coming out with an advantage? Eh, not really. Not compared to us.

The Russians got their buffer, which they rightly considered essential given recent history (4 invasions in just over 20 years). The US won in every conceivable way. The Brits were the big losers in portioning out the spoils. The Russians lost out in WW1 due to not being there at the end, but I don't think any other major victor has lost more despite remaining standing at the end of a war. Maybe the Chinese Nationalists in WW2, but they were kicked out by their own people a few years later, and in any case, the worth of their contribution was highly dubious (eg. the US eventually decided supporting the Chinese effort was a waste of resources which would be better used by themselves).

[Sarmatian]

That's a load of uneducated garbage. The US got in on the action when Pearl Harbor got bombed. Had Hitler not declared war, there's a possibility we actually never would have invaded Europe. Once we did get in, why shouldn't we have looked out for our own interests? Soviet Russia was only a little better than Nazi germany, and letting them bleed each other was probably the right idea.

That said, I don't think you understand the economic and logistical support that the US gave. Or you simply discount it. Without US Aid and British intelligence, there never would have been a Soviet counter-attack in 1942 (the same year we were turning the tide in the pacific, mind you! We fought two wars at once, but Europeans always like to discount the Japanese in a backhanded sort of modern racist way). There certainly wouldn't later have been a decisive Battle of Kursk in conditions the Soviets were 100% prepared for.

*When talking about who "Won" ww2, in terms of who fought the hardest, any answer that doesn't mention how much more the USSR bled than everybody else is quite wrong. But any answer that doesn't include the Arsenal of Democracy is also wrong.

In reality, Japan was never a threat to United States. The war only lasted as long as it did because USA wasn't prepared as it could have been and, more importantly, because USA adopted a "Europe first" strategy. Japan was a speed bump, their military capabilities vastly exaggerated in popular culture.

On the whole, though, it was USSR, not even a contest.

[Montmorency]

If this is about who contributed the most of Nazi Germany's defeat:

The US allowed the USSR to win the war. Without the US support, there would have been stalemate (and then wary ceasefire) in Eurasia into the 1950s.

If this is about who got off best in the war:

Very obviously the US - no contest. Russia has likely been permanently crippled by that war, while the US has won a good century of prosperity and global pre-eminence from it.

[Sarmatian]

Ah, you know better than this dude. You really, really do know better than this. You're being revisionist out of your never-ending supply of anti-American sentiment. In 1945 almost every newspaper in every European country was censored by the government. They didn't know better than anybody. I already acknowledged the USSR's loss of life, and their crushing offensives that were vital to ending Germany--but they never would have happened had the British not told the Russians exactly what Germany was doing from early 1942-onward.

I'd like to read more about that. Allies shared intelligence, but I never heard about Soviets being dependent on intelligence from UK or USA.


Kursk was a manufactured engagement that broke what was left of the Nazi's ability to strike offensively into the USSR, and it was manufactured by British intelligence, Soviet troops, and US Lend-lease (although admittedly the Russians needed our lend-lease less than the British, they still used massive, massive quantities). In Africa, the Italians might have been beaten before 1942, but the Germans were there in force until crushed in Operation Torch--an invasion that never would have happened without the US.

Entire lend-lease amounted to no more than 4% of the Soviet war production. Most of that got after 1943, and a good portion was unusable equipment (Stuarts and Lees)


Uh, what? The largest battles between the largest forces in Naval history were a speed bump? A nation that had to be nuked to avoid a campaign as bloody as the eastern front was a speed bump? This is what I mean when I say Europeans are a little racist. They assume anything outside Europe is a speed bump. Look at what the Japanese did to the British, on land and at sea. They were no speed bump.

Largest battles because they saw entire Japanese navy (the part that wasn't totally obsolete by then) concentrated in one place.

You're seriously not trying to tell my Japan could threaten USA. Their navy was overextended before Pearl Harbor. As soon as it was clear that Pearl Harbor wasn't a Tsuhima 2.0, it was all over. The difference between military capabilities of USA and Japan was immense.

[Kadagar_AV]

That's a load of uneducated garbage. The US got in on the action when Pearl Harbor got bombed. Had Hitler not declared war, there's a possibility we actually never would have invaded Europe. Once we did get in, why shouldn't we have looked out for our own interests? Soviet Russia was only a little better than Nazi germany, and letting them bleed each other was probably the right idea.

That said, I don't think you understand the economic and logistical support that the US gave. Or you simply discount it. Without US Aid and British intelligence, there never would have been a Soviet counter-attack in 1942 (the same year we were turning the tide in the pacific, mind you! We fought two wars at once, but Europeans always like to discount the Japanese in a backhanded sort of modern racist way). There certainly wouldn't later have been a decisive Battle of Kursk in conditions the Soviets were 100% prepared for.

*When talking about who "Won" ww2, in terms of who fought the hardest, any answer that doesn't mention how much more the USSR bled than everybody else is quite wrong. But any answer that doesn't include the Arsenal of Democracy is also wrong.

More facts, and less "uneducated garbage" or "Kad hates the US" please...

[Montmorency]

Entire lend-lease amounted to no more than 4% of the Soviet war production.

Off by an order of magnitude.

[Husar]

Germany won that war.
The only reason the US and allies managed to land in Normandy and advance further than France was that we had 80-90% of our troops on the Eastern Front trying to slow down the USSR. Had we seriously tried to keep the Americans out and let the Soviets in instead, the situation after the war would have looked quite different. By letting both parties take a chunk we also managed to get guns, tanks and loads of investments after the war for serving as a speed bump to whoever would attack first. Knowing of course that neithe rparty wanted to attack, we played the fools and got our late revenge. :mellow:

And regarding the lend-lease debate: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/05/08/lend-lease-contribution-to-the-victory-over-nazis-overstated.html


It has to be taken into account that quantities never reflect the whole picture. For example, timing is also a significant parameter, and, notably, the volumes of the US, British, and Canadian aid peaked in the summer of 1943 – the fall of 1945, that is, after it became clear that the Soviet Union was prevailing. This should explain why, watching the footage dating back to the pivotal Battle of Stalingrad or the battle over the coal-rich Donbass, you will not spot the Studebaker trucks, the Dodge and Willys army jeeps, the General Grant and Valentine tanks, the Airacobra and Spitfire aircrafts, etc.

So basically the lend-lease was just piling up stuff after it became clear that the USSR was going to win anyway.


Lend-Lease was surely of serious help, but currently, in connection with the 70th anniversary of the opening of the program, its contribution to the victory over Nazis is being routinely overstated. In my view, Lend-Lease deserves a monument, but of modest proportions compared to the monument to the Soviet soldiers who brought liberation from fascism to the world.

[Sp4]

The US. It's also a good thing they were around after it was over.

[Husar]

Added some lend-lease stuff to post #13 in case any of you want to read up on why you are wrong.

As for the ships I agree though, in fact I would say Japanese and US ships were superior to pretty much anything seen in the European theatre. The tonnage, gun calibers and other stuff were simply not being used by European powers IIRC.

[Kadagar_AV]

They were never that outdated, we just out-produced them. Japan's Battleships were on par with the best British ships of the time, and their Army was more than capable by western standards. Remember, by 1941 the Japanese had been at war in China for years, and seen a lot of success. Now, the fact that we could outproduce them did mean they were never really a threat to America, but neither was Nazi Germany for that matter. Germany never even stood a real chance of invading the UK. :shrug: From 1941-1945 the japanese put up a better fight against us than most nations have ever put up against anyone, in all their history. In terms of aircraft and carriers, the Japanese had an edge on us at the beginning of the war. It was only pilot attrition and manufacturing disparities that led to our eventually neutralizing them--they weren't obsolete, or incapable.

The Japaneese force was a "hit or miss" thing... They had capacity for exactly one "drive by" if you so want, then they were exhausted.

It's like having two boxers, and saying they are on par because they are equally strong with their first punch, when one side only have that first punch... It was about winning on K.O. punch one, or lose. Basically.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This gets argued in the monastery with some regularity.

Absent the USA, but with the UK and Lend Lease via the UK -- CCCP win.

Absent the USA, but with the UK, but with limited or no lend lease -- CCCP win, but after 1-3 years more bloodshed.

Absent the USA and with Britain taking terms in 1940 -- likely Nazi win.

The CCCP was, without a doubt, the biggest part of the victory in Europe. Very few scenarios depict a German victory -- and absent atomics NO such scenarios exist after 1943 -- because Stalin's will to win was greater then the Nazis. Had victory required the deaths of 5 in 8 Soviets instead of the 1 in 8 lost, Stalin would have paid the cost -- and stayed ahead of the counter coups trying to supplant him. The Nazis were evil, but not quite that tenacious.

With no western allies, one-on-one, German tactical doctrine and combat leadership might, but only might, have beaten the USSR in the first couple of years.

[Kadagar_AV]

Those are all facts, in fact most of it is common knowledge. I'm not responsible for your ignorance, but I'm happy to point it out. :shrug:

I know you are more than capable to rise above such argumentation, though. So why don't you? :shrug:

[Sarmatian]

The enigma machine? I know you've heard of this, even if it was in passing. The British cracked it and thanks to their intel-sharing the Russians were able to prepare the largest and most effective defensive entrenchments in the history of warfare, and blunt the Nazis' attack in the largest battle of in the history of warfare--Kursk.

I've never heard that British and/or American intelligence info was the crucial factor in any of those instances, sorry. I'd like to read more about it, if you have some links.


This was in mid-1943, and by this point the USSR was using more US equipment than the rest of the allies combined. 4% of the USSR's equipment usage is a hell of a lot. The most effective thing we gave them were helmets and trucks, which we gave in oodles and bunches. Not to mention nuts, bolts, and machined parts. Thanks to lend-lease, the USSR's logistical train was more motorized than Germany's by 1943.

Soviet Unions produced more trucks in 1941 than 1943 (1941>1942>1943...). The reason they did was because they were getting them from the Americans, and, unlike some other equipment (tanks, planes), they worked perfectly and they could be used immediately.

Unfortunately, the industrial capacity that was freed couldn't be used effectively. Medium and heavy tanks couldn't be produced in factories producing trucks, so they were mostly producing light tanks, that were by that time obsolete even for scouting and were mostly used by the Soviets and the Germans for towing artillery.


They were never that outdated, we just out-produced them. Japan's Battleships were on par with the best British ships of the time, and their Army was more than capable by western standards. Remember, by 1941 the Japanese had been at war in China for years, and seen a lot of success. Now, the fact that we could outproduce them did mean they were never really a threat to America, but neither was Nazi Germany for that matter. Germany never even stood a real chance of invading the UK.

They were trounced by the Soviets several times during the period. The only place where Japanese army excelled was fighting British and Dutch colonial troops.

In truth, they could have had 120 Pearl Harbors and still they couldn't have won.


:shrug: From 1941-1945 the japanese put up a better fight against us than most nations have ever put up against anyone, in all their history. In terms of aircraft and carriers, the Japanese had an edge on us at the beginning of the war. It was only pilot attrition and manufacturing disparities that led to our eventually neutralizing them--they weren't obsolete, or incapable.

Navy was certainly in better shape than the army, but the simple fact remains that even if Japan sunk every single American ship, they still wouldn't have had the means to threaten mainland USA in any way, shape or form.



It's like having two boxers, and saying they are on par because they are equally strong with their first punch, when one side only have that first punch... It was about winning on K.O. punch one, or lose. Basically.

Even that is not a valid comparison. It's like two boxers, where one has a chance for a first punch, but he can't deliver K.O. by any stretch of the imagination and must hope that the other will retire because he doesn't like bruises.

[Kadagar_AV]

Like i said, lend-lease was less important than Russian blood in settling the eastern front, but it did help. Also, just because US Aid came later in the war doesn't invalidate it. If we look to the years immediately following the war, it becomes immensely clear just how much the USA won. The Marshall plan and all. :shrug: That said, I'll be the first to admit that nothing in the history of land-warfare comes close to the soviet contributions against Nazi germany. Not remotely.

The Pacific War, IMO, is under-studied even in America. The Japanese were no push-overs.

As to the bolded part.. No, the late help doesn't invalidate it... It does however play in when it comes to discussing if the war was won by it or not.

I claim the war shifted when Soviet Union had already repelled the German assault, and was now pushing back towards Berlin. This was before the US joined. British intelligence contributed, sure. Help with materiel as well (although less so).


US biggest contribution was keeping Great Britain floating, it had little to do with the east front.

Bomb attacks vs Germany of course helped, but again, they were primarily a big factor when the war had already shifted.

Soviet Union, IMHO, thus "won" the war for the allies.

[Sarmatian]

snip

Even though I don't agree fully, I admire your ability and patience to approach each topic in an impartial and logical way. :bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...US biggest contribution was keeping Great Britain floating, it had little to do with the east front....

You are underestimating the importance of Great Britain's continued resistance to Soviet success. However marginal in total numbers when compared to the Eastern Front, the Med did draw resources, talent, and -- most importantly -- focus away from the East. Moreover, the resources expended on the War at Sea would have been re-channeled; Germany's parachutists could have been used as originally hoped to secure an airhead in some key locale during Barbarossa, etc.

To say the CCCP did the Lion's share is nothing more than fact, but don't go too far the other direction too quickly.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sarmatian

Thank you sir, I do try.

[Sarmatian]

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 actually fits the very definition of what Kad claim America did in Ww2. It was a massive offensive with fresh, well-equipped troops into a secondary theater at the very end of the war, right before the nukes were dropped and well after the Japanese command structure had written off Manchuria except as a way to bide time.

Pretty much, yes. Khalkin Gol and Lake Khasan weren't though, even though they were much smaller in scope.

Without Europe, USA could have finished off Japan much sooner.


Here's some information on British code-breaking and Kursk, Sarmation. Link (http://www.historyextra.com/qa/why-bletchley-was-ultra-important)

The thing is, it's really hard to believe it. Kursk was a no-brainer, being a salient and obvious point of attack. Everyone knew what's going to happen and everyone knew everyone knew.

Germans had no illusions that they will achieve a surprise. They hoped new Panthers and Tigers would provide necessary firepower to break through Soviet defences.

I'm willing to put more money that a journalists with little overall understanding found some data that show that British supplied some info to Soviets about German plans before battle, and presented it as "crucial" info.

In truth, before the Operation Citadel was even given the go ahead, the Soviets anticipated a probable attack in that area and very building defences. In May in Munich, Von Manstein and some other senior German officers were advising against attacking Kursk precisely because of the aerial photographs that showed elaborate defensive layers prepared by the Soviets. Even in March and April, Soviet defences were already 8 layers deep in the anticipated directions of German attack, and the decision to attack wasn't made by the Germans until May.

So, unless British intelligence knew German plans before the Germans, that article is full of hogwash.

[Sarmatian]

Did you read the Article? Its a brief one, but its summarizing hundreds of actual academic papers written on the subject. Its quite beyond reproach, actually, the notion that "Ultra" intel was essential to the war effort for all sides. The US cracked Japanese codes in a similar fashion in 1942, and that's also one of the main reasons the war was so one-sided from then on. Whether you find it hard to believe or not doesn't factor into it.

To the war effort as whole? Yes, probably.

To Kursk specifically? Not really, no.

Intelligence shared among the allies helped the war effort. That's so common sense it shouldn't even be said. I challenged the part where you said the intelligence provided by the British was crucial in Soviets winning the Battle of Kursk.

[Kadagar_AV]

You are underestimating the importance of Great Britain's continued resistance to Soviet success. However marginal in total numbers when compared to the Eastern Front, the Med did draw resources, talent, and -- most importantly -- focus away from the East. Moreover, the resources expended on the War at Sea would have been re-channeled; Germany's parachutists could have been used as originally hoped to secure an airhead in some key locale during Barbarossa, etc.

To say the CCCP did the Lion's share is nothing more than fact, but don't go too far the other direction too quickly.

I try to make sense of the bolded part... Did you brain lapse? It's not an insult BTW, I do it all the time.. If not, please inform me what you meant :)

Might be my english, but I read it as GB resisted Soviet... Obviously not what you meant...

EDIT: Ah... Sorry, I am being stupid here... You meant that GB holding out lead to Soviet success, due to Hitler being occupied elsewhere...

So as response to THAT: Extremely little German attention was paid towards the west front in the important stage of the war, at the turn-over point. This was well before the US was even a factor. Germany knew GB was in no position for offensive warfare, so it really had little to do with the turning point of the war. IMHO.


You can claim all you want, but the fact is that the Germans were still capable of fighting Russia until after Kursk. Even Stalingrad was not the deth-knell. It was Kursk. In 1943. Where's Panzerjaeger at? He's got all these numbers memorized, he'll set you straight. In the mean-time, meditate on the fact that if Sweden hadn't supplied Germany with all that top-notch iron, a lot less Ruskies would have been killed. :creep:

I would also like to hear PJ's view on this. He's probably the only one I would rate above me in WW2 knowledge around here. I have 120 university points on history, mind you.

I stand by US involvement sped up the process. I don't think it changed the end outcome though.

[Pannonian]

You are underestimating the importance of Great Britain's continued resistance to Soviet success. However marginal in total numbers when compared to the Eastern Front, the Med did draw resources, talent, and -- most importantly -- focus away from the East. Moreover, the resources expended on the War at Sea would have been re-channeled; Germany's parachutists could have been used as originally hoped to secure an airhead in some key locale during Barbarossa, etc.

To say the CCCP did the Lion's share is nothing more than fact, but don't go too far the other direction too quickly.

The North African theatre was materially useful to the Allies mainly because Rommel caused it to be so. Had he kept to OKW's instructions instead of trying to build his own little empire, the Axis could have made the Allied morale booster that that theatre was in practice, far more cost ineffective for the Allies than they were in the OTL (and even the OTL Allies wasted a lot of resources there).

[Kadagar_AV]

You are underestimating the importance of Great Britain's continued resistance to Soviet success. However marginal in total numbers when compared to the Eastern Front, the Med did draw resources, talent, and -- most importantly -- focus away from the East. Moreover, the resources expended on the War at Sea would have been re-channeled; Germany's parachutists could have been used as originally hoped to secure an airhead in some key locale during Barbarossa, etc.

To say the CCCP did the Lion's share is nothing more than fact, but don't go too far the other direction too quickly.


The North African theatre was materially useful to the Allies mainly because Rommel caused it to be so. Had he kept to OKW's instructions instead of trying to build his own little empire, the Axis could have made the Allied morale booster that that theatre was in practice, far more cost ineffective for the Allies than they were in the OTL (and even the OTL Allies wasted a lot of resources there).

OTL? OKW?

Remember this is an international board... I have absolutely no idea what you actually mean :shame:

[ICantSpellDawg]

IMHO, Soviet Union would have won the war even without the US...

The US only got in on the action when the war was already decided, and it was about who got what piece...

I doubt this. The U.S. government became involved in 1942 - the war didn't end until 1945. I wouldn't say that Germany was "on the cusp of losing" in 1942. If the US had stayed out entirely, The Germans would have likely held North Africa and continued moving East in Europe with stronger staying power (as a result of its logistical boost). Additionally, as Japan would not have been involved in a Pacific War, it would have likely started pushing into Siberia as it had taken all of the Islands that it believed it could; the Soviet Union would have been further weakened in their West and forced to use some measure to fight Japan. My money would be on German and Japanese hegemony in Europe and Asia.

The Soviet union would have had a population of 180 million or so. The Axis powers had a population of 280 million and were consistently more technologically advanced and efficient.

[Kadagar_AV]

I doubt this. The U.S. government became involved in 1942 - the war didn't end until 1945.

The point is that the war had its turning points before the US joined. Again, I don't say the US had nothing to do with winning the war, I am saying they only sped up a process that was bound to happen regardless.

Compare these 2:

A) Soviet Union didn't join the war.
B) United States didn't join the war.

What do you think would have the most impact? Again, the allies could have done it without the US, without Soviet and Germany focusing 100% on Britain the war would have been lost no matter how many ship convoys the US sent.



I wouldn't say that Germany was "on the cusp of losing" in 1942. If the US had stayed out entirely, The Germans would have likely held North Africa and continued to East in Europe with stronger staying power (as a result of its logistical boost.

I would say that Germany was "on the cusp of losing" in 1942, heck, that is my sole argument here.

By then the german forces fought a retreating war on the major and important front. As I have said, Russia hadn't just repelled the attack by then, they were pushing back.



Additionally, as Japan would not have been involved in a Pacific War, it would have likely started pushing into Siberia as it had taken all of the Islands that it believed it could and The Soviet Union would have been further weakened in their West.

Japan didn't have the logistics to seriously threaten Russia. Russia had already absolutely SMASHED Japan in a land war. On top of that, handling logistics between Japan and Moscow on soviet home turf.... It's mind boggling, to say the least.

Specially knowing the allies would reinforce and fight back.


My money would be on German and Japanese hegemony in Europe and Asia.

The US had interests in Asia... and we all know how it ends up when people attack US interests... Japan knew this. Logistically a ground war was off the map. Only thing Japan could do was build up a navy and airforce to directly attack the west, in a "one hit wonder" way.

Failing that, they were ******.

[Kadagar_AV]

Deifne outcome. Did it change whether or not Germany lost the war? Probably (almost certainly) not. Did it change HOW Germany lost the war? Did it shape Europe? Did it shape the world for 60 years afterwards? These are all things directly connected to US involvement, and the nature of US involvement, and all of it for the better compared to how it would have been. Whether you like it or not.

All your "120 points" convinces me of is that a free educational system must have downsides in quality after all. :shrug:

The bolded part is my point. As it leads directly to "Who won the war", as is the topic.

I never argued US involvement didn't change the outcome of the outcome so to say... But my 120 points say Russia was the real war winner, again, as in the question made in this thread, as topic.

Of course US involvement very much directed the shape of Europe, I never argued against that.

That has, however, nothing to do with OP, "who won WW2 (for the allies)"?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The point is that the war had its turning points before the US joined. Again, I don't say the US had nothing to do with winning the war, I am saying they only sped up a process that was bound to happen regardless.

Compare these 2:

A) Soviet Union didn't join the war.
B) United States didn't join the war.

What do you think would have the most impact? Again, the allies could have done it without the US, without Soviet and Germany focusing 100% on Britain the war would have been lost no matter how many ship convoys the US sent.




I would say that Germany was "on the cusp of losing" in 1942, heck, that is my sole argument here.

By then the german forces fought a retreating war on the major and important front. As I have said, Russia hadn't just repelled the attack by then, they were pushing back.




Japan didn't have the logistics to seriously threaten Russia. Russia had already absolutely SMASHED Japan in a land war. On top of that, handling logistics between Japan and Moscow on soviet home turf.... It's mind boggling, to say the least.

Specially knowing the allies would reinforce and fight back.



The US had interests in Asia... and we all know how it ends up when people attack US interests... Japan knew this. Logistically a ground war was off the map. Only thing Japan could do was build up a navy and airforce to directly attack the west, in a "one hit wonder" way.

Failing that, they were ******.

Well - your question was who won WW2. I would argue that neither side would have beaten the Axis without the other. I won't attempt to diminish the monumental role that the USSR played, but I think that they would have lost. Without the Soviet Union, the US likely wouldn't have had the guts to invade Europe.

[Kadagar_AV]

I (and the frenchmen living through that war, as OP states) am saying the turning point of the war happened before the US joined.

I think my uni points are still legit unless you can reasonably argue that bit of information wrong.

So... Game On :soapbox:

[Kadagar_AV]

What you're saying is true. Its also laughably incomplete in any academic analysis of Germany's defeat. Your uni points don't even matter except that you keep bringing them up, since calling your argument academic might make even your old professors weep.

I only brought my history points up once, because I was attacked as a "know nothing"... You made a point of it, and I replied.

So you are saying I am right, and then go on saying I am wrong.

Well done you.

You just might want to explain how what I write is "laughably incomplete".

[Kadagar_AV]

Ugh, this is it. I'll try one more time, then I'm not trying any more.

Germany lost the war in 1939, when it invaded Poland after the allies had made a treaty they actually intended on backing. Everything after that was a matter of "How" and "Why." Your OP served only to show that people, when asked on the street, can make a false decision about who contributed more in a war that had more moving parts than any one person can comprehend--certainly at the time, as in 1945! Germany defeated Germany, Russia lost the most men, and the US was by far the most effective force. Any one of those sentences I just typed has more merit than your OP.

Let's agree to disagree, and let others have a weigh in?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Stalingrad was the turning point. It happened in the summer of 1942. The U.S. began direct military assistance to the Allies in the spring of that year.
It followed years of German expansion into the economic and agricultural core of Russia and it's sphere of influence. You take it as a given that Russia would have turned the Germans around and kept pushing forward. I believe that Hitler would have been able to more heavily fortify the East if he didn't have to worry about an impending massive invasion on the Western Front from the U.S. Most likely the Russians would have turned the Germans back into Poland/Belarus/Ukraine/Romania while the Germans re-grouped and began their renewed push, with their greater numerical and technological advantage, plus the fact that their infrastructure had not sustained a massive bombing campaign as the Soviets had.

People call the Battle of Gettysburg the turning point of the American Civil War. It happened after years of successful Southern defense in response to Northern incursion. When the South first made an incursion into the North, they were crushed and routed for the remainder of the war.

Germany was still a spring chicken in 1942, still on the offence and with the logistical boost from a claimed North Africa would have re-grouped and reorganized their expansion. (absent the involvement of the US.)

My money, absent either Soviet OR American opposition is a win for the Axis.

[Beskar]

Germany won WW2.

They got rid of a mad-man and rebuilt themselves as a proud and industrious nation which is a leading example to many others.

[Sarmatian]

[QUOTE=Gelatinous Cube;2053600353 Germany defeated Germany, Russia lost the most men, and the US was by far the most effective force[/QUOTE]

Oh, boy. Where to start, where to start...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?111163-Patton-pushes-on-%28what-if%29

[Greyblades]

The Soviets broke the Germans, the Americans broke the Japanese and the British kept fighting the good fight while the other two were debating whether or not they should let the nazis win. Anything beyond that is just nitpicking IMO.

[InsaneApache]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x125mzn_the-world-at-war-ep25-reckoning_shortfilms

We didn't win that's for sure.

Goto 42.08 on video.

[HoreTore]

Kadagar once again shows his amazing ability to not read his own links and misrepresent what they say.

The 1944 and 1945 questions were not asked to the French population. The 2004 one was.

[Crandar]

France.
Our unexpected surrender ruined the too premeditated plans of Wermacht once and for all.

In what concerns which country has contributed the most to the Bos' defeat, the Soviet Union is undeniably the answer, as they might have also prevailed over Germany, even without the American intervention.
Of course, the U.S.A. gained the most, from Axis' defeat.

[Brenus]

“The only place where Japanese army excelled was fighting British and Dutch colonial troops.” And French in Indochina.

“It was Kursk. In 1943. Where's Panzerjaeger at? He's got all these numbers memorized, he'll set you straight” Yes and no. Pz always over estimated Manstein and trusts him about the possibility of a breakthrough in Kursk, even when the figures show had still more tanks in reserve than the Germans could possibly fight off.

[The Lurker Below]

The point is that the war had its turning points before the US joined. Again, I don't say the US had nothing to do with winning the war, I am saying they only sped up a process that was bound to happen regardless.

Compare these 2:

A) Soviet Union didn't join the war.
B) United States didn't join the war.

What do you think would have the most impact? Again, the allies could have done it without the US, without Soviet and Germany focusing 100% on Britain the war would have been lost no matter how many ship convoys the US sent.

That is an odd comparison to consider. Who joined vs. who was forced to participate? The Soviet Union had no choice but to win. For the U.S. armed action was still a tool of politics rather than necessary for survival. The comparison lacks validity because we don't need to debate such a topic 60 years later? Every source I've ever read has readily acknowledged Soviet victory in Europe.

Kadagar AV, is GC correct regarding why you post this? I rather believe that since you didn't list any other participants, GC is correct.

[Sarmatian]

Kill ratio is what I meant. More broadly I meant (and continue to mean) the total effect that the US had on creating an outcome. The Soviets lost all those people, only to find themselves on the shorter end of the deal--because we were more effective.

There were geopolitical factors to consider as well.

If we're talking about effort compared to gain, USA's the winner by a mile.

If we're talking about just effort, USSR comes ahead on all counts.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagar AV, is GC correct regarding why you post this? I rather believe that since you didn't list any other participants, GC is correct.

I enjoy talking about WWII...

Was interesting numbers in OP, so I thought I would share them. :shrug:

[Pannonian]

That is all I've been saying! :laugh4: Of course, I'm also saying that any understanding of the war is incomplete without acknowledging both. Not equally for equal reasons, but because the picture is utterly incomplete without both.

I find that the US part in the European theatre in WW2 is like that of the British in the Napoleonic wars. A glamorous intervention right at the end, but which is exaggerated way beyond its worth while the decisive effort was made elsewhere. Your and our contribution was vital mainly in providing money and resources for other players to grind down the enemy. Still key, but not in the way that our historians and storytellers like to tell it. Definitely enough to afford us a place at the bragging table though (Britain in WW2 just about scraped a place at the table, tolerated by the people who matter).

[Sarmatian]

I find that the US part in the European theatre in WW2 is like that of the British in the Napoleonic wars. A glamorous intervention right at the end, but which is exaggerated way beyond its worth while the decisive effort was made elsewhere.

That is a spot on comparison, I believe.

Even if the US stayed out of the war, the outcome would have been the same, but it would have been bloodier.

[Strike For The South]

Germany was liquidating gold reserves of captured terroritoy to keep themselves afloat, house of cards.

All WWII did was speed up the decline of Europe. Maybe gave Russia a bit more influence further into centeral Europe.

Germany lost before they rolled into poland

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There's not much point in talking just about how it happened. The "what-if" is much more relevant, for example, "What if Stalin had not purged the army, engaged in mass executions and genocide in eastern europe, and then signed the nazi soviet pact and twiddled his thumbs while the germans defeated their other enemies?". "What if the germans had worked at being perceived as liberators in eastern europe, and pursued a different strategy in general?"

It's ridiculous to say that CCCP did the "lion's share". They did the totalitarian dictator's share. Meanwhile the western allies did the naive and delusional moron's share.It seems like a bad joke to me to look back at world war two and try to hand out praise and credit, and especially to complain about stalin supposedly not getting enough credit. Which of the major countries can actually pat themselves on the back over their performance in the 1930s? They make the leaders from the world war one era look like geniuses.

[Slyspy]

That's a good comparison, because you slighted the UK as well as the USA! The UK's victory in the napoleonic wars was engineered over a long period of time, was a masterpiece of planning and realpolitik, and led to the British basically ruling the world for 100 years afterward. If that doesn't merit a leading role in the discussion, I don't know what does. The same can be said for the USA in ww2. :shrug:

The questions of "who won the war?" and "who won from the war?" are not the same of course. In general, though, the nation which does most to win the war is that which acts a paymaster to the rest.

[Papewaio]

Define won.

From a booty point of view the first order summary is who got a veto vote at the UN:
US
USSR
UK
China
France

These were all on the winning side from WWII. The last two definitely benefited from the manpower and logistical support from the three U's

From an effort point of view are we measuring manpower logistics?, manufacturing?, number of bodies fielded?, number of bodies buried? or technology?

Each of these rates the different powers differently. USSR had more manpower as infantry. USA had more manufacturing might due to a combination of manpower and technology.

If we are rating the war as a set of boxers where it is a fight of attrition then US is a standout winner. It's not tiring its getting fitter with each year.

Which year did US get involved in WWII? Do we measure from the declaration of war after Pearl Harbour? Or do we measure when logistical support was given and the convoys were protected across the North Atlantic?

Did the US know Pearl Harbour was about to happen? It is a bit suspicious that all the carriers just happened to be out ferrying aircraft to locations or receiving new ones. It might be that the codes had already been broken, it might just be a bit of serendipity.

As for the importance of reliable intel just read up about the five eyes alliance and how that formed.

tl;dr. The working class soviets provided the soldiers and their superiors and the western capitalists got the booty. :smoking:

[Husar]

The USSR was also getting fitter with each year during the war.

As for praising Stalin, I don't think that is the point. He was the leader, but a lot of Russian men fought the war for him and put in as much effort as US soldiers and others did if not more. Why can those not be praised? Should they have switched sides to fight Stalin? Would that have helped anyone besides Hitler?

And I maintain that we won, we screwed out more than in WW1 but got out better I would say if you ignore all the dead people both wars produced. We're now a stable democracy where the (the vast majority of) constituents have finally understood how valuable peace and democracy are. We got built up by the US, were given a huge army again a few years after the war ended and finally got a reunification as well. We recovered so well that we are now seen as the mighty European oppressor of smaller nations again. We didn't achieve that in a glorious way and certainly profited from the circumstances but as I said earlier, we created these circumstances ourselves towards the end of the war when we decided to delay the soviets more than the US troops.

[Fragony]

Nazi's won. Russians and Allies won some battles but we got the international-soccialim and royal families back regardless. World War two isn't over everybody is still in place. Small trip to South-America, and back again. The EU is worse, just more subtle when it comes to ensuring royals and capital gets everything they don't really need. The EU is inherintaly deeply undemocratic and even deeply fascist, that's Europe's reality today. No democracy, ultra totalitarian.

Before you see I am full of it, ALL european royal families had ties with the nazi's.

And they are all still in place.

[Greyblades]

Before you see I am full of it, ALL european royal families had ties with the nazi's.

And they are all still in place.

You might have a point (here anyway, the rest of your post is conspiracy hick 101) if they kept those ties after the nazis showed how big bastards they really were, plus condemming an entire family for some of the actions of the individuals is kinda fascist in itself.

[Kadagar_AV]

You might have a point (here anyway, the rest of your post is conspiracy hick 101) if they kept those ties after the nazis showed how big bastards they really were, plus condemming an entire family for some of the actions of the individuals is kinda fascist in itself.

Swedens royal family sure had nazi ties...

[Fragony]

Swedens royal family sure had nazi ties...

All royalty had, no different for us. The Agertinia connection between the nazis's flleing out of Europe to Argentina and KLM (royal dutch aircompany )has yet to be investigated. Our 'queens's' name isn't really Maxima Zorregueta, her real name is von Herzog, daughter of one of the nazi key figures that got flown out of Zurich to Argegentinia by the royal dutch airforce company.

[Kadagar_AV]

All royalty had, no different for us. The Agertinia connection between the nazis's flleing out of Europe to Argentina and KLM (royal dutch aircompany )has yet to be investigated. Our 'queens's' name isn't really Maxima Zorregueta, her real name is von Herzog, daughter of one of the nazi key figures that got flown out of Zurich to Argegentinia by the royal dutch airforce company.

Yeah... You don't have to go into conspiracy territory to state that the royalties of Europe sure was Nazi friendly...



When we talk about countrys benefiting from the war though, Sweden surely must rank high, along with Switzerland... The war was great business for us, and we got to stab Norway in the back to boot...

Jolly good times, we were set for being rich the next 50 years or so, my grandparents generation had gold as candy.

[Fragony]

No need for considerations, it's no secret that the Dutch royal family were SS, same for Sweden and Norway. And there are still idiots who wave flags at them, they couldn't be more on the wrong side of history for doing that. So who won WW2 really. A lot of people got killed, that's for sure. Smartest queen ever, queen Juliana, two great statements 'it would be a a dire mistake to think the nazi's are gone', and my favorite 'if I weren't queen I would be a repuplican'.

[Husar]

First off, I totally agree about your assessment of Germany. They've certainly made the best of the last 60 years, and that's a good thing.

However, Russia was not getting fitter with each year. To this day, the Russian population is still absorbing the aftershocks of ww2. The US could have sustained the war indefinitely, the USSR could not. This has nothing to do with economy and everything to do with people. Russian manpower was legendary, but not infinite.

I understood that in a purely military context and wanted to say that the Red Army was not getting really exhausted towards the end of the war. Instead it grew more and more overwhelming and became one of the largest and scariest armies in the world, even continuing this trend in the years following the war.

[Viking]

No need for considerations, it's no secret that the Dutch royal family were SS, same for [...] Norway.

If only it were true. It would have made things a lot easier for the republican cause.

Instead, the monarchists keep blabbering on about the king's refusal to surrender to the invading nazis, as if it actually mattered for the monarchy as a principle.

[ReluctantSamurai]

God I always swear that I won't ever make comments on revisionist history topics like this, but there are some glaring mis-understandings about LL here that need some clarification...

First...the "only" 4% contribution to Soviet domestic production is often used in such discussions (usually quoting Soviet sources), and always mis-represented and worse, mis-understood. Most folks who bandy such numbers around show an obvious lack of understanding as to how economies, particularly war economies, work. It is not simply an additive "building block" arrangement where you just count "beans and bullets." When considering LL, one has to consider what this aid allowed the Soviets to do and accomplish when Gosplan (essentially the war-time planning board) sat down at the beginning of each fiscal year to decide how to allocate the budget.

Mark Harrison (an accomplished and world renown economist of the WW 2 Soviet economy) in his book Accounting for War (highly recommended for anyone serious about gaining a true picture of the effects of LL) states:


For the record, it is worth noting that 'only 4%', although probably not an outright lie, certainly presented a misleading view of the real volume of Allied aid to the USSR. [...]....by 1943, Allied aid was contributing one tenth of overall resources available to the Soviet economy.

10% vs 4% doesn't seem like much of a difference, but what it allowed Soviet planners to do was. By mid-1942, the Soviet economy was on the verge of collapse just like happened in WW 1. So many men had been conscripted into the army or into the factories, and so much resources, both stockpiled and current were being fed into the war effort, that the agricultural/rural sector of the Soviet economy was ready to collapse. Out in the countryside, near-starvation was the norm, and the lack of services such as medical treatment, availability of parts for farm machinery, etc, was causing a loss of the will to fight and certain rebellion if not remedied.

Equipment from LL such as tanks, aircraft, trucks, etc, etc, etc, would have little direct impact on such a situation. But......if the Soviets don't have to produce as much, or any, of the items received from LL, then they can devote resources elsewhere and starting in 1943, they did just that. Gross investment in their economy showed a positive number for the first time since the war began, and public outlays (money devoted to non-military areas of the economy) rose dramatically. It's quite possible that Stalin would've been on the receiving end of an October Revolution had things continued the way they were headed....

Without going into an endless diatribe about a complete inventory of what was sent, several items stand out as being crucial.

We are all used to reading the accounts of the Soviet juggernaut rolling across the frozen steppes of the Ukraine and Byelorussia, and finally Operation Bagration pushing the Nazis back into Germany, but how was this accomplished? There are several reasons, none of which are more important than the Soviet will to defeat the Germans, but that might not have been enough.

The first singular item is the GMC "deuce-and-a-half"...tens of thousands of them. Soviets continued to produce their own trucks right up to the end of the war, and certainly could have built enough trucks to satisfy army use. However, in doing so, how many less tanks and other equipment would the Soviet army had to do without? Lots. US trucks were plentiful, ruggedly built, and without them I seriously doubt we would have seen too much Soviet 'blitzkreig' overrunning thousands of sq. kilometers of German-occupied territory in stunningly short amounts of time.

Second singular item is canned food, popularly known as Spam. Given that the Soviet agricultural system had taken the largest hit from the war, both in terms of workers and lost productive farmland, having readily available food that the army could consume 'on the march', should not be under-estimated. Even Soviet soldiers had to stop to eat~;)

Third singular item is radios. What contributed greatly to better Soviet tactics concerning armor and aircraft? The fact that 'tankers' could actually talk to each other on the battlefield, or fighter aircraft vectored to areas under threat from the Luftwaffe, cannot be brushed off as simply accumulated experience, although that's certainly a very important factor. It was the widespread availability of radios that allowed Soviet formations to react quicker to German moves, and those formations to operate more cohesively when in combat.

Fourth singular item is aluminum. One can add non-ferrous alloys to that. In 1941, Soviet imports of non-ferrous metals amounted to 4.7 million dollars US (corrected in terms of 1940 values from Accounting for War Table J2). In 1942, that amount went to 60.4 million; in 1943 125.3 million; and in 1944 it was 178.8 million dollars....a simply huge increase. Now harkening back to all those sweeping Soviet offensives of 1943-45, another vision we all have seen is the hordes of Il's accompanied by an even bigger horde of Yak 9's dominating the battlefield. So what, right? A tribute to Soviet industrial effort, and ingenuity.:shocked2:

Nyet.

Ask yourself this question: Where did the Soviets come up with all the aluminum for the engine blocks and other lightweight portions of their aircraft that allowed them to fly further, faster, and stay in the air for longer periods of time? Yep.....good old Lend Lease.

I'll get off my soapbox for now, but before you folks start throwing around numbers and all kinds of other information about Lend Lease, I highly recommend you read any of Mark Harrison's books on the subject and learn a few things beyond the usual fluff....like I did.

Oh, and as to who "won" WW 2? If neither the US nor Russia had been involved, short of atomics, many of us would be speaking German right now.~:smoking:

[Husar]

So we can basically agree that Germany won while the USA sent lots of stuff to Russia that helped greatly with keeping Stalin in power and enabling the Cold War that followed. Yet another case of the US creating its own enemy? How did the USSR continue to maintain and upgrade the large army once LL ended if LL was crucial to its survival as a state?

[Montmorency]

How did the USSR continue to maintain and upgrade the large army once LL ended if LL was crucial to its survival as a state?

Equivocation. Obviously Lend-Lease would not have been too important once the war actually ended and the Soviet economy could stabilize. Later extraction from Eastern Europe didn't hurt either.

[ReluctantSamurai]

How did the USSR continue to maintain and upgrade the large army once LL ended if LL was crucial to its survival as a state?

Mainly by squeezing resources, both physical and human, from territories they "inherited" at the wars end. And by being a totalitarian state...wherever Stalin wanted money allocated, it went there. Whatever Stalin wanted produced, got produced. And to hell with other considerations. Without quoting the entire list of resource shortages in the Soviet Union in 1946, here are a few glaring ones that resulted when LL was finally terminated:

[From Harrison's Accounting for War Table 6.7]

Natural Rubber 100%
Molybdenum concentrate 81.3%
Cadmium 66%
Transmission Belts 48.5%
Animal Fats 58%
Lead 40%
Paper 50%
Aircraft fuel 37%

And the list goes on. Some of these shortages would not be made up until well into the 50's. The Soviets paid a heavy price, and not just in casualties but in lost infrastructure and production capacity.

And besides, you confuse the importance of LL to the Soviets surviving the actual armed conflict, with survival in the aftermath. The two are not the same.

[Greyblades]

Yet another case of the US creating its own enemy?

Well, we cant exactly blame the americans for this one considering if the didn't they would have prolonged the existance of another enemy. Damned if they did, damned if they didn't. Say what you want about the soviets, stalin didn't actively start fights with everyone around him.

[HoreTore]

If only it were true. It would have made things a lot easier for the republican cause.

Instead, the monarchists keep blabbering on about the king's refusal to surrender to the invading nazis, as if it actually mattered for the monarchy as a principle.

Frags mixed up Norway and Sweden again.

[Papewaio]

Except with Finland, but otherwise yeah.

Where did the iron curtain end? Which countries did Stalin carve up with Hitler?

Stalin didn't invade more because Hitler double crossed him. Hardly a saint.

[Pannonian]

Where did the iron curtain end? Which countries did Stalin carve up with Hitler?

Stalin didn't invade more because Hitler double crossed him. Hardly a saint.

As far as foreign policy went, Stalin was fairly consistent though. Re-establish the Tsarist borders that had been given up at Brest-Litovsk. Then add a buffer around the USSR, especially at the western end from which 4 invasions had been launched in just over 20 years (German, numerous foreign states in the Civil War, Polish, German again). If Stalin was paranoid about foreign countries looking to invade Russia, he had good reason to be. Churchill understood him, and much as he disliked what he was about, he maintained that Stalin didn't break his promises to him.

[Husar]

Well, we cant exactly blame the americans for this one considering if the didn't they would have prolonged the existance of another enemy. Damned if they did, damned if they didn't. Say what you want about the soviets, stalin didn't actively start fights with everyone around him.

Where did I say that I blame them?

[Greyblades]

Uh... When you said:
while the USA sent lots of stuff to Russia that helped greatly with keeping Stalin in power and enabling the Cold War that followed. Yet another case of the US creating its own enemy?
You probably didnt intend it, but the way you worded it implied you were blaming the USA for stalin. Technically true but as I said it was the best of a load of bad options.

[Fragony]

Frags mixed up Norway and Sweden again.

If you don't know why should I know. Enriched areas's in both Sweden as Norway are a nightmare. A female is less likely to get raped in Africa. Rape capitals of the world, flying colors and a kiss of the teacheres.

[Sarmatian]

Stating facts without interpreting them (or interpreting them incorrectly) and without putting them in a broader context is misleading.


God I always swear that I won't ever make comments on revisionist history topics like this, but there are some glaring mis-understandings about LL here that need some clarification...

First...the "only" 4% contribution to Soviet domestic production is often used in such discussions (usually quoting Soviet sources), and always mis-represented and worse, mis-understood. Most folks who bandy such numbers around show an obvious lack of understanding as to how economies, particularly war economies, work. It is not simply an additive "building block" arrangement where you just count "beans and bullets." When considering LL, one has to consider what this aid allowed the Soviets to do and accomplish when Gosplan (essentially the war-time planning board) sat down at the beginning of each fiscal year to decide how to allocate the budget.

Mark Harrison (an accomplished and world renown economist of the WW 2 Soviet economy) in his book Accounting for War (highly recommended for anyone serious about gaining a true picture of the effects of LL) states:



10% vs 4% doesn't seem like much of a difference, but what it allowed Soviet planners to do was. By mid-1942, the Soviet economy was on the verge of collapse just like happened in WW 1. So many men had been conscripted into the army or into the factories, and so much resources, both stockpiled and current were being fed into the war effort, that the agricultural/rural sector of the Soviet economy was ready to collapse. Out in the countryside, near-starvation was the norm, and the lack of services such as medical treatment, availability of parts for farm machinery, etc, was causing a loss of the will to fight and certain rebellion if not remedied.

And here is the first example. By 1943 - which means that in 1943 it represented 10% at one point, not overall. LL was supplied to Russia from 22.06.1941 to 12.05.1945.

Furthermore, bulk of the total LL aid arrived after the war was decided. Of the total aid, 1% arrived in 1941 and cca. 25% in 1941, so about 75% of LL arrived in 1943-1945.

Also, Soviet industry "suffered" mostly because of relocation problems in 1942.

Lastly, "using Soviet source" is pretty much a given since USA government never released a complete list of what was sent through LL.


Equipment from LL such as tanks, aircraft, trucks, etc, etc, etc, would have little direct impact on such a situation. But......if the Soviets don't have to produce as much, or any, of the items received from LL, then they can devote resources elsewhere and starting in 1943, they did just that. Gross investment in their economy showed a positive number for the first time since the war began, and public outlays (money devoted to non-military areas of the economy) rose dramatically. It's quite possible that Stalin would've been on the receiving end of an October Revolution had things continued the way they were headed....

Without going into an endless diatribe about a complete inventory of what was sent, several items stand out as being crucial.

We are all used to reading the accounts of the Soviet juggernaut rolling across the frozen steppes of the Ukraine and Byelorussia, and finally Operation Bagration pushing the Nazis back into Germany, but how was this accomplished? There are several reasons, none of which are more important than the Soviet will to defeat the Germans, but that might not have been enough.

The first singular item is the GMC "deuce-and-a-half"...tens of thousands of them. Soviets continued to produce their own trucks right up to the end of the war, and certainly could have built enough trucks to satisfy army use. However, in doing so, how many less tanks and other equipment would the Soviet army had to do without? Lots. US trucks were plentiful, ruggedly built, and without them I seriously doubt we would have seen too much Soviet 'blitzkreig' overrunning thousands of sq. kilometers of German-occupied territory in stunningly short amounts of time.

Unfortunately, the freed up industrial capacities couldn't be used for much. Medium and heavy tanks required highly specialized factories and work force. You simply couldn't make a T34 in a truck factory. For the entire war, a grand total of 5 factories in the whole USSR produced T34's, and only 3 of those 5 produced more than 500.

Production of light tanks increased, but light tanks became obsolete very soon into the war and ended up as glorified artillery towers.

The practical value was very small.


Second singular item is canned food, popularly known as Spam. Given that the Soviet agricultural system had taken the largest hit from the war, both in terms of workers and lost productive farmland, having readily available food that the army could consume 'on the march', should not be under-estimated. Even Soviet soldiers had to stop to eat~;)

Third singular item is radios. What contributed greatly to better Soviet tactics concerning armor and aircraft? The fact that 'tankers' could actually talk to each other on the battlefield, or fighter aircraft vectored to areas under threat from the Luftwaffe, cannot be brushed off as simply accumulated experience, although that's certainly a very important factor. It was the widespread availability of radios that allowed Soviet formations to react quicker to German moves, and those formations to operate more cohesively when in combat.

This part, on the other hand, is totally accurate. Food, radios and field telephones were badly needed, and their impact can not be overstated. Unfortunately, just like the rest of LL, they arrived after the decisive battles were already won.

On the whole, it can be safely said that LL just sped up the inevitable and shortened the war, but it was in no way decisive.


Fourth singular item is aluminum. One can add non-ferrous alloys to that. In 1941, Soviet imports of non-ferrous metals amounted to 4.7 million dollars US (corrected in terms of 1940 values from Accounting for War Table J2). In 1942, that amount went to 60.4 million; in 1943 125.3 million; and in 1944 it was 178.8 million dollars....a simply huge increase. Now harkening back to all those sweeping Soviet offensives of 1943-45, another vision we all have seen is the hordes of Il's accompanied by an even bigger horde of Yak 9's dominating the battlefield. So what, right? A tribute to Soviet industrial effort, and ingenuity.:shocked2:

And at the same time, through reverse lend lease, Soviet supplied USA with millions of tones of rare materials USA needed.

So, don't try to save us from "revisionist history" any more, please.

[Montmorency]

millions of tones of rare materials USA needed.

Source please, as the quantity supplied is said to be unknown.

[Sarmatian]

Source please, as the quantity supplied is said to be unknown.

Some quantities are known. More than 300,000 tones of chrome and 32,000 tones of manganese ore, in addition to other materials, like wood and gold.

It's estimated roughly at being about 5-10% worth of LL. Nothing crucial but helped to keep US wartime production at peak efficiency.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Stating facts without interpreting them (or interpreting them incorrectly) and without putting them in a broader context is misleading.

Really? I'm pretty sure my interpretation of how Soviet offensives in 1943-44 would have gone down without LL was a 'broader context'.


which means that in 1943 it represented 10% at one point

And I'm the one interpreting data incorrectly?

[From Accounting for War, Table 6.5]

The % of LL included in budget outlays for the defense commissariat from Jan 1942-Dec 1944:

In 1942 LL accounted for 2.7% of all Soviet budget outlays; in 1943 it was 7.5%; and in 1944 it was 13.2%.

As to the figures you cited----source please.


Furthermore, bulk of the total LL aid arrived after the war was decided.

That's your opinion and you certainly are entitled to it. But exactly when did the conflict on the Eastern Front become "decided"? After Stalingrad? Kursk? Bagration?


You simply couldn't make a T34 in a truck factory

I never said that. What I did say is that LL freed up Soviet resources (and the workers in the factories are considered a resource) to allocate in other critical places other than what they were receiving through LL. And in misreading what I said, you missed the biggest point of all....the Soviet economy was on the verge of collapse by mid-1942 and it was in the agricultural sector where the danger lay. LL allowed Gosplan to begin to allocate funds to the civilian sector in 1943 for the first time since the war began, and thereby avert a possible revolt. Most people who like to toss out LL numbers also fail to realize that of all the total LL (in terms of dollar value), 25 cents of every $ went directly to the Soviet defense effort, and 75 cents went for dual purpose items like communications, food stuffs, tool & die machinery (these can be used to build farm tractors as well as tanks), etc.


Soviet supplied USA with millions of tones of rare materials USA needed.


Some quantities are known. More than 300,000 tones of chrome and 32,000 tones of manganese ore, in addition to other materials, like wood and gold. It's estimated roughly at being about 5-10% worth of LL.

Without a source, this is just blowing smoke in the wind.

[From Table J4 Accounting for War]

Soviet exports to the United States 1941-1944, in millions of $ [and rather than cite the entire list, where the largest single item is classified as Animal Products (inedible)---82% of items sent in 1941; 76% in 1942; 66% in 1943; and 73% in 1944, I'll just use the non-ferrous metals line]

In 1941, non-ferrous exports to the US amounted to 0.6 million $ (in 1937 dollars) or 2% of all exports; in 1942 it was 2.4 million or 9.7%; in 1943 it was 5.7 million or 19%; and in 1944 it was 8 million or 16%.

Total reverse LL amounted to 133.4 million $ US for the years 1941-44. The entire LL value (both US and British) amounted to 10.67 billion from the US and 1.26 billion for the British (converted to US $) for a total of 11.93 billion $ US. Now the last time I checked my math, that is nowhere near "5-10%" of the LL value imported (doing the math gives 1.1%)

:inquisitive:

[Montmorency]

At any rate, the US apparently sent more trucks and military transport vehicles to the USSR than the USSR actually produced natively:

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II)for the USSR vs. US trucks/vehicles: 197,100 vs. 2,382,311
America, Hitler and the UN (http://www.amazon.com/America-Hitler-UN-Allies-Forged/dp/1848853084) : How the Allies Won World War II and Forged a Peace (Dan Plesch) for the US trucks sent as part of LL: "300,000 Studebakers".

As Samurai and GC have pointed out previously, without this mobility the Soviet Union would have been forced to remain on the defensive, or submit to grueling trench warfare all across the occupied territory - and I'm not even considering logistical inefficiencies from lack of transport...

This source (http://ww2-weapons.com/History/Production/Russia/Lend-Lease.htm)has even more dramatic figures:


Far more critical to the Soviet war effort was the supply of tactical vehicles, primarily from the United States. During the war, the Soviet Union produced only 343,624 cars and lorries due to the heavy commitment of major automobile factories like GAZ to armoured vehicle production. The USA alone provided the Soviets with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 jeeps, 151,053 1-1/2-ton trucks, and 200,622 2-1/2-ton trucks.

Now some data from Alexander Hill's Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Patriotic-Soviet-Union-1941-45/dp/0415604249):


As discussed briefly in Chapter 4 with reference to tanks, when Allied, in particular British, deliveries of key weapons systems for the war as a whole are compared to Soviet production for the same period they can understandably be viewed as being of little significance. However, as shown, during the Battle for Moscow in late 1941 the Soviet resource situation was so dire that relatively small inputs of tanks were of some significance. This situation would continue well into 1942. Tables 8.2 and 8.3 show tanks and aircraft delivered to the Soviet Union for 1941, with Soviet production figures for the same period, as well as force levels as of 22 June 1941, losses for the first six months of the war, and numbers available (including foreign supplies) on 1 January 1942. A steady stream of British-supplied tanks continued to be provided to Soviet units during the spring and summer of 1942. From 10 May 1942 British tanks were being sent to reinforce the Briansk and Kalinin Fronts and South-Western napravlenie, with the South-Western napravlenie to receive 90 Matildas and 70 Valentines during May 1942. 13 According to Suprun, immediately prior to July 1942 and therefore at the end of the First Moscow Protocol period, the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, of which 2,200 or 16 per cent were imported, and of which over 50 per cent were British. 14 However, mechanical problems, in part due to Soviet unfamiliarity with this new, foreign equipment, kept in the region of 50 per cent of imported tanks out of service at any one time up to the end of 1942. Soviet sources did, however, note the general relative reliability of Leyland engines of Matildas compared to Soviet models. 15 Whilst by late 1942 Soviet production lessened the significance of British tank supplies, aircraft deliveries, the importance of which arguably exceeded tanks during the First Moscow Protocol period, remained significant into 1943. Soviet combat aircraft production from the end of June 1941 to the end of June 1942 was in the region of the 16,468 aircraft given by Harrison. 16 By the end of June 1942 the UK had delivered 1,323 fighter aircraft, or about 8 per cent of Soviet production from the start of the war. 17 Given that Soviet combat-aircraft losses for this period at best approached domestic supply, and were particularly severe for the first six months of the war, British deliveries alone were of some significance, especially when the particularly high Soviet losses of the first weeks of the war, depleting prewar stocks, are taken into account. As early as 12 October 1941, 126th Fighter Air Regiment of the PVO was operating with Tomahawks, the first Soviet unit to be equipped with this aircraft. 18 PVO use of Allied aircraft during 1941– 45 is indicated in Table 8.4. As with much Western equipment, the process of training, conducted by 27th Reserve Air Regiment that was formed in August 1941 for the task of conversion to Allied aircraft, was hampered by a lack of technical documentation, particularly in Russian. 19 Tomahawks (P-40s) also served in late 1941 in defence of the ‘Doroga zhizni’ or ‘Road of Life’ across the ice of Lake Ladoga to the besieged Leningrad.



Even without 154th Fighter Air Regiment, also equipped with P-40s and also committed to the defence of the ice road, the 20 Tomahawks of 159th Fighter Air Regiment represented, according to the Commander of the VVS for the Leningrad Front (later Marshal) Novikov, almost 14 per cent of the fighter strength of the front as of the end of November (20/143) and more than 11 per cent of the total air strength of the front (20/175) at the end of December 1941. 20




Whilst the number of lorries delivered to the Soviet Union during the First Moscow Protocol was neither as significant relatively or absolutely as it would be during subsequent protocols, 39 even during the First Lend-Lease Protocol period lorries were a scarce resource carefully allocated by the centre, as the appendix on page 181 to the above decree suggests.


And so on. Here are the accompanying tables:

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/2014-07-0211_11_09-GreatPatrioticWaroftheSovietUnion1941-45_ADocumentaryHistory.png

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/2014-07-0211_10_15-GreatPatrioticWaroftheSovietUnion1941-45_ADocumentaryHistory.png

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/2014-07-0211_13_32-GreatPatrioticWaroftheSovietUnion1941-45_ADocumentaryHistory.png

[ReluctantSamurai]

For something a tad bit more to the lighter side of things~D

http://english.battlefield.ru/dmitriy-loza.html

Granted, this is only one Soviet tankers' impressions and stories, but I've always found this comment.....interesting:


For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?

So much for the "Ronson" reputation of the Sherman:creep:

[Sarmatian]

As to the figures you cited----source please.

Michulec, T-34 Mythical Weapon

Depending on the source some 55000-60000 of T34 were produced (both variants)

1. Factory No.183 (Kharkov, moved to Nizhniy Tagil in 1942)
2. STZ Factory, Stalingrad
3. Factory No. 112, Gorky
4. Factory No. 174, Omsk
5. CzKZ, Czelyabinsk
6. UTZM, Urals

So, it was six factories, actually. Serves me right. It's been ages since I was actively reading about ww2.
Of those six, the first and third produced about 43000


That's your opinion and you certainly are entitled to it. But exactly when did the conflict on the Eastern Front become "decided"? After Stalingrad? Kursk? Bagration?

In my opinion, the war was over when Germany didn't manage to get USSR to surrender by December 1941. Germany simply didn't have the means to fight the war of attrition against USSR. The deciding point is usually taken to be Stalingrad, but Kursk works also, as it was the last large scale German offensive, although the war was pretty much decided by then and it was a part of Soviet plan to get Wehrmacht to blunt itself in Kursk and to start a major offensive immediately afterwards.


I never said that. What I did say is that LL freed up Soviet resources (and the workers in the factories are considered a resource) to allocate in other critical places other than what they were receiving through LL. And in misreading what I said, you missed the biggest point of all....the Soviet economy was on the verge of collapse by mid-1942 and it was in the agricultural sector where the danger lay. LL allowed Gosplan to begin to allocate funds to the civilian sector in 1943 for the first time since the war began, and thereby avert a possible revolt. Most people who like to toss out LL numbers also fail to realize that of all the total LL (in terms of dollar value), 25 cents of every $ went directly to the Soviet defense effort, and 75 cents went for dual purpose items like communications, food stuffs, tool & die machinery (these can be used to build farm tractors as well as tanks), etc.

What all of this really means is that LL helped Soviet war effort, which is true and undisputed. I'm challenging the notion that it was crucial.


Without a source, this is just blowing smoke in the wind.

[From Table J4 Accounting for War]

Soviet exports to the United States 1941-1944, in millions of $ [and rather than cite the entire list, where the largest single item is classified as Animal Products (inedible)---82% of items sent in 1941; 76% in 1942; 66% in 1943; and 73% in 1944, I'll just use the non-ferrous metals line]

In 1941, non-ferrous exports to the US amounted to 0.6 million $ (in 1937 dollars) or 2% of all exports; in 1942 it was 2.4 million or 9.7%; in 1943 it was 5.7 million or 19%; and in 1944 it was 8 million or 16%.

Total reverse LL amounted to 133.4 million $ US for the years 1941-44. The entire LL value (both US and British) amounted to 10.67 billion from the US and 1.26 billion for the British (converted to US $) for a total of 11.93 billion $ US. Now the last time I checked my math, that is nowhere near "5-10%" of the LL value imported (doing the math gives 1.1%)

:inquisitive:

Estimates vary from about a hundred to seven hundred million $.



At any rate, the US apparently sent more trucks and military transport vehicles to the USSR than the USSR actually produced natively:

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II)for the USSR vs. US trucks/vehicles: 197,100 vs. 2,382,311
America, Hitler and the UN (http://www.amazon.com/America-Hitler-UN-Allies-Forged/dp/1848853084) : How the Allies Won World War II and Forged a Peace (Dan Plesch) for the US trucks sent as part of LL: "300,000 Studebakers".

As Samurai and GC have pointed out previously, without this mobility the Soviet Union would have been forced to remain on the defensive, or submit to grueling trench warfare all across the occupied territory - and I'm not even considering logistical inefficiencies from lack of transport...


And as I pointed out, Soviet truck production decreased as the number of trucks gotten through LL increased. USSR produced several thousand trucks in 1943. In 1941, they produced more than 70,000, but, through LL they got a few thousand in 1941 and about 70,000 in 1943.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Michulec, T-34 Mythical Weapon

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was not asking for production numbers for the T-34, I was asking the source for the statement in the first quote below:


bulk of the total LL aid arrived after the war was decided. Of the total aid, 1% arrived in 1941 and cca. 25% in 1941, so about 75% of LL arrived in 1943-1945.


Lastly, "using Soviet source" is pretty much a given since USA government never released a complete list of what was sent through LL.

You really think the bureaucrat types handling LL shipments wouldn't keep written reports on this?

http://cdm16040.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/950/rec/1

Literally, a damn near bullet-by-bullet list:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/


Germany simply didn't have the means to fight the war of attrition against USSR.

Care to back that up with some substance other than opinion?


I'm challenging the notion that it was crucial.

And so far, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence that it wasn't, other than your opinion and some vague, unreferenced, statistics.....

......like this:


Estimates vary from about a hundred to seven hundred million $.

Again.....source please:inquisitive:

Harrison's numbers quoted above, come from a United States Department of Commerce report published in 1945 (United States Department of Commerce (1945) "United States trade with Russia during the war years" vol2, no41) citing the amounts of imports as recorded up to that time. Such reports are rarely, if ever, 'estimates'. The 133.4 million $ figure is correct unless you can find some other official report that states otherwise.

You do realize, don't you, that the Soviets actually levied import tariffs on incoming LL aid (not actual monetary amounts against the US but line items to be included in their yearly fiscal reports) to the tune of 78 billion rubles. Considering that total LL amounted to 63 billion rubles (converting the 11.93 billion number in US dollars into rubles), that adds more than double the value of all the LL delivered and makes it look like part of the Soviet NMP. Pretty neat trick (although I doubt that was the intention at the time) to downplay the actual % of LL as "only" 4%. Harrison took this into account when arriving at his 10% figure, which is probably closer to the truth......

[Xiahou]

Who won WW2? (http://dylankissane.com/blog/who-won-wwii/)

No silly, it's not about weather the Axis or Allies won... It's about what nation won the war FOR the Allies...

This is what French people thought 1945:
Soviet Union: 57%
United States: 20%
Great Britain: 12%

This is what French people thought 2004:
Soviet Union: 20%
United Nations: 58%
Great Britain: 16%

US propaganda seem to work, no?
They think the United Nations won WWII? Wow, public education in France is in a sorry state.....

[Montmorency]

And as I pointed out, Soviet truck production decreased as the number of trucks gotten through LL increased. USSR produced several thousand trucks in 1943. In 1941, they produced more than 70,000, but, through LL they got a few thousand in 1941 and about 70,000 in 1943.

From what I've read, the opposite is true, and either way the importance of US motor vehicles to the SU, with its handful of automobile factories, remains manifest.

[Beskar]

They think the United Nations won WWII? Wow, public education in France is in a sorry state.....

"United Nations" is code for "United States of America" but they don't want to feel like their own efforts were worthless, so they simply lump all of the 'allies' together.

[Sarmatian]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was not asking for production numbers for the T-34, I was asking the source for the statement in the first quote below:

Mostly Krivosheev and Glantz. You also have to account that in a lot of cases, especially 1941-1943, a lot of equipment was sent but not received (u-boats and other problems)

In 1941, Soviet Union produced 139,879 trucks. 8,600 were sent from the US, 1,506 arrived,
Total amount of tanks at the disposal of Red Army was cca 27,000. Sent from US 180, 35 arrived,
Planes - USSR produced about 15,000 of all types. Sent from USA 150, 29 arrived.

1942
USSR tank production 24,719, received through lend lease cca. 3,000
Planes - USSR 25,436 LL cca 2,500
Trucks - USSR 32,409, LL sent 72,000

Important note is where you'll often find Harrison wrong is that he takes into account what was sent and when was it sent. The problem is that not all of it made it on time or made it at all. For example, of about 6,000 planes sent in 1943 (SU produced about 34,000), only about 70% arrived in the year. 500 was lost and rest didn't arrive until following year, and often wasn't deployed until much later. Some of it wasn't deployed ever, simply because it was hugely inferior to Soviet equipment.

Allied equipment didn't have almost any impact in 1941 and 1942.


You really think the bureaucrat types handling LL shipments wouldn't keep written reports on this?

Parts of it were still classified, at until a few years ago when I last made serious effort of looking into it.


Care to back that up with some substance other than opinion?

Well, as it is an opinion about a complex topic, it's hard to back it up properly without a lengthy response which I'm not really in a mood to write. To put it simply, based on industrial capacity, manpower, resource production... Germany simply didn't have the capabilities to win against USSR in a total war. Especially not in way they fought it.


And so far, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence that it wasn't, other than your opinion and some vague, unreferenced, statistics.....

......like this:



Again.....source please:inquisitive:

Harrison's numbers quoted above, come from a United States Department of Commerce report published in 1945 (United States Department of Commerce (1945) "United States trade with Russia during the war years" vol2, no41) citing the amounts of imports as recorded up to that time. Such reports are rarely, if ever, 'estimates'. The 133.4 million $ figure is correct unless you can find some other official report that states otherwise.

You do realize, don't you, that the Soviets actually levied import tariffs on incoming LL aid (not actual monetary amounts against the US but line items to be included in their yearly fiscal reports) to the tune of 78 billion rubles. Considering that total LL amounted to 63 billion rubles (converting the 11.93 billion number in US dollars into rubles), that adds more than double the value of all the LL delivered and makes it look like part of the Soviet NMP. Pretty neat trick (although I doubt that was the intention at the time) to downplay the actual % of LL as "only" 4%. Harrison took this into account when arriving at his 10% figure, which is probably closer to the truth......

You still haven't put your figures into a broader context. You wanna push that LL was crucial for Soviet military victories? Fine. Compare what arrived (not what was sent) and when it arrived to the numbers available to the SU, how and when it was used and was it used at all. Just citing figures doesn't really mean anything on it's own.

It's a bit a like saying Company A had revenues of 2,000,000 in 2014. That's great, but what does it mean? Is it good, is it bad? What were its costs? How did it fare last year? How did the competition fare in those years? Did it make any significant investments and so on and so forth. On its own, it doesn't mean anything.

[Fisherking]

I would just say the Allies won and leave it at that so far as the fighting of the war is concerned.

Most of you seem to have overlooked the UK contribution to the war, particularly the war at sea.

Politically the US and Russia did very well. Ideologically fascist principals gained ground within the democracies of the west even during the war.

Victory is more complex than who won a battle where and who took the most ground. It is all interrelated and interdependent.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Parts of it were still classified, at until a few years ago when I last made serious effort of looking into it.

Accounting for War was published in 1996 so those figures were available almost 20 years ago. But...I'll take your comment as an attempt to admit a factual error, and leave it at that~;)


Important note is where you'll often find Harrison wrong is that he takes into account what was sent and when was it sent. The problem is that not all of it made it on time or made it at all.

Missed this comment the first read-through. And it's not the case. Harrison makes an allowance of 27% losses between what was sent and what actually arrived. Damn number geeks think of everything.....~D


I would just say the Allies won and leave it at that so far as the fighting of the war is concerned.

And as you can see, folks get bored with topics that just throw numbers around, and rightfully so.

Having said that, let's discuss something more fun:yes:

The Soviets deserve all of the credit for the German defeats at Moscow in Dec 1941, and again at Stalingrad at the end of 1942. LL impact on those two battles was minimal, at best. So if the Soviets had not received one single dollars worth of LL, they win both battles anyways.

But now it's 1943, and Stavka is sitting in a Kremlin planning room deciding what to do next. Remember now, there are no imports from the US and UK to factor into what will be possible in the coming year. You've already stripped the non-military areas of the budget for the war effort, and you've pretty much exhausted all the pre-war stockpiles of raw materials and other resources. You've got a rural population on the verge of outright rebellion, so asking the "peasant-worker" to put up with further conscription of their grain and their men of military age, and to further put up with a lack of medical attention, a lack of parts for their farm machinery, etc, is dicey at best.

What does your economic plan for the coming year, and that of the next several years, consist of? Be as broad or specific as you like, but I would be most interested in what your objectives for the forth-coming operations in the Ukraine would be.....ie what manpower you felt will be available for raising new formations and providing replacements for existing ones, considering you've had to keep many thousands more potential conscripts in the factories; and what available equipment you can expect to have at your disposal, since there is no material (radios, aluminum, tool and die machinery, food, trucks, aircraft, etc, etc, etc) coming to you from overseas?

[Sarmatian]

Accounting for War was published in 1996 so those figures were available almost 20 years ago. But...I'll take your comment as an attempt to admit a factual error, and leave it at that~;)


Not parts of Accounting for War. Parts of official documentation on the subject.


The Soviets deserve all of the credit for the German defeats at Moscow in Dec 1941, and again at Stalingrad at the end of 1942. LL impact on those two battles was minimal, at best. So if the Soviets had not received one single dollars worth of LL, they win both battles anyways.

I'm glad we agree on that.

[HoreTore]

They think the United Nations won WWII? Wow, public education in France is in a sorry state.....

It's Kadagar's bad translation.

The answer on the poll reads 'Les Etats-Unis', not 'Les Nations Unies'.

[Kadagar_AV]

They think the United Nations won WWII? Wow, public education in France is in a sorry state.....

Brain slip... I of course meant USA. I edited thread start.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Seeing as I’m vacation for a week, I thought I’d revisit this topic a bit more [orgahs everywhere shake their heads and groan:shame:]. What the hell, it’ll give you guys something else besides world politics to yak about….

Reading through the discussion, this quote stuck in my mind:


IMHO, Soviet Union would have won the war even without the US... The US only got in on the action when the war was already decided

In other words, despite the loss of thousands of sq. kilometers of some of the Soviet Union’s best lands, despite the loss of millions of its soldiers killed, wounded, missing, or captured, once the Germans were stopped at Moscow in 1941, and Stalingrad in 1942, the war was as good as over.

Then, there’s this statement:


I would say that Germany was "on the cusp of losing" in 1942, heck, that is my sole argument here.

And yet, it took the Soviet Union 2 ½ years from the time of Stalingrad to finally roll the tanks into Berlin, and this is with the full support of the US and Britain via LL, and by the Western Allies starting a second front with the Normandy landings.

So if we take the previous quotes at face value, then if the US and Britain had not sent a single shipment of LL supplies, nor landed on the beaches at Normandy, the Soviet Union would have brought the war to a conclusion, all by itself.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and mine is no better than anyone else’s, but….I believe these statements to be incorrect.

Then there’s this:


Well... Before the US got engaged:
Italy surrendered in Africa...
I think Germany war more or less spent by the time USA got in on the action

The United States “officially” entered the European theatre of operations on 8 Nov 1942 with the landings in North Africa. The Italians didn’t surrender until 8 Sept 1943…..10 months later, and their surrender came in large part because of the 120,000 men they lost in Tunisia. Obviously, the first part of that statement suffers from a bit of a time warp (subtract 20 history points for this snafu~;)). Operation Uranus launched on 19 Nov 1942, and Germany didn’t surrender until 7 May 1945…two and a half years after their defeat at Stalingrad and the Torch landings in N. Africa. Hardly “more or less spent”, I would think.:shrug:

Several years ago, there was a discussion about attrition warfare on the Eastern Front at the TDI military forum, and one poster stated this:


So the key issue in winning at attritional warfare is to attrite the enemy's capacity to conduct the war. That means that you must inflict a positive ratio of losses over expansion of warmaking capacity. And that the ratio you achieve must be enough more than the ratio you suffer (if BOTH are positive) to make up for any starting imbalance in forces and potential.

In 1943 the Russians were suffering losses in their military at a faster pace than the Germans. And they were suffering losses in their civilian population faster than the Germans. But they were generating military might FASTER than they were losing it. They were building tanks faster than they were losing them, inducting the population into the military faster than they were losing them, and expanding their war economy faster than it was being destroyed.

Because of their population and resource limitations (and declines) it is clear that their pace of expansion of warmaking capacity was not sustainable indefinitely, and in fact they were probably running out of time when 1945 rolled around. But so long as they were building forces faster than they were losing them, and so long as the Germans were losing forces (and/or expanding the commitments of their forces) faster than they were building them, then THAT was a key issue to achieving "victory through attrition".

The emphasis is mine, and the two key areas I’d like to discuss.

First, what allowed the Soviets to generate military might faster than they were losing it (this does not necessarily mean overall numbers, but fighting power)?

The answer lies with the supplies they received through Lend Lease. Certainly the Soviets could manufacture, on their own, many of the items that LL provided. They had the capacity to build their own trucks, and they continued to do so despite LL deliveries. But the GAZ-AA and the ZIS-5 were inferior to American-made trucks both in capacity and durability. And the Soviets would have had to divert a substantial amount of resources away from the manufacture of other military items in order to fill the Red Army’s needs. Suffice it to say, for every item they received in quantity, resources both material and manpower would have had to be taken from some other sector of manufacturing.

Then there are items they simply couldn’t produce at all in quality or quantity, like high-quality fabricated metal products, field telephones, aluminum products, over 500,000 miles of field telephone wire, etc. All of these were force multipliers that allowed Soviet armies to do more than they would have otherwise.

Without LL supplies, Soviet offensives would have had a much slower pace, allowing the Germans more time to recover, and would have been even more costly in terms of manpower than they were. The canned food rations allowed Soviet armies to not have to subsist on a much poorer diet, and just as important, not to have to spend much time foraging “off the land” which probably would have made the already malnourished rural populations even more ticked off.

The second point is also a crucial one….besides the losses on the Eastern Front itself, Germany had commitments on two other fronts, Western Europe and N. Africa/Italy.

German losses in the Tunisian campaign cost them about 40000 casualties, nearly 1700 aircraft, 1300 tanks, and 130,000 at the surrender (another 120,000 Italians surrendered as well).

Losses in the Normandy campaign from 6 June to 30 August were roughly 400,000 men, 2100 aircraft, and 2200 AFV (tanks and assault guns).

Admittedly, the tanks from the Tunisian campaign were mostly dated Mark III/IV’s and of little worth on the Eastern Front, but the personnel and aircraft were not. So all told, Western Allied participation (fronted by US logistics and machinery) cost the Germans 530,000 men, 2500 tanks and assault guns (discounting the outdated models), and 4800 aircraft….enough to nearly outfit an entire army group. And where would these men and equipment be if not lost to the Allies? The Eastern Front, of course. That’s precisely why Stalin was constantly demanding a second front in talks with FDR and Churchill.

The remainder of the post from TDI:


The key point is that attrition of enemy strength and operational success in terms of retention of territory are interrelated as factors in the strategic dilemma. In order to not lose the war, the Germans clearly had to regain a strength relation that was rather dramatically more favourable to them, because all indications are that at the levels prevalent from 1943 onwards, they would be steadily defeated. This could conceivably be done either by inflicting in a short time a very much higher level of losses on the Soviets than the already high levels that they were achieving, or by inflicting a lower level of losses (such as the level they were actually achieving) over a longer period of time. But for the latter to be an option, they could not simultaneously afford to lose the amount of territory they were losing because that would mean the war was over before the Soviet ability to sustain it would be decreased enough to make a big dent in their force levels. While Soviet strength does drop towards the end of the war, it does not drop to levels that significantly changes the strength relation that enabled their continued success. They were winning fast enough, and they were coping well enough with the attrition problem. And the reason why is in itself connected fundamentally to attrition - the reason is the force level superiority they had achieved by the summer of 1943 and which proved too much for the Germans to reduce sufficiently in the time remaining to them.

Remove the force multiplier of LL, add in possibly another entire army group, and what might be the result? What we have is a logistically less capable, and less powerful Red Army facing at least one more army group on the battlefield. With an additional army group, and a less capable Red Army, the Germans might well have been able to inflict higher than historical losses on the Soviets and regain enough "strength relation" to stave off defeat. So the US contribution to Germany’s defeat was just a wee bit more than "propping up the UK", and the outcome is far from clear, IMHO.

[Sarmatian]

You make a hypothesis how western allies were, directly or indirectly, responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany and then write a half-page post filled with vague generalisations.

Let's turn the tables, shall we? I'm gonna prove now that Soviets were responsible - would western allies be able to land in North Africa, Italy or France if the Red Army had not destroyed 80% of Wehrmacht and 50% of the Luftwaffe?

[Pannonian]

You make a hypothesis how western allies were, directly or indirectly, responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany and then write a half-page post filled with vague generalisations.

Let's turn the tables, shall we? I'm gonna prove now that Soviets were responsible - would western allies be able to land in North Africa, Italy or France if the Red Army had not destroyed 80% of Wehrmacht and 50% of the Luftwaffe?

The Allies would probably have been able to land in North Africa whatever the Soviets did. Morocco and Algeria were still French territories taking orders from a government that had already fought with the British (actions with French ships, Syria, etc.), and there was at least some token resistance against the Americans (the British didn't land at all, to avoid causing too much offence). Only when the French started going over to the Allies too quickly did the Germans take direct action in Tunisia, and that had to be preceded by taking over Vichy France as well, turning the whole of the French empire against the Axis.

Also, AFAIK it was the Battle of Britain that to that date took out the largest chunk of the Luftwaffe's most experienced pilots, and certainly their fighter pilots. Stuka pilots racked up incredible numbers on the eastern front, but they were only used in the BoB for a short period before being pulled out again, as they were sitting ducks against the state of the art fighters that were involved in the BoB.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I'm gonna prove now that Soviets were responsible

About vague generalizations..........:creep:

I was quite clear at the end of my first post on this topic:


If neither the US nor Russia had been involved, short of atomics, many of us would be speaking German right now.

No US involvement in the ETO, either directly or indirectly, a Soviet victory is questionable. No Soviet involvement on the Eastern Front, nothing short of atomics wins for the Western Allies.

[Sarmatian]

The Allies would probably have been able to land in North Africa whatever the Soviets did. Morocco and Algeria were still French territories taking orders from a government that had already fought with the British (actions with French ships, Syria, etc.), and there was at least some token resistance against the Americans (the British didn't land at all, to avoid causing too much offence). Only when the French started going over to the Allies too quickly did the Germans take direct action in Tunisia, and that had to be preceded by taking over Vichy France as well, turning the whole of the French empire against the Axis.

Also, AFAIK it was the Battle of Britain that to that date took out the largest chunk of the Luftwaffe's most experienced pilots, and certainly their fighter pilots. Stuka pilots racked up incredible numbers on the eastern front, but they were only used in the BoB for a short period before being pulled out again, as they were sitting ducks against the state of the art fighters that were involved in the BoB.

It wasn't a serious post, mate.


About vague generalizations..........:creep:

I was quite clear at the end of my first post on this topic:



No US involvement in the ETO, either directly or indirectly, a Soviet victory is questionable. No Soviet involvement on the Eastern Front, nothing short of atomics wins for the Western Allies.

I don't really have the strength to go on.

[Papewaio]

You are all wrong pound for pound New Zealand were the most effective.

Had to be said.

Might not be true but neither is most of this thread.

[Sarmatian]

Might not be true but neither is most of this thread.

That is true except for the parts I wrote, because I'm never wrong. If some sources say differently, than it is a case of the rest of the mankind not catching up with me.


You are all wrong pound for pound New Zealand were the most effective.

Had to be said.

I agree that New Zealand are small but effective, like Sparta in the ancient times, but, like Sparta, they have a small rulling class that dominates everyone else. When their sheep rebel, New Zealand is done for.

[Pannonian]

I agree that New Zealand are small but effective, like Sparta in the ancient times, but, like Sparta, they have a small rulling class that dominates everyone else. When their sheep rebel, New Zealand is done for.

That's why New Zealanders are sent out into the countryside in a rite of passage. While some are prosecuted for what they do, you have to look at it from their warlike perspective to understand the reasoning. The authorities don't care what you do with the sheep, as long as you don't get caught doing it. This ritual breeds a nation of baadasses.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That's why New Zealanders are sent out into the countryside in a rite of passage. While some are prosecuted for what they do, you have to look at it from their warlike perspective to understand the reasoning. The authorities don't care what you do with the sheep, as long as you don't get caught doing it. This ritual breeds a nation of baadasses.

Certainly has a "spartanesque" character, doesn't it? I assume the preponderance of adrenalin-junkie sporting down there is a publicly "acceptable" way to keep their badass selves up on the training.