OT:So who did say 10 worth 1 but...

[tss]

Bruno Weiss wrote:

Actually, the Soviet death count might be closer to 50 million from what I've read.

G.F Krivosheev went through archieved Soviet casualty reports and they totalled to the figure of 8668400 dead 22326905 wounded soldiers. However, these figures are very likely too low, since the casualty reports of the first part of the war are lacking and later some commanders falsified their reports when they very heavy losses.

As a practical example of the latter, there's a difference of 18000 casualties between divisional and army level casualty reports of the Karelian Summer attack of 1944. Krivosheev's figure for that operation is a total of 96375 casualties so the difference is almost 20%. If we take a wild guess that the reports were always 20% too low and add an extra million casualties for Summer 1941, the total number of Soviet soldier KIAs would be 11.5 million. (This figure includes those who were killed in prison camps). The rest of Soviet dead were civilians.

- Tommi

[tss]

We had another saying here in Finland, namely: "One Finn equals ten Russkies". This was used a lot in prewar years by right wing hotheads who wanted that ethnically Finnish areas of Karelia should be added to Finland. Some went as far to propose a war against Soviet Union. Those who used the saying forgot to do the math and see that there were actually 50 Soviets for each Finn.

Even at the time those with more sense would answer that claim with: "But what will you do when the eleventh Russkie comes?".

If we compare the Krivosheev's figure of 126875 Winter War KIA to Finnish losses of about 22000 men, we see that the correct ratio would have been 1:5.7.

- Tommi

[Bruno Weiss]

TSS, you are correct. I was referring to the total Soviet war casuality figure, including civilians, not merely the combatants.

------------------

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf")

Bruno "Stachel" Weiss

[Maj. Bosco]

I think that even without the US Russia would have won the war. The difference would lie mainly in the post-war period. Instead of having the eastern communist bloc you would have had the continental communist bloc. The germans didn't have the supply line for Russia, they didn't have the gear for Russian winter, and they didn't have the natural resources, esp oil. The Russians would have suffered more casualties but almost certainly not too many to win. The Western Front ended the war sooner, but it did not end the war.

[Guest machineman]

From what I can see the USSR almost cashed it in many times WITH the US doing all it could. The reason they could produce so many T-34's, for example, is the huge number of excellent American trucks they were sent, not to mention the 1000's of aircraft, tanks, and the massive amounts of supplies they got, including some critical to their war effort. Many times the Soviets tottered on the brink of defeat and even tried to sue for peace at one time. The European part of the Soviet Union is not THAT big, Siberia is a big wasteland, and Kazachstan, etc would not fight for long by themselves. For every Stanligrad there was an 'Operation Mars' that resulted in a stunning Soviet defeat. There was an article linked to here a little while ago pointing out even Kursk may have been a German victory without distraction of the Sicily landings.

Without American backing Britain would not have lasted long, and without the germans being distracted by the bombing campaign, the western desert, the U-boat war, never mind the Western front itself, a tremendous amount of extra force could have been hurled the way of the Soviet Union, I think easily enough to turn the tide of the war.

[Bruno Weiss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, to sum up your post:

The Germans lost because they were too dumb to win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a little more complicated than that Simon, but in a manner of speaking your assertion is not all that far off the mark. It was because of their paranoid military heirarchical leadership. Whatever Hitler's abilities might have been regarding his sociological appeal to a vocal and violent minority in the midst of a chaotic and destitute culture that existed in Germany at that time, it was his total lack of military knowledge and understanding of the various and complicated issues of tactical and strategic principles that directly lead to the failures which I have cited. He alone made the final decisions in that flawed military leadership structure, and did so out of shear ignorance of tactical and strategic principles.

The German Navy for example, advised him prior to the initiation of hostilities, not to begin a war until the late 1940's or early 1950's, when they would have the capability of overwhelming the Royal Navy's surface fleet strength. Just one example. But it was his own final decisions which missed the opportunities for victory over England which I have previously given. Let's look at them separately.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>what if...

hitler hadn't stopped at dunkirk?

well big loss for the allies, but britaon would still stand: you need to deal with the RAF and Royal Navy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, England's rescue of over 300,000 men of HMRA, guaranteed the British a fighting force upon which to build and with which they would later plunge into Europe at Normandy. Secondly, these troops represented for the most part the entire British Army at the time, certainly the cream of the crop. Imagine if the entire US Army were wiped out, captured, or massacred at Normandy. What would have been America's political reaction? I would submit that England's political will and ability to sustain hostilities throughout the Battle of Britain without some form of capulation, even if only a partial peace treaty being at least seriously entertained if not demanded within the halls of Parliament, was directly tied to the English defeat turned victory at Dunkirk. (Let's not forget that Neville Chamberlain attempted to lead the British to peace at any price prior to the invasion of Poland).

Given a circumstance where the entire HMRA was wiped out or captured at Dunkirk, it is doubtful that England would have had the political will to face the Battle of Britain and higly likely that a signatory of peace would have been gained by the Germans. This would have allowed for Germany to turn their entire military structure, flush with victory loose on the Soviets at Barbarossa. Would that additional manpower and equipment resource have made a difference towards capturing Moscow prior to the 1941 Russian winter? It could be argued that it would have, and from there it is anyone's guess what the Soviet reaction would have been.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>so what if...

the brits lose the battle of britain?

not too horrible. britain gets bombed until new factories and airfields can be brought to bear. germany had nothing good to transport troops across. it took the us and britain to build enough LSTs for the invasion. there was talk of towing river barges, but one storm, and it would be the brits celebrating the divine wind, not the japanese. and those great bug boats would make fat targets for any brit artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The purpose of the Luftwaffe's assult upon the RAF during the Battle of Britain, was for the primary purpose of eliminating enemy air cover over the English Channel where Operation Sealion (the German invasion of England) was about to occur. Once eliminated, the Germans were going to assult England with what most military historians agree would have been an unresistable combatant force. Some 21 divisions I believe, but someone correct me as to the exact figure. Even the British realized that should such an invasion occur, they could not have held out long. The entire bulk of Englands armor, artillery, and military command and control structure was lost on the shores of Dunkirk. They simply had very little equipment at the time to resist such an invasion with. Were the Luftwaffe to gain full control over the English Channel, the Royal Navy could not have successfully intervened. As to the assertion that the Germans lacked sufficient landing craft and barges, one should remember that the English had just plucked 300,000 men away from Dunkirk in what was essentially fishing boats, and small water craft of all discriptions. I'm afraid the German military had more than adequate means of transporting and landing their army. Again, a German occupied England would have meant that Germany would have had the ability to utilize their entire military structure against the Soviets in 1941, and we are back to the premise of whether or not Moscow would have fallen before the Russian winter of '41'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ok but what if...

russia fought alone? germany still had a lot of ground to cover. the allies were sending stuff to them to kill the germans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Allies in this specific context would have amounted to only the US Lendlease supplies that the Royal Navy for the most part was convoying to the Soviets, primarily via the North Atlantic Murmansk route. It must be remembered that this was being accomplished prior to American's entry into the war, and in violation of the Neutrality accords which the US had signed. Roosevelt was in a very tricky political position with this at home and abroad. But tactically, without the Royal Navy escorting these convoys from Iceland to Russia, it is most doubtful that they would have even taken place, much less succeeded. Even with the Royal Navy's valiant efforts, they very nearly failed during the 1940-1941 time period. You can ascertain more information about exact figures for U-Boat ship sinkings along the Murmansk route at: http://www.uboat.net/index.html

Again, without the Lendlease Act assistance from the US, it is questionable how long the Soviets could have withstood the onslaught of the initial German invasion, and certainly if that invasion had contained the entire might of the German military without their having to man the Western Front against England along the French Coast and in Norway. That argument for the most part centers around the what it Moscow had fallen in the fall of 1941. Would Stalin have survived politically? Would the Soviet governmental apparatus survived? Would the Soviet military which was nearly in ruin at that point maintained any resemblence of an orderly command and control structure? Hard questions to answer in the what if dimension. But it is reasonable to presume that had Moscow fallen, the Soviets ability to withdrawel their heavy industry East of the Urals might very well not have taken place. Thus depriving them of the eventual military force they were able to build which allowed them to assume the offensive against Germany.

Now, Russia is a large land area to be sure, however it must also be remembered that the Japanese were already entertaining the idea of a Soviet invasion from the East. But for their election to opt for what they believed would be a far more rapid route to victory in the Pacific by the elimination of the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. While the Japanese had been successful in the 1904-1905 Russian-Japanese conflict in which they gained;

1. Peace between Russia and Japan,

2. Japanese freedom of action in Korea,

3. Restoration of Manchuria to China,

4. Control by the Japanese of Port Arthur,

Talien, adjacent territory and waters,

5. Japanese control of the railway

between Changchunfu and Kuanchangtsu,

6. Japanese control of the south

of the island of Sakhalin, and

7. The return of all prisoners of war to their respective countries. (Also, Japan received the Liaotung Peninsula). The Port Arthur treaty was signed on September 5, 1905, ending this war.

The Russian-Japanese war never the less left a decided respect for the Russian military in the minds of the Japanese military leaders. It came at a high price in both resources and manpower. It was argued between the Japanese Army and Naval leaders at the time, that a faster route to victory for Japan would be to strike out at a considerable distance from the Japanese mainland against the US Pacific Fleet, rather than lock themselves into another land conflict with the Soviets.

This though, must be viewed in proper context. Again, what if, Germany had gained a rapid capture of Moscow prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Might the Japanese then have been more willing, or more likely to enter into a joint invasion of the Soviet Union? It can be asserted I believe, that had the Japanese seen a much more successful campaign on the part of the Germans, that the Japanese Navy might have been able to overcome the politically stubborn resistance of the Japanese Army leaders who were arguing for the attack on the US, and thus it is very likely that Japan might have launched their forces into Russia instead of the Phillipines and the Malay Penninsula. This would, under these circumstances have sealed the fate of the Soviet Union, kept the US from entry into the war, and allowed the Germans to gain full control of Europe, as well as most of the Soviet Union, (divided between Germany and Japan).

Why consider all this?

According to the well-respected Harvard philosopher, George Santayana: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

------------------

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf")

Bruno "Stachel" Weiss

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 09-29-2000).]

[russellmz]

dang it all, logistics logistics logistics logistics logistics logistics...

if the germans invaded with fishing boats, rafts, barges, and/or rowboats they would be doomed. that's why there was no recovered tanks, they could only take troops. just how many would survive it to shore?

and how would you carry tanks and artillery and stuff? not enough transport, i feel, means easy to destroy landing craft/fishing boats/yachts.

amphibious assualt is one of the hardest things to do in war because the invasion force is vulnerable in the boats, on the beach before they can establish a foothold and before they get additional heavy equipment and armor.

the german navy would not provide that much support(certainly not the thousands of guns the allies had avaliable)...

IMHO

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Bruno Weiss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>if the germans invaded with fishing boats, rafts, barges, and/or rowboats they would be doomed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, were that true they would have been. You somewhat misinterpreted what I said I believe. My statement as to the success of the British retrieval of their army from the shores of Dunkirk was meant to demonstrate that the Channel is not an insurrmountable obstacle. And was not meant to imply that the Germans intended to utilize fishing boats or rafts with which to carry an invasion force across the Channel. However, your assertion that the Germans lacked any means with which to transport the invasion force lacks specifics. In point of fact, the German military had assembled from all over the low contries some 2000 flat bottomed barrages which could be pushed up onto the beaches. In addition, 170 cargo ships along with over 450 tug boats stood ready to carry out the operation. This is in addition ofcourse, to the first line Naval combatants of E-boats, Destroyers, Minesweepers, Cruisers, and other assorted Naval vessels. (It was estimated that the crossing would take 24hrs, and take 4 days to land the first 150,000 men). You can ascertain some of this data at: www.battleofbritain.net

Though not by Normandy standards ofcourse, it was never the less a sizable amphibious transportation force which was at the Germans disposal. I dare say, and might add that the simple logic of it is, the German military would not have assembled such a large array of military force and simply forgot they needed to cross the channel.

Secondly, The landings would be broken up into waves, the initial wave to land on Army Group B's beaches would comprise no less than ten infantry divisions made up of 120,000 infantry soldiers, 4,650 horses, 700 tanks, 1,500 army vehicles. Each side of the landings would be supported by some 30,000 paratroopers whose job it would be to cut communications, secure bridges, railways and small villages. So, it was never envisioned by OKW that the entire force was going to be plopped ashore all at once.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> the german navy would not provide that much support(certainly not the thousands of guns the allies had avaliable)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I previously stated and believe the logic of it stands. Were the Luftwaffe to gain full control of the air over the channel, those thousands of guns, and I supposed you mean all of them positioned on the beaches, would most likely have been leveled long before the first barge came into range. I do not believe the HMRA had that capability after Dunkirk. The British Army's artillery assets were for the most part lost along with the rest of the BEF's equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk.

Finally, my primary point was had the British suffered a total loss of the BEF on the beaches of Dunkirk, Operation Sealion might not have turned out to be necessary at all. Given the almost certain disastrous political ramifications of such an event as I previously stated, it is very likely that England would not have had the political will to withstand the Battle of Britain, much less Operation Sealion. What many folks tend to overlook, is the political ramifications to military disasters. It isn't all based upon raw numbers of tanks, aircraft, and rifles.

True enough, these are mere speculations. We all know how the story ends. And isn't it nice how well the entire affair turned out.

Who was it that said; I may not agree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death for your right to speak it! Luckily, Operation Sealion, the surrender of Moscow, and a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union never occured, so that a good many folks more than would have otherwise, still maintain that right.

------------------

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf")

Bruno "Stachel" Weiss

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 09-29-2000).]

[Bruno Weiss]

I'll add though, that you are quite correct asserting that the Germans would potentially have suffered heavily. I might have made it sound as if they could have marched ashore unmolested to the tune of the Last Crusade. And that would not have been true. I only mean to assert that if Sealion had been put into motion, I do not believe it could have eventually been stopped. There is a substantial debate about how the Germans would have managed all this, and I readilly admit that.

------------------

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf")

Bruno "Stachel" Weiss

[M. Bates]

I have read a book which simulated Operation Sealion, and the conclusion was that even if the Germans had gained a foothold in the South East of England, the combination of RAF bases in the north, together with British, Australian, New Zealand and French soldiers, would have driven the Germans back into the sea.

In the simulation the NZers won the day - the Germans HAD to establish a permanent sea port, or their offensive would quickly seize up.

------------------

"War is like the cinema. The best seats are at the back... the front is all flicker."

- Monte Cassino by Sven Hassel

[tss]

Bruno Weiss wrote:

(It was estimated that the crossing would take 24hrs, and take 4 days to land the first 150,000 men)

And 12 of those 24 hours would be at night. Without air cover. WWII-era bombers lacked the capability for air attacks, except for torpedo runs in bright moonlight. The Germans didn't have enough torpedo planes (if they had any at all) to stop the Royal Navy at night. The main bulk of Luftwaffe anti-ship aircraft would be Stukas that had troubles attacking fast-moving ships during day. There's no way how they could have stopped Royal Navy destroyers during night.

Remember that if even a single destroyer gets through the German escort screen, it can destroy a very large number of barges very quickly. It doesn't even have to fire its weapons, as its trail waves will be enough to capsize the barges. I can't remember reading about _any_ naval detachment that was completely destroyed by air attacks in the whole war. Even the Yamato's kamikaze sortie had survivors (one destroyer).

Also, the British had a very large number of fast small craft (motor torpedo and gun boats). While they couldn't fight against large Kriegsmarine ships, they could sink the tugboats easily.

As I previously stated and believe the logic of it stands. Were the Luftwaffe to gain full control of the air over the channel, those thousands of guns, and I supposed you mean all of them positioned on the beaches, would most likely have been leveled long before the first barge came into range.

It is pretty difficult to knock out camouflaged artillery positions with aircraft, especially if the gun positions are fortified with concrete.

- Tommi

[Mark IV]

Bruno: Some good points. But...

First, the Germans were not even close to producing an atomic bomb, and weren't working on one very hard. I know about the famous heavy water plant and the British raid, etc., but the project did not have very high-level support. And, the Germans were using a fundamentally flawed calculation of critical mass, so the efforts they WERE making were in the wrong direction.

There was no danger of nuclear-tipped V2s slamming into London or Moscow for several years, despite the notion's popularity with what-iffers.

Secondly, Japan did originally have intentions toward Russia, which they tested at Kalkhin Gol-Nomonhan, partly against a young armored officer named Zhukov, in 1939. They decided to go south instead. Seems they came to an armored battle and forgot their tanks.

The high leadership of the Japanese Army and the Foreign Ministry were very pro-German and wanted to attack Russia in support of Hitler. The Navy and other leaders wanted to go south, and challenge the colonial powers (Britain, France, and Holland), and this debate went on for some time internally.

It is often overlooked that while the Nazi-Soviet Non-Agression Pact surprised the rest of the world, it shocked Japan, and caused the fall of the government. At that time, Hitler wanted the Japanese to quit worrying about the USSR and concentrate on the possessions of Britain and France. The Pact with Stalin forced their attention southward, and the dazed Japanese concluded their own armistice and treaties with the USSR shortly thereafter, which were maintained by both sides until the very end of the war. The renewed US embargo of oil was the final catalyst.

The whole time that the US was sending Lend-Lease aid to Russia, the Soviets were denying the US the use of Russian air bases for operations against Japan. The Japanese and Russians communicated often about this, and the US was reading these communications the whole time that Stalin was urging America to begin its second front. I imagine this made it a little easier to take the time to prepare the Normandy invasion properly.

Later, of course, an alarmed Berlin began urging Tokyo to attack the Soviets from the rear. A somewhat wiser Japanese cabinet merely smiled at the thought and ignored the idea for the rest of the war.

[tss]

Mark IV wrote:

Secondly, Japan did originally have intentions toward Russia, which they tested at Kalkhin Gol-Nomonhan, partly against a young armored officer named Zhukov, in 1939. They decided to go south instead. Seems they came to an armored battle and forgot their tanks.

The battle of Lake Nomonhan was a small skirmish in 1938 that ended practically as a draw. My copy of Krivosheev is at work but I seem to remember that the Soviet total losses were about 300 and Japanese losses were comparable.

The battle of Kalkhin-Gol in the next year was much larger but I can't remember concrete numbers (possibly around 100000). The Soviet losses were pretty heavy (around 30% casualties) and the Japanese losses were heavier. In particular, the Japanese lost practically all of their tanks and trained tank crews. After that debacle the Japanese decided that they don't really want to invade Soviet Union after all.

- Tommi