Just a thought...

[Talon]

My .02,

I agree with the whole multiple mistake line,

but for me the top of the list was Hitlers decision to halt all R&D after the first blush of success in the ETO. Those of you in the know correct me please. If memory serves it was from mid '41 to late '42 there was no research and development. Imagine a couple of squadrons of 262s in the skys of late 42 early 43. So much for air superiority any where for the allies.

[Murx]

Just remember when evaluating Hitlers commands (and faults - most time you can't tell one from the other ) was just a little small soldier in WWI with no experience in modern warfare. He was a Obergefreiter (some class of private). So what do you expect when such a little boy plays war ???

But as a polish officer told me, yeah, you Germans have lost the war but look at Europe now, you won the peace !

murx

For war you only need three things, money, money and again money ...

[Mikester]

Jager,

Yes, the US war production did have an impact. My point is that most of that impact was felt by England and others allies in the west and in the Pacific. What did get sent to the Soviet Union from USA probably didn't amount to much in the overall scheme of things as they unfolded on the Eastern Front.

In my view (perhaps mistaken) most of the US Lend Lease aid went to, and was of the most benefit to, England. From what I've read and seen on TV I have little doubt that US aid to England helped keep them afloat in 40-41.

This most certainly was not the case in Russia. We did not save the Russians by sending them anything. What we did send I'm certain did help to a given extent, but if we'd sent them nothing I somehow doubt that it would have mattered that much in the final analysis. The most important thing that went to the Soviets was probably food. Especially in light of the fact that the Germans conquered the bread basket of Russia when they took the Ukraine. But in my estimation I doubt the food aid made much diffrence either. Stalin and company would have simply taken what food they did have and given it to the troops and let the civilian population starve first if we'd sent them nothing at all. He had no regard for human life whatsoever, be it Russian, or otherwise. And I have no doubt in my mind that he would do this if it had come down to feeding the troops and carrying on the struggle vs. a few civilians starving to death.

I would also still argue (without any real facts to back up my arguements unfortunately) that the overall percentage of what the Russians did receive in aid really didn't amount to much in comparison to what the Russians provided to themselves via their own means. Agreed, it had to have helped. But in the end the Soviets would have perservered either way. With the aid, things were simply easier, fewer people (civilian and military alike) probably died, and the war was probably somewhat shorter than it would have been otherwise. But in the end Germany had to strike and win in 1941. After that opportunity was lost the Great MeatGrinder of the Soviet Union simply chewed them up and spit them out.

As for Italian campaign drawing troops away from the Eastern front this is true. But look at the total number of divisions deployed by Germany in Med. vs. number still in Russia at any given time and the greater bulk of their forces were still in the east. In my view it was not until the invasion of Normandy that the ratio of German divisions in the east vs. those they had committed in other areas really had to shift and, alas, by that point the war was already really over.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the Germans raised new divisions as the war progressed and if memory serves me correctly always had (at least on paper) roughly the same number of division committed on the Eastern front as they started with in June 1941. On the other hand, the Soviets were able to field one new division after another in the east and finally simply outnumbered the German paper divisions. Especially since most of the paper divisions were not up to full strength anyways for most of the later part of the war. There was simply no way the Germans could stand up against such a force. In summer campaign of 1944 on the Eastern front entire sections of the German line simply disintegrated and the Russians had, for the most part, taken the Germans back to where they had started in 1941 by end of 1944.

It was simply a matter of time before the Soviets accomplished this in my view. Lend lease aid and opening of a second front first in the Med. certainly helped speed the war along. As did strategic bombing of Germany by the RAF and USAAF. But when it really comes right down to it that's all these things did. The didn't make or break the final outcome of the war in Europe. That was decided when Hitler proceeded with attacking the Soviets and failed to go for the jugular vein and knock them out in 1941. After that, Germany's fate was sealed. It was only a matter of time.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Mannheim Tanker]

I agree that a series of events culminated in the Axis defeat. An analogy is an airline crash: Rarely does a single problem result in a crash (the exception being a bombing!). Rather, a series of problems occur and compound one another with the result being a crash.

I also think some historians have made it clear that while the US Industrial might made a big contribution to the defeat of the Axis, it wasn't decisive in and of itself. Remember that 9 of 10 German soldiers were killed by the Soviets. I'd argue that the Axis were defeated by American industrial might combined with (practically) limitless Soviet manpower. I'm not trying to marginalize the contributions of American (and other non-Soviet) GI's; both of my grandfatherss fought for the US. I just think that many people underestimate the contributions that the Soviets made. Granted, their contributions were made possible in part by weapons made in the good ol' US of A

[Jager 7]

Mikester,

I agree the majority of Lend-lease aid went directly to the UK and helped them considerably. The Soviets however did recieve quite a bit of it also. They would likely have still defeated Hitler without it...IMHO it would have taken longer and cost them more. You make a good point though that had Hitler not changed objectives from Moscow to the south things may have been different. I still think the Russians would have prevailed in the end even had they lost Moscow.

Here's something I dug up:

"American strategists knew that only the Red Army could defeat Hitler on the ground, and Lend-Lease helped do just that. It constituted only about 7% of what the USSR itself produced during the war, but did allow the Soviets to concentrate their production where they were most efficient."

Source: The Oxford Companion to WWII - by Dear & Foot, Oxford University Press 1995, p 681

Out here...

[Mikester]

Jager 7,

Good fact finding. Guess I should expect such things from a guy that's in the Marine Corps (I assume Gny? stands for Gunnery Sargent?). Me, I'm rank amatuer historian of WWII for about last 25 years. Unfortunately, read a lot, and forgotten too much. Especially when it comes to trying to remember where I read it, exact figures, etc.

Case in point is I can't even remember the exact city in the south that Hitler sent the Panzers down to help take. Is it Kiev that's south or the Prippet Marshes, or is it some other large city down there? I think that was it, but I'd have open a book to double check, or look at a map.

You are right though. The Soviets would have come out on top one way or the other. Only question would have been how many more millions would have died and how long would it have taken if they hadn't gotten any help (lend lease) and/or US had never entered the war in Europe.

My guess is that if the US had never become envolved the English would have continued to fight in the Med. on a limited basis. Probably would have defeated the Axis in N. Africa. Maybe even went ahead and invaded Sicily and perhaps Italy on their own. But that would have been a pretty tough road to go down alone. And like in Russia, it would have taken longer and cost more lives to accomplish the same tasks that were accomplished w/ American help. Chances of them (English, Canadians, etc.) launching a cross channel invasion w/o the American's was probably pretty low. All in all US involvement in Europe probably accelerated the end of the war there by 2-3 years is my best guess. Fact that they did end up becoming envolved probably saved millions of lives on all sides as well.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Keith]

All I am going to add to this rather interesting discussion is that the U.S. mechanized the entire Russian army from 1943-1945. We shipped a TREMENDOUS amount of trucks and jeeps to Russia, and in fact, the word "Studebaker" is synonymous with the word truck in Russia today. The soviet infantry was almost entirely foot bound/calvary bound prior to 43. In 43 you will notice that many of the calvary corps were replaced by mechanized corps. The US indirectly contributed in a very real way to the far-reaching Soviet offensives in 1943.

As far as tanks are concerned, the US and UK contributed around 11% to the Soviet tank inventory. While small, it is still significant. In fact, the Sherman tank made up a significant portion of Russian forces in operation Bagration in 1944 - even equipping "Guards" units.

[Mikester]

Keith,

Ahhh, good facts once again come to clarify the situation. I hadn't really thought much about the trucks and mechnanization of Soviet forces.

So the good ole USA did help out more than I thought. But in the end it acted like more of an accelerator to ending the war rather than a deciding factor? Would you agree with that? Having motorized/mechanized infantry would indeed have made a difference. Especially in practicing the "advanced" tactics of Blitzkrieg in reverse on their German creators. Which in turn as you point out would certainly help the Soviets to fight more efficiently and take more ground in a shorter span of time.

Thanks again for the input. That's one of the great things about discussing things here. Eventually all the facts get fleshed out and brought to the surface if the discussion goes on long enough.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Bobbaro]

I seem to recall Krueschev (sp) being quoted as haveing said that the Soviets would have not succeeded without American trucks. Whether the represents an accurate parapharase, he at least spoke to the importance that the trucks played in their victory.

[przy]

Forgive me if I am incorrect on this one. But I thought I read somewhere that Hitler did not put Germany into a full wartime economy (the switching of production from peactime to wartime material) until early 1943. It was not until Albert Speer finally convinced Hitler to do so. So from the start Hitlers arrogence to the fact that the war would not last more than a couple of years killed him from the get go. As well as stunting the developmental growth of the jet, radar, and missles, as well as a long range bomber that would have really helped the situation, feeling there would be no need for this stuff. And by the time they came back to these projects it was too late and the war was pretty much decided. Remember, this is just what I heard so forgive me if some of this I babbled is wrong

[This message has been edited by przy (edited 06-12-2000).]

[Mark IV]

Mikester has nailed it pretty thoroughly, IMO.

As with the last time this came up, I feel that the turning point was the German failure to take Moscow. I really do think they had a chance, but they blew it. From December 1941 on, it was all numbers and the Russkis were bound to grind them down in the long run.

If they had taken Moscow, the command and control networks would have been seriously disrupted, the will to resist seriously damaged, and the Soviet ability to sustain large counter-offensives seriously jeopardized. Many Russians would have fought on, but they could have been isolated and destroyed. The emergency would have passed for the Wehrmacht.

The German nuke program was operating on a mistaken calculation regarding critical mass. They would eventually have found the error, but the program was never given very high priority by Hitler (probably rightly so). With relative calm in the East they would have had access to the results of the somewhat promising Russian research (on hold for the same reasons as Germany's) as well as more time and resources, and "might" have caught the error sooner.

The US only had 2 bombs in August 1945, and the delivery system was propeller-driven airplane. So being deep into what-if territory already I conclude with the thought that 2 15 kt. nukes would not necessarily have been war-winners in the scenario above, given German victory in the East.

[Jager 7]

MarkIV,

Interesting what if scenario. IMHO the loss of Moscow would not have been a show stopper for the Soviets. It would have been a serious setback but one from which they could have recovered. Everything I've read from the German point of view stresses the over extended supply lines they had to deal with created by the sheer vastness of the Russian stepps. I doubt the Germans would have been able to capitalize on the capture of Moscow for more than a couple years before they found themselves in the same situation they were historically in 43-45...on the strategic defensive and losing. Yet it is fun to speculate isn't it?

Mikester, yes, Gunny here. This is a great forum for learning and for discussing things that are obviously of interest to many of us. As for fact checking...I got my a** handed to me on this forum a couple weeks ago because I talked off the top of my head. I was only half right and boy was someone quick to point that out. Now if I can't find a fact and source to support my post I keep my fingers well clear of the keyboard

Have a great day and I'm looking forward to some PBEM when you get back.

Out here...

[Michael Hatch]

A Very Interesting Thread.

I believe that the Germans lost the war before they started it.

I think that “przy” has got one half of the problem defined. Hitler entered into the war thinking short term. Quick victories followed by periods of peace to consolidate his gains, followed by new campaigns. He was not thinking and planning for the time frame that transpired. (I believe after the fall of France some factories were switched from war production to consumer good productions for a time.) He didn’t commit to full war production until 1943 when he had no choice. The Luftwaffe, while a great tactical organization, had little strategic orientation. The Navy was working towards their “Plan 1945” and were not really ready at all when Hitler jumped the gun on them.

The other problem was with Hitler’s cronies that were running the war effort. Combined arms are good and inter-service rivalry is bad and they couldn’t or wouldn’t understand this. The Germans military services were not working well together due in most part I believe, to the people at the top. Within the Heer High Command, they understood the advantage of combined arms operations but had reservations when working with the Waffen SS and the Luftwaffe Airborne forces. With the Navy and Air Force, they had even greater misgivings. And vice versa big time!

Hitler’s greatest asset (and ultimately, his greatest flaw) was that he was an astute gambler. Events leading up to the Invasion of Poland led him to believe that the Western Powers would, once again, back down. He was wrong but that campaign went so spectacularly right that I don’t think he was loosing any sleep over it.

It was at this point that his luck started to turn but I don’t think he was aware of it. The Fall of France went well (except for Dunkirk) and that left just England. At this point if the Luftwaffe had won the Battle of Britain, the follow up Invasion of England still would have been a coin toss. The individual components of the German Military would have been up to the task but the leadership would have conspired against victory.

Hitler was never afraid to roll the dice but after 1940 his luck was never good enough at the strategic level.

Some Comments About The Above Posts.

I don’t think that Pear Harbor was the turning point of the war. I think that it was the point when Churchill knew that victory in Europe was assured.

I believe that the resolve of the Leaders involved shouldn’t be underestimated.

If Britain had fallen, I think it would be a safe bet the Churchill would have set up shop in some colony or other and started pushing for the Invasion of Italy.

If the Germans had taken Moscow sometime in 1941, I don’t thing that great big wus Stalin would have wrung his hands and sued for peace.

If the American Navy had lost the Battle of Midway, I don’t see the American people letting Roosevelt do anything but continuing the fight. (The technical expression for their state of mind at that time is, I believe, being “Pissed”.)

I believe that Stalingrad like Midway represent the high tide mark in there respective theaters. Axis victories would have only delayed the inevitable due to the two reasons at the beginning of this post. (Yes, I think the Japanese were in the same predicament as the Germans, only more so.)

I can’t envision D-Day failing. The only thing I can see being in question is the Omaha landings but I think that would have be a matter of the amount of casualties taken.

My Two Cents Worth.

I agree that Hitler’s Invasion of Russia lost him the war on Day One. Neither he or his people fully understood the scope of the situation nor do I believe that Germany could have won in one full year’s worth of fighting. The only chance they might have had is if their policies towards the conquered (liberated) peoples were different and if Stalin died.

I believe that the Japanese lost the war when they attacked Pear Harbor. Even if they had caught the American Carriers and destroyed them, the mix up with the timing of their declaration of war doomed them to suffer the fury of the enraged American dream. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. It would have dragged on longer but the outcome would have been the same.

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

Double tap & getsome!

[Mikester]

Dunkirk was an interesting chance lost for the Germans.

I believe it was in a book I recently read and also on a documentry on the Fall of France I saw on TV where both pointed out that the failure to capitalize on the Dunkirk situation and deal a huge blow to the Tommies was, you guessed it, once again due to Hitler. German ground commanders and forward units were pushing in earnest toward Dunkirk to deal the death blow to the Brits. Suddenly, they receive orders from Army high command to stop in their tracks. They stopped in total disbelief. Why? Hitler and others had decided that Herman Goering and the Luftwaffe should be given the honor of bombing the English out of existence. As a result, many of them escaped, albeit without any of their tanks or heavy equipment. But they did live to fight another day.

Mikester out.

[Hundminen]

IMO, one of the finest strategic level WW2 books, called WHY THE ALLIES WON (Richard Overy), covered many of the themes already discussed in this thread in great detail.

Another interesting (albeit less significant) factor that Overy covers, is that German war industry was subordinate to the whims and demands of the Werhmacht and Luftwaffe, which led to a vast array of varying models and manufacturers of weapons. The Germans never truly mastered the art of mass production as did the British, Americans, and Soviets.

[Londoner]

Hundmine, treat "Why the Allies Won" with care m8! He makes some good points, but take a look at "Time to Kill" (soz can't remember the ed.) It raises some very valid points discrediting Overy's work. I wish i could remember more on the topic, i did some work on the rights and wrongs of his arguments a while back, but can't think of any example off the top of my head.

Another thought i'd throw in is the importance of US oil in WW2. Oil is the life blood of modern armed forces and its importance should not be overlooked. For instance, in and around Grosny (Russia), there was more oil being produced than in all of Germany in 1941. In California alone there was more oil being produced anually, than in Russia and Germany put together. In my view the promise of US oil and, as mentioned lend/lense trucks/jeeps, let Russia contemplate their major offensive operations. (I'll give oil footnotes if asked )

[This message has been edited by Londoner (edited 06-13-2000).]

[Screaming Demon]

I bet Hitler was pissed when the japs' attacked Pearl.

[Jochen2]

Germany lost the war in a combination of several things, mentiond here above. At least the absolutely stupid decissions of Hitler made the well started war in a massakre against the germans and against the thousands of civilians, who were killed by german troops.

I read above, that if germany would have sign a peacetreaty, the naziparty would be still in position in germany today - i don´t believe that, cause there was a lot of disappointment even in the german high command, wich led some officers to kill hitler (Oberst Graf von Staufenberg) but they failed. A lot of old grandpas, i spoke to, said to me, that they were all fighting against the russians, cause everybody knew their barbaric behaviour against german civilians (by order!!!). So, a lot of german soldiers said, let us win against the sovjets, and then we will clean up our home country.

(Sorry, my english isn´t the best today)

Greetings from Germany

Jochen

[tss]

I also think that there's no single turning point of the war. However, I would like to add one date to the list of important dates: March 12, 1940. Before that day there was a possibility that England and France would declare war on Soviet Union. If that had happened, the rest of the war would have been a lot different.

Also, there's another interesting 'what-if'. What if Soviet high command had had any sense at all in early 1941? I personally think that if Soviets had adopted Tukhachevsky's `red packet' strategy, Germans wouldn't have advanced past Smolensk. The main idea of the strategy was that the main defence line was fortified and relatively far from the borders. There was to be strong armored counterattack forces stationed in 'packets' behind the main line so that they were positioned to strike the flanks of the enemy after they had broken through the fortified line. Just imagine what would have happened if 300 T-34s and KV-Is (with trained crews) had attacked at the flanks of a Panzer Army in 1941.

Jager 7 wrote:

After all, no one has invaded Mother Russia and gotten away with it.

Well, Poles did pretty well in the first decade of 17th century (was Sigismund Wasa still alive or was it one of his sons?). Swede's were also quick to seize spoils at the same time. Also, don't forget Batu Khan, who conquered the whole country except Novgorod.

- Tommi

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Screaming Demon:

I bet Hitler was pissed when the japs' attacked Pearl.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SD, this was exactly what Hitler wanted, and had been trying to get the Japanese to do for some time.

The Japanese had indicated that they wouldn't be really interested until 1946, when the US was scheduled to leave the Philippines anyway. Hitler wanted the Japanese to offset the US surface fleet (he supposedly had considered a surprise U-Boat attack on the US Navy in port).

The Germans also gave the Japanese a captured British Cabinet report (November, 1940) that proved that the Brits would not send a major fleet to the Pacific, even if the Japanese attacked. They were begging Japan to attack Singapore, and knew this meant war with the US.

From Hitler's point of view, the US was technically already at war with him anyway, and the only thing stopping him from shooting back was the lack of an adequate surface fleet, which the Japanese could bring to the party. The formal German commitment to declare war on the US was made to Japan in April 41.

[Guest aka PanzerLeader]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Err, in 1943 at the Allied leader's conference in Casablance they demanded unconditional surrender. There never was a chance to get anything than that out of the war after 1943, for Germany. By the stage of the Normandy or Ardennes, even excellent fighting performance and winning these operations would not have helped the German regime.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, GermanBoy, do you know Hitler too had his plans ready for a "new order" in Europe, after he had invaded France and threatened to win the war?

Unexpected things can happen...

[Marty]

This is a very interesting thread and there is a tremendous amount of great info here.

Several times I have seen comments that question how much of an impact the US really had on Germany - the war supposedly being lost already in Russia before we became an item of concern for Hitler.

It seems to me that often we don't grasp how close the war really was or how strong the feeling was, in the early days, that we might lose.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was partially based on the impression they had, false as it turned out, that we would immediately sue for peace after losing the majority of our fleet - if the carriers had been in port, we might have had to. There was real fear of invasion in the Hawaiian Islands, and even on parts of the west coast of the US. The British and Dutch had also been badly mauled in their Pacific holdings.

What did the US bring to the table? I think the following:

1. The vaunted industrial base many have commented on - allowing the other allies to fight without worrying about a source of supply - augmenting or replacing their own supplies.

2. A fresh (and enthusiastic) nearly bottomless reserve of manpower, as we had also done in WWI.

3. The organizational expansion and ability to fight a highly mobile two-ocean war, both on water and land. This ability increased manyfold almost overnight because of item #1.

4. The dead weight around Japan's neck. If we had been eliminated as a threat in Dec 41 - Feb 42, there would have been nothing to prevent Japan from consolidating it's new empire and then threatening Russia on a second front - probably Manchuria. They would not have even had to invade just threaten enough to tie down a lot more Russian troops.

5. A safe base that the Germans and Japanese could not reach which could be used for training personnel and testing new weapons and ships/aircraft.

I think trying to select the most important turning point of the war is a pretty futile exercise, because, as the 5 minutes at Midway proved, the world can turn upside down very quickly, and often does.

Although it may not have been stated as the "grand plan" at Yalta, it is pretty obvious that prior to D-Day the US and UK forces (Australia et al) in the Pacific were the hammer against Japan, Russia against Germany, and UK/US forces in the west the dagger at Hitler's throat.

Once the beaches were taken on Normandy, it then became more of a race between Russia and UK/US to see who could secure the most territory. However, I would be willing to bet that there were still a lot of people who were hesitant to say that Germany would lose as late as the Battle of the Bulge, simply because we had under-estimated the available reserves.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader:

Hehe, GermanBoy, do you know Hitler too had his plans ready for a "new order" in Europe, after he had invaded France and threatened to win the war?

Unexpected things can happen...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I know that, but the Allies held the conference at a time when they had forced the Axis on the strategic defensive almost everywhere. Remember, it happened after the German operations in North Africa and Stalingrad were clearly doomed, and after Midway. They must have been certain at this point that the war was only going their way, not certain about timing and the success of individual operations though. This contrasts nicely with Hitler's ideas of a new world order, which had no basis in reality whatsoever.

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[Guest MantaRay]

Screaming Demon

Member posted 06-13-2000 09:30 AM

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

I bet Hitler was pissed when the japs' attacked Pearl.

And I believe that Hitler declared war on the US before our official declaration. I could be wrong, but I think that is right.

Ray

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

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

MantaRays 5 Pages

Hardcore Gamers Daily

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

Of course you can't put losing the war down to one particular event, however...

Not destroying the BEF in 1940 was a major blunder.

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

Dulce Et Decorum Est