The Eastern Front decided WWII?

M

Marcelo Jenisch

Active member
Hello,

Folks, I was reading a very interesting article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtm

In my view, it ilustrates clearly that despite the very relevant Soviet effort in the ground war, every major Allied country did it's crucial part. What the Soviets call "decisive victories", were certainly interconnected with what happened in the West e.g the naval blockade of Germany, U-boat construction instead of armor, the bombing and others.

I know if Stalin was defeated, things would change radically for the Western Allies. But, if Britain was defeated or signed peace, the situation could not become favourable to Stalin either. If the Americans didn't provided Lend-Lease for the British, they would not be able to continue the war. So, I cannot digest this "decisive front" popular meaning of the war in the East.

In the end, the West needed of the East and vice versa. This is my analysis to have a neutral perspective of the war in Europe.

What are your opinions?
 
Last edited:
Hi Marcelo,
Germany simply could not fight a long war on 2 fronts. Therefore, both fronts benefitted greatly from each other.
Had Germany fought only the USSR it would not have lost air superiority, so regardless of the exagerated tank production, Stalin would have lost the tanks and the trucks that supplied them.
Despite a much smaller front, the west destroyed most of the German planes (including the best planes, while the most primitive survived much longer in the USSR). The west destroyed the transportation systems, industry, synthetic and natural oil production capacity. Fuel, transportation and planes decided WW II.

Given the steel, coal, hydrocarbons, truck, shipping, railroad engine and airplane production of the west (not to mention the atomic bomb), the west would have defeated Germany eventually without the USSR (like it did eventually in WW I without Russia), but the USSR could not have defeated Germany without all the help from the west.
 
Hello samneanderthal,

I also hold the view that Germany without a war in the USSR or without it's supplies, maybe would be more easily defeated by the West than the Soviets would be capable of defeat it if they were alone.

My point with this topic is a critic to from what I perceive is an exaggeration of the Soviet contribution in the West today. While I certainly recognize the brutal scale of the war in the East and the ultimate sacrifice the Soviets had in terms of lifes lost, I don't agree they turned the tide of the war alone, or, like usually told, "decided" the war. It was an all out joint effort in my view. Hence it was a global conflict.

I perfectly understand the Cold War diminuished considerably the Soviet contribution, which is certainly wrong (and this is also appliable to the Soviet side about the West). However, this is not an excuse to do the same mistake again, just putting the Soviets in place of the Western Allies as the saviors against the Nazy tyranny, which they certainly played a big part, but only with the joint Allied cooperation.
 
Last edited:
Marcelo Jenisch said:
Hello,

Folks, I was reading a very interesting article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtm

In my view, it ilustrates clearly that despite the very relevant Soviet effort in the ground war, every major Allied country did it's crucial part. What the Soviets call "decisive victories", were certainly interconnected with what happened in the West e.g the naval blockade of Germany, U-boat construction instead of armor, the bombing and others.

I know if Stalin was defeated, things would change radically for the Western Allies. But, if Britain was defeated or signed peace, the situation could not become favourable to Stalin either. If the Americans didn't provided Lend-Lease for the British, they would not be able to continue the war. So, I cannot digest this "decisive front" popular meaning of the war in the East.

In the end, the West needed of the East and vice versa. This is my analysis to have a neutral perspective of the war in Europe.

What are your opinions?
Click to expand...

I think no matter how we try and paint it the war was effectively decided in the East the Russian Front consumed roughly two thirds of the German armed forces with the rest scattered all over Europe.

There is no doubt that the Western Allies played a major role as well but on no where near the scale of the Eastern Front.
 
MontyB said:
I think no matter how we try and paint it the war was effectively decided in the East the Russian Front consumed roughly two thirds of the German armed forces with the rest scattered all over Europe.

There is no doubt that the Western Allies played a major role as well but on no where near the scale of the Eastern Front.
Click to expand...
The Germans stuck their finger into a machine that sucked them in & ground them up.
 
MontyB said:
I think no matter how we try and paint it the war was effectively decided in the East the Russian Front consumed roughly two thirds of the German armed forces with the rest scattered all over Europe.
Click to expand...

2/3 of the Army specifically. And as I already told, those 2/3 were interconnected with the West, talking about the German casualities there. It was the naval blockade of Germany, the U-boat being built to the West, the plane, the factory destroyed, the Lend-lease cargo arriving in the USSR, all those Western Allied factors were very important reasons to 7 from each 10 Army casualities the Germans suffered being in the East.

Some historians today criticize former German officers when they supposedly don't want to admit they were defeated in the East by the "sub-human Slavs", which I don't think it's fair. The opinion of such officers is usually based in my argumention line: The Germans could deal with the Russians alone, even if not to achive total victory, but not with the Russians and their alies.

Here's an example of it:

As for the death blow to the Luftwaffe, according to Galland it was struck not in 1943 but in the winter of 1944-45, when Germany exhausted its fighter capability in the Ardennes campaign.8 Moreover, the Germans, who were subjected to and could assess both Soviet and Western applications of air power, not only regretted their inability to cope with the Anglo-American strategic bombardment but saw their lack of such a capability as a decisive factor in their defeat in Russia.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/may-jun/collins.html

Richard Overy criticizes the argument of the two front war defeating Germany in his book Why the Allies won, citing the American example. Particularly, I don't think this has much sense, because it pit the Allied contributions against each other.
 
Last edited:
Nearly all the countries in WW2 made major contributions to war regardless of size and all help towards the final victory. Now on on here the biggest word is IF and that can be used to prove any argument regardless of how ever daft it is
 
LeEnfield said:
Nearly all the countries in WW2 made major contributions to war regardless of size and all help towards the final victory. Now on on here the biggest word is IF and that can be used to prove any argument regardless of how ever daft it is
Click to expand...

An IF about the Soviet Union defeating Germany alone is relative in my view. If Hitler managed to surprise Stalin like historically in such a scenario, I belive it would be at least a hell lot more difficult to Stalin set a foot in Germany, if not impractical. Having said that, if the Soviets managed to avoid the surprise strike, perhaps counter-attacking and keeping the war as far away from the USSR as possible, then the things could become equally hard for the Germans.

Another consideration is with the Japanese. Since Britain and the US would not be involved in the European war, would the Japanese try to attack their much better defended colonies? The Italians also should be considerated.
 
Last edited:
The USSR destroyed 2/3 of the German Army only because the west destroyed 3/4 of the LW, KM, almost all the fuel production and transportation capability, etc,
It is incredible that Germany could inflict so much damage to the Soviet colossus with so few men, planes and tanks. Hitler started Barbarossa with many fewer planes than he had when he invaded France, with ridiculously small numbers of cannon, tanks, trucks, etc, and 625,000 horses, yet the Soviets lost a huge area in record time. Had the west not destroyed most of the huge numbers of planes produced by Speer and provided Stalin with fuel, hundreds of thousands of trucks, etc, German air superiority would have devastated the red army.
It is noteworthy that while Britain provided America with several important inventions and designs (radar, the Merlin engine, etc,) and some equipment, the USSR, despite its huge resources and population gobbled up western materiel and supplies and demanded a second front but did not provide a single tank, cannon, etc, from its ridiculously huge production of these items (it actually received thousands of British and American tanks) and fought always on a single front.
 
Last edited:
The Soviets also destroyed much more of the German Army due to an obvious reason: they were engaging most of the German Army!

The war in the desert also needs consideration, even if Hitler himself and the Americans didn't cared much about it. That front was much smaller, and even so the Axis had almost a milion casualities there, 8,000 aircraft, 6,000 guns, 2500 tanks, and 70,000 trucks. And above all, they lost the oportunity of secure the vast oil fields of the Middle East. It's truth that most of the Italian equipment was obsolete, but if the Italians could take the place of the 300,000 Germans in Norway, fight partisans in Russia, as well as help in overall military operations such as in Leningrad to free even more German manpower, which would be possible in a scenario were a naval blockade didn't existed, certainly the Soviet situation would be even worst. If Italy remained in the war, by 1943 it's industry would help the Axis effort much more. For example, thousands of the excellent Fiat Centauro fighter would be fighting the Soviets. Ah, and to finish: Germany would have a much better chance to develop the atomic bomb.

I also would like to say that I have all the respect for the USSR and their sacrifices in the war. Just want to put the things in the proper WORLD WAR context they deserve.
 
Last edited:
That the Axis lost 8000 aircraft and 1 million men in NA,is simply impossible .
That the Italians could replace the German occupation troops in Norway,is a Spielerei.
The importance of the small oil fields of the ME can be discarded
Last point :Germany never had any chance to develop the Atomic Bomb .
 
Marcelo Jenisch said:
2/3 of the Army specifically. And as I already told, those 2/3 were interconnected with the West, talking about the German casualities there. It was the naval blockade of Germany, the U-boat being built to the West, the plane, the factory destroyed, the Lend-lease cargo arriving in the USSR, all those Western Allied factors were very important reasons to 7 from each 10 Army casualities the Germans suffered being in the East.

Some historians today criticize former German officers when they supposedly don't want to admit they were defeated in the East by the "sub-human Slavs", which I don't think it's fair. The opinion of such officers is usually based in my argumention line: The Germans could deal with the Russians alone, even if not to achive total victory, but not with the Russians and their alies.

Here's an example of it:

As for the death blow to the Luftwaffe, according to Galland it was struck not in 1943 but in the winter of 1944-45, when Germany exhausted its fighter capability in the Ardennes campaign.8 Moreover, the Germans, who were subjected to and could assess both Soviet and Western applications of air power, not only regretted their inability to cope with the Anglo-American strategic bombardment but saw their lack of such a capability as a decisive factor in their defeat in Russia.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/may-jun/collins.html

Richard Overy criticizes the argument of the two front war defeating Germany in his book Why the Allies won, citing the American example. Particularly, I don't think this has much sense, because it pit the Allied contributions against each other.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are trying to measure intangibles, for example it is a solid argument to say that the around the clock bombing of Germany by the USAF and the RAF had an effect on the Russian Front because German production was disrupted and production of weapons and manpower had to be diverted to defending the Reich instead of reinforcing the front but you can not quantify the actual affect because even had Germany made 100,000 more tanks they did not have the fuel, manpower or logistics to get them into action, they could have built 10,000 more fighters but without trained pilots and the fuel to get them off the ground they were useless.

As for Galland well even though he was a nice guy and a great pilot he was just plain wrong, the death blow for the Luftwaffe was not in 1944-45 or even 1943 it was in 1941-42 when it was decided that the war was as good as won and new aircraft types were not going to be required that cost the Luftwaffe or it was in 1937-38 when it was decided that a long range large payload strategic bomber was not needed thus letting Britain off the hook in 1940.

It was poor decisions right through its development that destroyed the Luftwaffe not the last throw of the dice in 1945 when the war was already lost.

Whether a second front was necessary well the only question you have to ask is if D-Day had not happened would the Russians have defeated Germany on its own and given the conditions on June 5th 1944 I think you would have to say the Russians could have finished it with or without Western help, it would have taken longer and cost them a lot more but if as people believe Germany lost the war in the East in November-December 1941 outside Moscow then D-Day really didn't affect the final outcome it just sped it up.
 
Last edited:
lljadw said:
That the Axis lost 8000 aircraft and 1 million men in NA,is simply impossible .
Click to expand...

According to this Wik article with sources, it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign#cite_note-8

Actually almost one million are casualities not only KIA.

That the Italians could replace the German occupation troops in Norway,is a Spielerei.
Click to expand...

Why, if there would no be war in Africa?

The importance of the small oil fields of the ME can be discarded
Click to expand...

News to me.

Last point :Germany never had any chance to develop the Atomic Bomb .
Click to expand...

Historicallly, yes.
 
MontyB said:
The problem is that you are trying to measure intangibles
Click to expand...

I would need to do a research to prove my arguments in detail, but they are certainly very logical, and by no means to desconsiderate in a hypotetical German-Soviet war.

but you can not quantify the actual affect because even had Germany made 100,000 more tanks they did not have the fuel, manpower or logistics to get them into action, they could have built 10,000 more fighters but without trained pilots and the fuel to get them off the ground they were useless.
Click to expand...

The problem is that in such a scenario Germany would not have a naval blockade, it would be capable of manufacture much more itens, expanded the sintetic oil system, and not have the historical losses from oil and everything else due to the bombing, and also would be able to import fuel. So, it would be in a much better position to both improve the historical contingent and expand it. While the Soviets would suffer the cumulative effects of both the much improved German situation and lack of the Lend-Lease and it's fuel component: http://www.oilru.com/or/47/1006/

As for Galland well even though he was a nice guy and a great pilot he was just plain wrong, the death blow for the Luftwaffe was not in 1944-45 or even 1943 it was in 1941-42 when it was decided that the war was as good as won and new aircraft types were not going to be required that cost the Luftwaffe or it was in 1937-38 when it was decided that a long range large payload strategic bomber was not needed thus letting Britain off the hook in 1940.

It was poor decisions right through its development that destroyed the Luftwaffe not the last throw of the dice in 1945 when the war was already lost.
Click to expand...

You don't understand Galland. His point and from Speer are that the LW could have disrupted the Russian offensives if they were not so engaged in the West, and suffering most casualities of the fighter forces there, as well as having the fuel production system destroyed. The bombing also meant that Germany focused it's production in fighter designs (including night-fighters), which definetely had an impact in the East (the fighter-bomber versions of the Fw 190 were effective, but most 190s were defending the Reich).

Whether a second front was necessary well the only question you have to ask is if D-Day had not happened would the Russians have defeated Germany on its own and given the conditions on June 5th 1944 I think you would have to say the Russians could have finished it with or without Western help, it would have taken longer and cost them a lot more but if as people believe Germany lost the war in the East in November-December 1941 outside Moscow then D-Day really didn't affect the final outcome it just sped it up.
Click to expand...

Historically, eh? Your problem is that you are not considerating all the pro-German points and those against the Soviets in an alternative scenario were everything could be drastically different.
 
Last edited:
It is significant that the west destroyed or put out of commission nearly 5,000 German planes and most of the experienced German pilots and German navy and over 1,600 tanks in Poland, Norway, France, Holland, Belgium, Britain, Greece, NA, Malta, Yugoslavia, etc, before Barbarossa (while Stalin was invading Poland and Finland, selling oil, grain, chromium, manganese, etc, to Hitler on credit, allowing a German submarine base in the USSR, and applying to join the axis). The west also forced Hitler to divert hundreds of urgently needed planes, tanks, etc, from Stalingrad to NA to counter Torch. It is interesting to speculate what the Afrika Korps and the Italian forces could have accomplished in the USSR, instead of fighting in NA. The west destroyed 1,000 planes per month on average in 1944, while the Soviets only 400, despite the huge front. The LW in the USSR even before Kursk was a caricature of the LW in the west, after Kursk it was a skeleton force.
Planes, fuel and trucks decided WW II and those were made mostly in the west and those from the axis destroyed by the west.
To put it another way. Had America declared war on the formidable red army after Germany fell, the red army would have promptly collapsed without incoming American trucks, food, railroad engines, fuel, etc, and with its existing trucks, trains, fuel, tanks, ships, etc, blown up by tens of thousands of modern planes and its industry, transportation system, etc, blown up by thousands of 4 engine bombers. Not to mention the fact that millions of Soviet troops would gladly surrender to and join the Americans, knowing that they would be much better treated than by the red army.
 
Last edited:
=The west destroyed 1,000 planes per month on average in 1944, while the Soviets only 400, despite the huge front.
Click to expand...

The Soviets would certainly not destroy 400 planes per month with all the Luftwaffe in the East. Even if we desconsiderate the fact that those 400 planes per month were interconnected with the Lend-Lease aircraft, fuel, communication equipament for airdromes, aviation aluminum, etc. Now imagine all those factors out, imagine all the German fighter in the East, and imagine the quality of the German aircraft industry in a single front war. The thousands of Fw 190 Jabos replacing Stukas and puting the German casualities in a much lower state. The Germans also would have time to improve existent designs, such as put the 2,400 hp BMW-801 engine in the Focke Wulfs. The VVS fighters, with inferior fuels and lack of adequate Command and Control capability, would suffer terribly.

I don't know why people call those considerations as intangibles, since they were the pure truth. This is the same sort of consideration people say about the West without the East, just the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the Soviet wartime economy approaching the exhaustion by 1945? If I'm not wrong, the Soviets were already desmobilizing men for the agriculture because they were having problems with it, despite the vast amount of LL supplies, including food.
 
Marcelo Jenisch said:
I don't know why people call those considerations as intangibles, since they were the pure truth. This is the same sort of consideration people say about the West without the East, just the opposite.
Click to expand...

They are called intangibles because you can not measure there value, it may have been that the bombing of Germany was the decissive action of the war but you can not place an actual value on the action therefore it is intangible.

However hundreds of miles to the East we know that titanic battles were going on and that from 1943 on the Russians were winning those battles, we know that on the eve of D-Day Army Group Centre was on the verge of being destroyed in Operation Bagration, that between 22 June and 19 August 1944 they inflicted greater losses on the German army than the Wehrmacht had suffered in five months at Stalingrad. With more than 2.3 million men, six times the artillery and twice the number of tanks that launched the Battle of the Bulge, it was the largest Allied operation of World War II.
 
Precisely the point is that Bagration was rendered possible because the LW in the east was a joke by that time. A decent LW would have wiped out the supply lines and most of the tanks, artillery, etc, greatly increasing survivability of the German tanks, etc, Isn't it surprising that Hitler would deploy half as many tanks in a tiny front in the west and the offensive last a few weeks before they ran out of fuel and the western air force destroyed them?
Nothing illustrates the red army's ability and damage inflicted on the Germans better than Stalin having to build 100,000 tanks, a half million cannon, 37,000 Sturmoviks with millions of antitank bombs, etc, to counter the effect of a few thousand German tanks and a few hundred Stukas at any time in his front, with many being lost to mechanical failure, wear, getting stuck in mud, snow or ice, antitank ditches, mines, abandonment because of fuel shortage, etc,
I wonder how long would Wittman have survived and how many tanks he would have destroyed in the east, instead of lasting a few days in the west. Similarly, how long would the more than 100 super aces with over 50 kills in the east and Rudel, etc, have lasted, had they been in the west?
How many kills would Marseille and the aces lost over Germany, in Bodenplatte, etc, have achieved in the east? What would Rommel have accomplished in the east?
The 88 mm was by far the best return on investment the Germans made in WW II, yet they produced fewer than 19,000 and most of them were facing the west as AA in Germany, France, etc, or as AT in Africa, italy, yet the few in the east accounted for a lot of tanks. Had most of them been in the east, Stalin's 100,000 tanks would have had a lot of trouble.
 
Last edited:
Marcelo Jenisch said:
According to this Wik article with sources, it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign#cite_note-8

Actually almost one million are casualities not only KIA.



Why, if there would no be war in Africa?



News to me.



Historicallly, yes.
Click to expand...
The Germans lost less than 200000 men in Lybia,the Italians never lost 800000 men in Lybia
The oil :the 1940 world production was :293 million ton
US 182,9 (and it was increasing in the war)
ME :13 million (of which 8.8 for Persia)
SU :30.5
Romania :5.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top