USA WW2 Lend Lease - Page 11




 
--
 
August 27th, 2015  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
This is certainly an interesting thought. Had Hitler somehow restrained himself from his desire for Lebensraum Nazi Germany might have been around for quite a bit longer? No dought the US would have gotten involved, but one can only speculate as to the outcome.
It may have been harder for the Allies to get a toehold on northwest Europe with the additional German forces that would have been available. As it stood the Allies drew away ~ (>15 to 35) % of the German forces - resources from the Eastern front (depending on what time period one looks at).
Some speculate that Stalin would have eventually attack Germany. However one has to look at the fact that Stalin also greatly feared Hitler. So this theory that the USSR would have eventually attacked Germany is hypothetical as well.
Maybe Europe had been close to how the book and the movie "The Fatherland" describes it.

I have also heard and read about the Soviet Union might have attacked the Nazi occupied east Europe. I think the Russians had attacked if they were severely provoked, but if the Germans didn't provoke them, I doubt they had attacked. But that is only a speculation.

Things like this is pretty close to the speculations about a war between NATO and the Warsaw pact
August 29th, 2015  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
The USSR teetered on the brink of disaster up to Stalingrad. Had they more troops, planes, AFV's, troops though this period Germany would have likely knocked the USSR out of the war. Stalin was quoted as saying if we are pushed back past the Volga where do we have to go? In other words controlling the USSR Volga lifeline and the Caucus oilfields (which my sources say supplied 70% of Soviet oil) would have been a virtual victory in itself. The Germans came very close to meeting these objectives regardless of a sometimes flawed supply system. Had they not had to devote resources to Africa, Italy, Malta the Atlantic, the sky's over Germany, etc. these additional forces would have likely tipped the balance to a point that the Soviets would not have been able to recover from the German onslaught.

It should be noted that the Reds had to use this same infrastructure when moving west from 43 on and were able to do so with an army that was ~ 2ce the size of that of Germany and allies. They moved with speed, although this was in part due to the lend lease trucks received from the US, the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2 ton were easily the best trucks of the war.
It's quite easy to say that if Germany had more men, AFVs, planes etc they would have knocked the USSR out of the war. The fact is though they didn't, never mind more ammunition, spare parts and especially oil. The Germans had to knock out the USSR quickly in 1941 before the latter could bring their superior industrial might and resources to bear. You seem to be stuck in an outdated vision which more recent information has made obsolete. Stalingrad was not decisive in any way, nor was Kursk, or the 3rd battle of Kharkov or the Rzhev 'meat grinder'. I'm a great admirer of the German Army in WW2 but the war was lost well before any of these battles took place.

LL aided greatly in keeping the Soviet railroad system running and this probably had a bigger influence in moving the Red Army westward after Kursk.

Incidentally, it's easy to say that had Germany treated the Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians etc with respect then it would have made their job much easier. The fact is, Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler had he done so and his warped racial ideology would have made all of this impossible. probably a subject for a new thread anyway as it's coming more into 'what if'.
August 29th, 2015  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
It's quite easy to say that if Germany had more men, AFVs, planes etc they would have knocked the USSR out of the war. The fact is though they didn't, never mind more ammunition, spare parts and especially oil. The Germans had to knock out the USSR quickly in 1941 before the latter could bring their superior industrial might and resources to bear. You seem to be stuck in an outdated vision which more recent information has made obsolete. Stalingrad was not decisive in any way, nor was Kursk, or the 3rd battle of Kharkov or the Rzhev 'meat grinder'. I'm a great admirer of the German Army in WW2 but the war was lost well before any of these battles took place.

LL aided greatly in keeping the Soviet railroad system running and this probably had a bigger influence in moving the Red Army westward after Kursk.

Incidentally, it's easy to say that had Germany treated the Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians etc with respect then it would have made their job much easier. The fact is, Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler had he done so and his warped racial ideology would have made all of this impossible. probably a subject for a new thread anyway as it's coming more into 'what if'.
I disagree with Stalingrad wasn't decisive, it was decisive mentally for both parts. The Russians felt they can defeat the Germans and the Germans got themselves a mental blow. When war is like many other things a human act, how the populations feel and view defeats and victories are significant for the moral of the people. Of course the propaganda plays a major role in to increase it. The Russians achieved the self confidence and the German lost their confidence.
--
August 29th, 2015  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
I disagree with Stalingrad wasn't decisive, it was decisive mentally for both parts. The Russians felt they can defeat the Germans and the Germans got themselves a mental blow. When war is like many other things a human act, how the populations feel and view defeats and victories are significant for the moral of the people. Of course the propaganda plays a major role in to increase it. The Russians achieved the self confidence and the German lost their confidence.
Sorry, I completely disagree. Whatever you feel about the mental states of each population has no relevance whatsoever. Expand your reading and look at the cold hard facts. What you wrote is essentially mumbo jumbo.
August 30th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Sorry, I completely disagree. Whatever you feel about the mental states of each population has no relevance whatsoever. Expand your reading and look at the cold hard facts. What you wrote is essentially mumbo jumbo.
1st off the actual defeat of Germany is a hypothetical point. It took years of warfare by a combination of nations to bring the Nazi's down. You can read Glantz (which I have) or Richard Overy or any number of books and gather any number of different opinions. It really doesn't matter how many books one has read after a while one draws his own conclusions and that's all they are is his own conclusions about a hypothetical point in time. Many factors could have tipped the balance, but as it turned out Germany was ground down by the USSR and the Allies thru sheer economic might and numbers. To me the facts point to the loss that couldn't be hidden or recovered from and that occurred at Stalingrad. You mention the USSR as being more of an economic giant than that of Germany. Fact the USSR did not catch up economically to Germany until 43. And yes the moral gained from the victory at Stalingrad went a long way in helping the Red army to push it's way west and begin to recoup the territories it had lost. The Germans continued to fight hard all the way to Berlin but their err of invincibility quickly became a myth.
August 30th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
The Germans continued to fight hard all the way to Berlin but their err of invincibility quickly became a myth.
Had German invincibility been anything but a myth Britain would have surrendered in 1940, Belgium, France, Holland, Greece and a host of nations would not have even tried to resist had there been any thought of German invincibility.

You only have to listen to people today rehashing the old cliches of shells bouncing off German tanks during the invasion of France to see how ingrained the propaganda of WW2 has become.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
I disagree with Stalingrad wasn't decisive, it was decisive mentally for both parts. The Russians felt they can defeat the Germans and the Germans got themselves a mental blow. When war is like many other things a human act, how the populations feel and view defeats and victories are significant for the moral of the people. Of course the propaganda plays a major role in to increase it. The Russians achieved the self confidence and the German lost their confidence.
Yet through 1943, 1944 and 1945 German production grew, they manned AA batteries, they did what every they could for the troops at the front and they continued to actively prosecute the war, Bomber Command over head by night and the USAF by day and still they stoically fought on just as citizens of Britain did during the blitz, the one thing that tragedy is good at is galvanising a people and the loss at Stalingrad would have been no different.
August 30th, 2015  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Sorry, I completely disagree. Whatever you feel about the mental states of each population has no relevance whatsoever. Expand your reading and look at the cold hard facts. What you wrote is essentially mumbo jumbo.
It's not what I feel, it's what I know about wars. They are a human act and how people feel about them have a huge significance for how the people respond to them when things are going south. Churchill was really good to rally people for the war effort when things were very dark for the British. So you are saying this was not important? The same thing for the Russians when they defeated the Germans at Stalingrad.

Take a trip to Sandhurst, you will change your perceptions of war if you do.
August 30th, 2015  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
It's not what I feel, it's what I know about wars. They are a human act and how people feel about them have a huge significance for how the people respond to them when things are going south. Churchill was really good to rally people for the war effort when things were very dark for the British. So you are saying this was not important? The same thing for the Russians when they defeated the Germans at Stalingrad.

Take a trip to Sandhurst, you will change your perceptions of war if you do.
I understand what you say and even agree with it. Another example, Stalin's rallying cry during October 1941 that stiffened Russian resolve in Moscow when their capital was under real threat. I just don't think it has any relevance to the argument at hand.
 


Similar Topics
My problem: "In my town they believe about USA and Nazi Germany"
WW2 if the USA hadn't entered the war
What 5 - 10% Lend Lease Meant to USSR in WWII
Could USA defeat USSR before the WW2 begun??
Can USA really win a big war?