Marcelo Jenisch
Active member
I think if Hitler invaded the USSR like historically, but didn't have the Western Allies as enemies, even if he didn't won, it would be at least very much harder for the Soviets won.
The Eastern Front decided WWII?
samneanderthal
Active member
Getting back to Hitler´s blunder of not accepting the USSR into the axis in 1940.
Not only could the USSR have easily invaded Iran early in 1941, it could also have easily invaded Northern Sweden, while Germany invaded southern Sweden with the troops in Norway, securing Bofors AAA, its steel and explosives industry, iron ore, merchant fleet, etc,
The red navy could have also helped considerably the weak KM with its submarines and surface ships to destroy the British navy in the North Atlantic, capture Iceland (an invaluable base for planes and subs) and break the British naval blockade on Germany. Most importantly, after capturing Persia and Iraq, the red army could have advanced towards Egypt, while Italy and Germany attacked from Libya and Somalia, dooming the British forces there.
Another aspect that is often neglected is the great power than Stalin held over the communists in Britain, America, Canada, etc, which could have helped the axis by slowing industrial production in these countries, sabotaging infrastructure, etc, Most importantly, had Stalin joined the axis he would have had to stop providing China with help that caused a lot of trouble for the Japanese.
Once Britain and China were defeated, the axis could have easily turned on the USSR
A most interesting aspect of WW II is the efficiency with which the axis used its meager fuel supplies, despite fighting far from the member countries.
Japan had incredibly little oil and wasted a lot of it attacking PH, and then pointlessly in the Coral Sea, Aleutians, Midway (where most of the ships didn't even enter the fray but stayed hundreds of km behind and then returned to Japan after burning a lot of fuel), New Guinea and Guadalcanal.
Italy didn't have enough oil even to transport supplies to near Tripoli, but had to rely on German oil. Yet the axis managed to fight well for years.
Had Japan captured Hawaii and sunk the US carriers, instead of attacking simultaneously Thailand, the Philippines, Malaya, Honk Kong, etc, The invaluable oil, salvageable ships, scrap iron, aluminum and bronze scrap in Hawaii would have tipped the balance in favor of Japan and made it extremely difficult for America to counter attack. Japan then would have had plenty of time to eliminate the British from the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Not only could the USSR have easily invaded Iran early in 1941, it could also have easily invaded Northern Sweden, while Germany invaded southern Sweden with the troops in Norway, securing Bofors AAA, its steel and explosives industry, iron ore, merchant fleet, etc,
The red navy could have also helped considerably the weak KM with its submarines and surface ships to destroy the British navy in the North Atlantic, capture Iceland (an invaluable base for planes and subs) and break the British naval blockade on Germany. Most importantly, after capturing Persia and Iraq, the red army could have advanced towards Egypt, while Italy and Germany attacked from Libya and Somalia, dooming the British forces there.
Another aspect that is often neglected is the great power than Stalin held over the communists in Britain, America, Canada, etc, which could have helped the axis by slowing industrial production in these countries, sabotaging infrastructure, etc, Most importantly, had Stalin joined the axis he would have had to stop providing China with help that caused a lot of trouble for the Japanese.
Once Britain and China were defeated, the axis could have easily turned on the USSR
A most interesting aspect of WW II is the efficiency with which the axis used its meager fuel supplies, despite fighting far from the member countries.
Japan had incredibly little oil and wasted a lot of it attacking PH, and then pointlessly in the Coral Sea, Aleutians, Midway (where most of the ships didn't even enter the fray but stayed hundreds of km behind and then returned to Japan after burning a lot of fuel), New Guinea and Guadalcanal.
Italy didn't have enough oil even to transport supplies to near Tripoli, but had to rely on German oil. Yet the axis managed to fight well for years.
Had Japan captured Hawaii and sunk the US carriers, instead of attacking simultaneously Thailand, the Philippines, Malaya, Honk Kong, etc, The invaluable oil, salvageable ships, scrap iron, aluminum and bronze scrap in Hawaii would have tipped the balance in favor of Japan and made it extremely difficult for America to counter attack. Japan then would have had plenty of time to eliminate the British from the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Last edited:
Marcelo Jenisch
Active member
Very unlikely Stalin would accept such an agreement without security clauses. Put yourself in his place: why you would free two countries extremely against your ideology from their enemies to a point were you could be a target from all their strenght?
LeEnfield
Active member
There are so many fanciful if and buts on this thread and some of them are so fanciful as to be laughable.
Once Germany had given up on the Battle of Britain they where on the slippery slope as they left the door opened to be bombed, which was not a problem for the first couple of years then things went down hill fast once the heavy four bombers came on stream. This caused them to allocate a million people for home defence when they could be better used else where.
All the Countries that Germany occupied had to be garrisoned again which which took troops away from the front. Also the British raids across the channel caused Germany to commit even more troops in these countries than they would have liked.
Raids on Norway, France and Italy caused them a lot of headaches, and even more when the British walked off with the latest German radar from Brunivael.
Also Germany lost some 340,000 troops in North Africa, again at this stage of the war was a huge blow to them.
The war in Italy made the Germans to have fight massive battles on two fronts and then with Normandy they were fighting on three fronts, and with all that they just did not have the man power to cover their losses or commitments
Once Germany had given up on the Battle of Britain they where on the slippery slope as they left the door opened to be bombed, which was not a problem for the first couple of years then things went down hill fast once the heavy four bombers came on stream. This caused them to allocate a million people for home defence when they could be better used else where.
All the Countries that Germany occupied had to be garrisoned again which which took troops away from the front. Also the British raids across the channel caused Germany to commit even more troops in these countries than they would have liked.
Raids on Norway, France and Italy caused them a lot of headaches, and even more when the British walked off with the latest German radar from Brunivael.
Also Germany lost some 340,000 troops in North Africa, again at this stage of the war was a huge blow to them.
The war in Italy made the Germans to have fight massive battles on two fronts and then with Normandy they were fighting on three fronts, and with all that they just did not have the man power to cover their losses or commitments
Marcelo Jenisch
Active member
The bombing was a major factor, but with Britain remaining in the war the naval blockade continued damaging Germany in a cumulative scale. The US didn't even need to enter in the war, only the LL was already as bad as a war for Hitler. Since he could not obtain the necessary resources in the USSR, and was having Britain and the Soviets being supplied in an increasingly scale and improving their domestic production and fighting capabilities, the German situation was already of desesperation. When the US entered, Hitler's chances by military means were practically none in my view. Hitler couldn't accept stabilize the front in the East, it was victory or defeat. His "obcession" perhaps not being so much an obcession at all. This being one of the reasons why he employed so much troops and the combats were so violent there.
Last edited:
samneanderthal
Active member
The million people in Flak defense were mostly teen agers and women, but the guns were sorely needed at the fronts.
The incredible thing is that not only did America have to supply 11 billion dollars to Stalin and over 30 billion to Churchill and repair British ships in America (Illustrious, etc,), without the huge numbers of American pilots, troops and saliors and many more billions in planes, tanks, cannon, trucks, ships, etc, for the American forces, it took so many years to defeat Germany. Such were the fighting abilities of the USSR and Britain.
The incredible thing is that not only did America have to supply 11 billion dollars to Stalin and over 30 billion to Churchill and repair British ships in America (Illustrious, etc,), without the huge numbers of American pilots, troops and saliors and many more billions in planes, tanks, cannon, trucks, ships, etc, for the American forces, it took so many years to defeat Germany. Such were the fighting abilities of the USSR and Britain.
Marcelo Jenisch
Active member
Women operated Flak guns in Germany?
Anyway, about the Flak guns, the "ground" version could have been different, but it was overall similar I suposse. Therefore, the AA variant was being produced in huge quantity and only because the bombing. So yes, I think it's fair to say that Germany would be capable of produce and employ much more AT guns in the East if was't for the West. Not to mention that the air warfare consumed much needed ammunition production capability.
Anyway, about the Flak guns, the "ground" version could have been different, but it was overall similar I suposse. Therefore, the AA variant was being produced in huge quantity and only because the bombing. So yes, I think it's fair to say that Germany would be capable of produce and employ much more AT guns in the East if was't for the West. Not to mention that the air warfare consumed much needed ammunition production capability.
Last edited:
Marcelo Jenisch
Active member
Quoting Zhukov:
"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries."
Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov,which took place in 1965 and 1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."
I think Zhukov should be considerated with much respect, specially because his statements are similar from those of Stalin himself according to Khrushchev. And while not all Russian arquives are open in order for us to have a definitive conclusion of the Lend-Lease impact, those were man who "made" the archives.
David Glantz is an opponent of the Lend-Lease critical tesis. Since he appreciates Soviet sources, it would be interesting to see what he thinks of Zhukov's words.
"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries."
Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov,which took place in 1965 and 1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."
I think Zhukov should be considerated with much respect, specially because his statements are similar from those of Stalin himself according to Khrushchev. And while not all Russian arquives are open in order for us to have a definitive conclusion of the Lend-Lease impact, those were man who "made" the archives.
David Glantz is an opponent of the Lend-Lease critical tesis. Since he appreciates Soviet sources, it would be interesting to see what he thinks of Zhukov's words.
Last edited:
samneanderthal
Active member
American trucks not only pulled artillery, they supplied the tanks and troops from the railroad, sometimes far away from the fighting. Thousands of American troops were also used to launch Katyusha rockets by the hundreds of thousands and to transport said rockets.
Zhukov doesn't mention the crucial fuel, aluminum, planes, tanks, trains, food, etc, without which the red army was powerless.
Soviet production was completely unbalanced, on the one hand they produced 7 million submachine guns, a half million cannon, 100,000 tanks, etc, but extremely little food (the Ukraine being in German hands), fuel and all the other items that they were extremely lucky to receive from Santa Claus but without which they would have collapsed.
A more detailed list than previously provided:
Throughout WW II the Soviets received 229,000 tons of aluminum, 2,752 Hurricanes, 1,331 Spitfires, 4,719 Airacobras, 2,397 P-40s, 2,400 Kingcobras, 203 P-47s, 5,000 Douglas A-20s, 866 B-25 Mitchells (19,668 planes in total), 2,000 Railroad engines, 3,485 Valentine tanks, 4,100 Sherman tanks (especially made with Diesel engines for the USSR), 832 Matilda tanks, 301 Churchill tanks, 1,200 Lee/Grant tanks, 1,233 Stuart tanks, etc, (over 13,000 tanks in all), 2,336 Bren carriers, 900 M3 halftracks, 3,092 M3A1 Scout cars, 360,000 Studebaker, Ford and Dodge trucks (200,000 of them heavy trucks), 51,000 Willys MB jeeps, 8,070 tractors, 8,000 Ford GPA amphibious vehicles (over 450,000 vehicles in all), 11,000 railroad cars, 62,000 miles of railroad tracks, 5,400 40mm AA guns, 56,445 field telephones, 600,000 km telephone wire, 317,000 tons of explosive materials and 103,000 tons of toluene the primary ingredient of TNT, 991 million shell cases in various sizes, 5.8 million tons of food (canned pork, powdered eggs, bacon, etc,), 15 million pairs of boots, millions of tons of high octane aviation fuel, steel, tires, rubber, medical supplies, etc, The Iranian railroad alone transported 5 million metric tons of supplies to the USSR. In total the USSR received 178 million metric tons. In contrast, the Germans had to relocate many Luftwaffe and army units from the USSR to North Africa in the winter of 1942 (during the Battle of Stalingrad), then to Italy and France, keep a huge air defense force over Germany and lost over 25,000 airplanes on the western front and their factories, rail road centers, power plants and cities were consistently bombed, which greatly contributed to the defeat of Germany in the USSR. On average in 1944 Germany lost 1,000 planes per month to the Angloes and 400 planes to the Soviets, in spite of the enormous size of the eastern front and the fact that Soviet pilots did not have to travel long distances to engage German planes (they had more fighting time and less cruising time).
Zhukov doesn't mention the crucial fuel, aluminum, planes, tanks, trains, food, etc, without which the red army was powerless.
Soviet production was completely unbalanced, on the one hand they produced 7 million submachine guns, a half million cannon, 100,000 tanks, etc, but extremely little food (the Ukraine being in German hands), fuel and all the other items that they were extremely lucky to receive from Santa Claus but without which they would have collapsed.
A more detailed list than previously provided:
Throughout WW II the Soviets received 229,000 tons of aluminum, 2,752 Hurricanes, 1,331 Spitfires, 4,719 Airacobras, 2,397 P-40s, 2,400 Kingcobras, 203 P-47s, 5,000 Douglas A-20s, 866 B-25 Mitchells (19,668 planes in total), 2,000 Railroad engines, 3,485 Valentine tanks, 4,100 Sherman tanks (especially made with Diesel engines for the USSR), 832 Matilda tanks, 301 Churchill tanks, 1,200 Lee/Grant tanks, 1,233 Stuart tanks, etc, (over 13,000 tanks in all), 2,336 Bren carriers, 900 M3 halftracks, 3,092 M3A1 Scout cars, 360,000 Studebaker, Ford and Dodge trucks (200,000 of them heavy trucks), 51,000 Willys MB jeeps, 8,070 tractors, 8,000 Ford GPA amphibious vehicles (over 450,000 vehicles in all), 11,000 railroad cars, 62,000 miles of railroad tracks, 5,400 40mm AA guns, 56,445 field telephones, 600,000 km telephone wire, 317,000 tons of explosive materials and 103,000 tons of toluene the primary ingredient of TNT, 991 million shell cases in various sizes, 5.8 million tons of food (canned pork, powdered eggs, bacon, etc,), 15 million pairs of boots, millions of tons of high octane aviation fuel, steel, tires, rubber, medical supplies, etc, The Iranian railroad alone transported 5 million metric tons of supplies to the USSR. In total the USSR received 178 million metric tons. In contrast, the Germans had to relocate many Luftwaffe and army units from the USSR to North Africa in the winter of 1942 (during the Battle of Stalingrad), then to Italy and France, keep a huge air defense force over Germany and lost over 25,000 airplanes on the western front and their factories, rail road centers, power plants and cities were consistently bombed, which greatly contributed to the defeat of Germany in the USSR. On average in 1944 Germany lost 1,000 planes per month to the Angloes and 400 planes to the Soviets, in spite of the enormous size of the eastern front and the fact that Soviet pilots did not have to travel long distances to engage German planes (they had more fighting time and less cruising time).
Last edited:
Marcelo Jenisch
Active member
Fact. So was German production; first great resources in tanks, then submarines, then planes. In each case there was a boost in production, but not enough to compensate for the vast demands of the multi-front war Germany was in. Without such demands, and the Soviets without LL, certainly the situation would not be very nice for them.
Marcelo Jenisch
Active member
BTW, did the Soviets received penicillin? Not a critical factor of course, but curiosity of mine...
Der Alte
Banned
Yes, as the War began to go against Germany. The static FLAK batteries in Germany continued to be operated by the Army, Navy and Air Force, but personnel were replaced by older men in the Home Guard, youth in the Reich Labor Service (RAD), and Hitler Youth boys and girls. Women auxiliaries were also involved. There were a variety of other personnel involved, including Italian, Hungarian, and Russian POWs.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I have to agree, I have started to back slowly away from this discussion before they paint a swastika on Santa's slay and invade North Africa with his elves.
Der Alte
Banned
No, they received nothing. Scientific research in the field of penicillin in the Soviet Union dates back to 1942, when research was organized in the Laboratory of the Biochemistry of Microbes at the Institute of Experimental Medicine. A usefull production did not appear until the end of 1946, and was not accessible to soldiers untill the middle of 1947.
Translated from the Khimiko-Farmatsevticheskii Zhurnal, October 1967.
Der Alte
Banned
Maybe one day we will. We invented both the atomic bomb and the flying saucer, you know. ;-)
Marcelo Jenisch
Active member
I'm not in the absurd conceptions. At least most things I have said can be considerated in a hypotetical German-Soviet war with Germany invading the USSR like historically. lol
Der Alte
Banned
Lend Lease didn't save the USSR from defeat – the Soviets would have won the key battles of Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad without it. Lend Lease made the gigantic Red Army more efficient by improving its logistics and communications.
A more efficient army can build up supplies and troops for an offensive more quickly than an inefficient one. Lend Lease made the 'Russian steamroller' roll faster by reducing the time needed to build up stockpiles of food, fuel and ammunition near the launching point of the next offensive.
So without Lend Lease, the Soviet timetable would have suffered delays, meaning the Red Army would take longer to reach Berlin. Impossible to say exactly how much longer, but I think the delay would be measured in months rather than weeks, although not in years.
samneanderthal
Active member
Sorry I meant thousands of American trucks (not troops) were used to launch Katyushas.
A red army with 28,000 tanks and planes was swept aside in Barbarossa by 3,600 German tanks and planes, in large part because the Germans destroyed trucks, trains, etc, so the red tanks and planes couldn't fight without fuel and ammo.
German and Soviet armor in the eastern front:
June 1941 3,671 German, 28,800 Soviet, March 1942 1,503 German, 4,690 Soviet, May 1942 3,981 German, 6,190 Soviet, Nov 1942 3,133 German, 4,940 Soviet (the smallest difference during the war). By March 1943 the war was lost: 2,374 German, 7,200 Soviet, the Soviets had air, artillery and troop superiority also.
As you can see in Nov 1942 (Stalingrad) Stalin had nearly the same number of tanks as Hitler (despite Germanyfighting in Africa). Moreover, supplying the few Soviet tanks and battered troops was quite difficult since there were very few trucks, trains and even horses left in the much reduced USSR and Soviet production was very low after hurriedly relocating from the Ukraine and western Russia what was not lost to the Urals.
Just during the last quarter of 1942 (during the battle of Stalingrad), Stalin received 350,000 tons of steel, 250.000 tons of aviation fuel, 60,000 trucks, 11,000 jeeps, 2 million boots, 50,000 tons of explosives, 300 Airacobras, etc, At the same time the Allies disembarked in North Africa, forcing Hitler to relocate troops, tanks and planes from the USSR. The reduced strength of the Luftwaffe in Stalingrad allowed the Soviets to gain air superiority over Stalingrad and to move troops from the eastern side of the Volga and finish off the German army, which could not be supplied by air, because of the Soviet air superiority, the bad weather and the lack of Ju-52s (many of which were also sent to Africa and promptly lost there).
A red army with 28,000 tanks and planes was swept aside in Barbarossa by 3,600 German tanks and planes, in large part because the Germans destroyed trucks, trains, etc, so the red tanks and planes couldn't fight without fuel and ammo.
German and Soviet armor in the eastern front:
June 1941 3,671 German, 28,800 Soviet, March 1942 1,503 German, 4,690 Soviet, May 1942 3,981 German, 6,190 Soviet, Nov 1942 3,133 German, 4,940 Soviet (the smallest difference during the war). By March 1943 the war was lost: 2,374 German, 7,200 Soviet, the Soviets had air, artillery and troop superiority also.
As you can see in Nov 1942 (Stalingrad) Stalin had nearly the same number of tanks as Hitler (despite Germanyfighting in Africa). Moreover, supplying the few Soviet tanks and battered troops was quite difficult since there were very few trucks, trains and even horses left in the much reduced USSR and Soviet production was very low after hurriedly relocating from the Ukraine and western Russia what was not lost to the Urals.
Just during the last quarter of 1942 (during the battle of Stalingrad), Stalin received 350,000 tons of steel, 250.000 tons of aviation fuel, 60,000 trucks, 11,000 jeeps, 2 million boots, 50,000 tons of explosives, 300 Airacobras, etc, At the same time the Allies disembarked in North Africa, forcing Hitler to relocate troops, tanks and planes from the USSR. The reduced strength of the Luftwaffe in Stalingrad allowed the Soviets to gain air superiority over Stalingrad and to move troops from the eastern side of the Volga and finish off the German army, which could not be supplied by air, because of the Soviet air superiority, the bad weather and the lack of Ju-52s (many of which were also sent to Africa and promptly lost there).
Marcelo Jenisch
Active member
Without Lend-Lease to the Soviets, the Western Allies would certainly appreciate the contents for their use. :mrgreen:
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
See now we have the link, test flights of the Fw-Seigh-A1 were observed and reported as flying saucers, the Sleigh was the Luftwaffes long range delivery system for the atomic bomb thus explaining Rudolf's glowing nose.
After the war captured versions were sold to Mattel who reinvented it as a long range toy delivery system, damn these conspiracies...
