Is anyone else becoming more interested in the eastern front now that CMBB is here?

[JadamoW]

I was looking forward to playing CMBB for some a little while, and for no other reason than getting my hands on some Russian armour that would face up to the German juggernaughts.

Boy, was I dreaming or what!

[pavlov]

I coincidentally developed an interest in the Eastern Front when I saw the first teaser for Enemy at the Gates. I found the book of the same name and was quite drawn in. It is a good book and I recommend it. I was somewhat disappointed by the movie, but then I heard about the planned release of CMBB and was very excited.

I received my copy of CMBB less than a week ago.

[tiborhead]

Interesting "what if" scenarios. I think Hitler's Germany was even more unprepared for such an undertaking directly after the Polish and Norwegian campaigns. The fighting in the Low Countries and in France provided a great deal of experience, as well as provided time for better armored vehicles to be produced. Also, captured French trucks, IIRC, provided a great deal of the army’s motorized transport. Those, obviously, would not have been available had the Germans not conquered France.

Wasn't there a rather big difference in the number of divisions fielded by the Germans in the French campaign and Barbarossa?

[NewSocialistMan]

The fact remains that 4 out of 5 Nazis were killed by Russians. Not only didn't the Americans not DO it. A sober reading of history would indicate that the Americans were not CAPABLE of doing it. Of the remaining 20%, it is doubtful that the American contribution was more than about half.

If I were to contribute a 10% effort to any enterprise, I can hardly make claim to having been primarily responsible for the outcome.

The statement that "the US and her allies defeated fascism" is only slightly more credible than the statement that "Greece and her allies defeated Hitler".

[ November 14, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: NewSocialistMan ]

[tiborhead]

Originally posted by NewSocialistMan:

The fact remains that 4 out of 5 Nazis were killed by Russians. Not only didn't the Americans not DO it. A sober reading of history would indicate that the Americans were not CAPABLE of doing it. Of the remaining 20%, it is doubtful that the American contribution was more than about half.

If I were to contribute a 10% effort to any enterprise, I can hardly make claim to having been primarily responsible for the outcome.

The statement that "the US and her allies defeated fascism" is only slightly more credible than the statement that "Greece and her allies defeated Hitler".

Well, that could be debated. Preferably by someone with more knowledge than myself. I think, perhaps, you are overlooking some key issues here. I'd wager American Lend-Lease material helped the Russians out more than a little.

Previously, someone mentioned Japanese intervention in the Soviet Far East. Though not directly involved, and assuming the Japanese would attack the Russians, the decision by the Japanese to instead attack westward against the US undoubtedly relieved a great deal of pressure. As said, this would allow him (Stalin) to pull troops from the east to defend Moscow.

I don't know. I still believe the Ostfront was the deciding factor of the war, but other than actual combat participation and casualties inflicted, the entrance of the US into the conflict dramatically changed the course of the war. I remember reading somewhere that Stalin was thrilled to hear of Hitler's declaration of war against the US. Surely, he was happy to have another "ally", at least for a while. Just my thoughts, and as usual I stand to be corrected.

[NewSocialistMan]

The American contribution was certainly signficant (10% is significant any way you slice it), but so was that of Greece, France, Poland, and Holland for that matter. My point is that it is a bit of a ridiculous overstatement to claim that the US "won the war against Hitler". Though if you watch the Hitler Channel, you can't leave without the impression that no one else participated.

I guess Hollywood trumps the truth.

[Marlow]

As much as I hate to say this since I don't like the old "do a search" bit, this subject has been covered pretty well. In general, I'd say that the Sov. Union did carry the lions share of the fighting against Germany; however, the Western allies probably contributed a bit more than you are giving credit for. A few quickies (again you can find more with a search): German ground force casualties on the Russian front were (IIRC) more like 2/3rds of the total, not 80%; the Western allies carried the load in destroying the Luftwaffe; lend lease more than weapons, also huge quantities of food, boots, 250,000 trucks, etc...); Western allies took Italy out of the war, and defeated Japan; Stratigic bombing put a rather large dent in Germany's industrial capacity (how large can be debates).

Main point is counting ground casualties in the East is only part of the story.

[Wretch]

The way American historical testbooks, websites and media depict the Western Front, you'd think that they did all the fighting.

The US didn't win the war, as they put it, but it's doubtful that without America's intervention that Hitler would have been defeated as soon as he was.

In answer to the main question, I've been interested in the Eastern Front since I played IL-2 Sturmovik, a flight sim by Maddox Studios. Plus I think Russian is such an interesting language.

[ November 14, 2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Wretch ]

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by NewSocialistMan:

The American contribution was certainly signficant (10% is significant any way you slice it), but so was that of Greece, France, Poland, and Holland for that matter. My point is that it is a bit of a ridiculous overstatement to claim that the US "won the war against Hitler".

The 10% number, which seems to be something you pulled out of the air, is stupid. In 1943, Germany lost over 3000 aircraft in the west, mostly in the first part of the year, and mostly to the US (due to British night bombing). During the battle of Kursk, there were approximately 400 aircraft supporting the attack, while there were 500+ aircraft fighting the US over Germany and France.

The air war is the biggest contribution that the US made to the defeat of German, and it is substantial - not so much for the effects of strategic bombing, perhaps, as for the destruction of so much German aircraft in the air.

I think that if instead of the Germans having 400 fighters in the East, they have 2500, suddenly they have complete air superiority and things become very difficult for the Soviets. Could Germany have won at Kursk if they had 6 times as many aircraft? I don't know - but they certainly would have had a hard time following up on their victory. And they lost over 10,000 aircraft in 1944...

I don't know whether this would have meant that Germany wins - certainly these great aircraft losses began after Stalingrad, for example - but it certainly suggests that the US contribution to victory over Germany is much greater than 10%.

[Sturmovik]

I've always preferred to read and learn about the Eastern Front. The massive amounts of soldiers, logistics, weather and the vast areas of the battlefields are nearly of mythological proportions. CMBB is absolutely phenomenal in its approach (congrats to battlefront.com!). Anyone who doesn't own this game and CMO is missing out.

"The Eastern Front of World War 2 has many lessons for the West of today, but they are seldom studied."

Lieutenant General Johannes "Macky" Steinhoff, Luftwaffe fighter pilot, 176 victories (6 victories while flying the ME 262)

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by NewSocialistMan:

The fact remains that 4 out of 5 Nazis were killed by Russians. Not only didn't the Americans not DO it. A sober reading of history would indicate that the Americans were not CAPABLE of doing it. Of the remaining 20%, it is doubtful that the American contribution was more than about half.

If I were to contribute a 10% effort to any enterprise, I can hardly make claim to having been primarily responsible for the outcome.

The statement that "the US and her allies defeated fascism" is only slightly more credible than the statement that "Greece and her allies defeated Hitler".

Yes, indeedy, you do reason like a NewSocialistMan.

Why not delve a little deeper and try a different tack from thinking the good ol' USA was going to slog in out for years and years by throwing soldiers at Hitler's Germany. The A-bomb was ready to go in 1945, and Hitler was the first target until the collapse of Germany. The enormous multi-year conventional bombing of Germany should give you a hint that the will was there to finish Germany through a bombing campaign.

The US was not going to match Germany man for man on the battlefield (or Russia during the Cold War for that matter). No, the US used its technology, logistical planning, manufacturing advantages, transportation superiority, and strategic forethought to the maximum in waging war on its own terms.

The US won in WWII, both European and Pacific theaters, by using its strengths. The war in Europe was over (one way or the other) by 1945 when the A-bomb was a reality for the US offensive, regardless of what the Soviets did by throwing millions of men into the battle. In other words, the WWII-extended scenario in your make-believe world would not have been an endless contest of infantry manpower resources. Technology then, as now, was at the stage where manpower was not the controlling factor. The US had the advantage where it counted, and the US used that advantage.

The Soviets used their advantages of manpower and space to counter Germany to a stalemate before taking the final offensive. Could it have been done without a West Front or the US winning against Japan? Considering that the US started from scratch in 1940 or so, I think its performance in WWII is all the more admirable.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Oh crap. Here goes the Russians won the war alone arguement again.

I would have to agree that the Russians did about 60% of the work with the UK and USA doing about 30% and the minor allies pitching it the last 10%. This is a gross oversimplification of course, but there it is.

Did I spell that right?!

[ November 15, 2002, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ]

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by Lawyer:

The Soviets used their advantages of manpower and space to counter Germany to a stalemate before taking the final offensive.

No, by June of '44, there was no stalemate mate. Germany was on the run in the east! The Soviet juggernaught by that point was in the process of steam rolling the Nazis. D-Day just sped up what the Russians had already put into motion.

[ November 15, 2002, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ]

[Fetchez la Vache]

A little bit more on topic - yes, I recently did a trawl through Amazon for some East Front reading material.

However, I have a question for some people better read on this topic than I. Last week I finished reading "The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer. I then went onto the next book on my 'pile' ("In Deadly Combat" by Gottlob Bidermann), which contained a short forward by the translator which mentioned that there was some doubt as to the authenticity of Sajer's book. Is this true? Is there some doubt as to the authenticity of "The Forgotten Soldier"?

I must say there are some things in Sajer's book which do make me wonder in retrospect...

[Törni]

Russians killed the ground forces and Western

allies destroyed naval and air force. Plus bombarded several German cities brutally to the ground.

I think that soviet and nazi regime are pretty

much two sides of the same coin. The clash was

between them was inevidable.

[Törni]

And let's not forget who helped communist revolution in order to win Russians in WWI. Germans