Ww2

[Daminc]

This thread is created to allow Smurf to teach me why America won the second world war :biggrin:

[Smurf]

Or, more historically accurate, why America's involvement in the war may have been a deciding factor, but was not the deciding factor. It's even arguable that America's involvement prolonged the war and caused more bad than good.

[Smurf]

Now, you'll have to bare with me, I'm going to be very thurough with this and will probably spend half an hour tracking down an official source for most of my information just so I can say 'Ha!' at the end of it.

[Smurf]

Now, in the previous thread you said this:
America only entered because they had to. Rooselvelt was a sly b@stard who promised Churchill aid but only delived when he absolutely had to. If he had his own way he would have kept America out of it.
It had nothing to do with helping Britain win the war but was motivated by preventing America being next.This is one of my absolute favorite examples of propoganda, lies, deceit and how history is written by the victors.

Now, be back in half an hour....

--

Okay, the errors in this statement are:
1. The prevailing connotation that Roosevelt was against going to war in Europe and East Asia.
2. The prevailing assumption that Churchill wanted Roosevelt to go to war in Europe and East Asia.
3. Confusion with what Roosevelt wanted to do, and what he was able to do, as well as what he campaigned for to win the election vs. what he wanted to do after he won.
4. The odd statement that implies America was afraid Germany or Japan would invade America 'next'.

Which one do you want me to tackle first?

[Daminc]

Start with 1 please :)

[Smurf]

Okay. The most controversial thing about FDR (in my opinion) is that he campaigned on the promise to keep America out of foreign wars "At all costs". Remember at this time the USA was extremely isolationist and (frankly) racist. It still had segregation and refused rights to 'non-christian' immigrants. People didn't want to go over seas to fight in what they considered, non-of-their-business.

Then, after winning that campaign he turns around and pushes, pokes, nudges and shoves the US into war every way he can think of. Don't ask me for motivation, I'm still trying to peice all of that together myself, but I'll let you know once I think I have a consistant theory.

Having said that, there is plenty of evidence to show Roosevelt's intentions were far from 'neutrality', since opening a secret channel with Churchill, Roosevelt did several very questionable acts:
1. The exchange of American destroyers for British bases, September, 1940. - This was a clear departure from neutrality and was also a violation of some specific American laws.
2. The Lend-Lease Act in March, 1941. - In complete contradiction to the Neutrality Act, this made the United States a partner in the economic war against the Axis Powers globally.
3. The secret American-British staff talks in Washington in January - March, 1941. - Carefully concealed from congress at the time. At this time the administration spokesmen were still assuring everyone that there were no warlike implicationsof the Lend-Lease Act.
4. The inauguration of "naval patrols" for the purpose of reporting the presence of German submarines to British warships, in the Atlantic in April, 1941.
5. Sending American laborers to Northern Ireland to build a naval base.
6. The occupation of Iceland by American troops in July, 1941. (I do hope you don't need an explanation for this one)
7. The Atlantic Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill, August 9-12, 1941.
8. The orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines, announced September 11, 41. (this is when hostilities actually started, not when war was declared after pearl harbour)

There are more, but I want to move on. Provoking Japan into war was the idea of a guy called Henry Stimson, who was his secretary at the time. You may recognise his name on the Stimson doctrine, issued to China and Japan in 1939, basically stating that the USA did not recognize Manchuria as Japanese territory. He was, needless to say, also a main force behind the oil embargo on Japan.

More importantly, there were some papers, called the McCollum Memo. In this, McCollum states "It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado", followed by 8 suggested courses of action. McCollum explains his proposal in no uncertain terms: "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better." (how comical). Viewable here (http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/archive/documents/mccollum_memo.htm). But also here. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=McCollum+Memo)

'nuff said really... Damn! 4 minutes too long.

[Smurf]

One man discussions are pretty boring you know....

[Daminc]

According to the documentary the people of American did not want to join in with the war and Rosenvelt agreed with this. His own aides described him as a BS'er saying that anything that Rosenvelt said could be taken with a pitch of salt.

The documentary also said, in agreement with you, that warships were exchanged for bases.

Dispite American supply ships being blown up by the Germans they didn't join in although "The orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines,"

Instead, FDR funded the Russains' to fight from another front.

The only reason American joined in was because of the attack on Pearl Harbour. If the Japanese hadn't made the tactical error of not finishing the job then America's naval fleet would have been decimated and would not have been able to join in anyway.

Have you watched the documentary? I'm not saying that everything on there is true because I'm not in a position to be certain.

[Smurf]

According to the documentary the people of American did not want to join in with the war and Rosenvelt agreed with this. His own aides described him as a BS'er saying that anything that Rosenvelt said could be taken with a pitch of salt.Can you explain in more detail? I certainly wouldn't trust his speeches or anything, but in what context were they saying that?

The documentary also said, in agreement with you, that warships were exchanged for bases.Well I'd hopeso, the destroyer for bases exchange is taught in every history textbook worth 40 pence.

Dispite American supply ships being blown up by the Germans they didn't join in although "The orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines,"Doesn't make it peacefull just because war wasn't declared. The USA had hostilities towards Germany far before pearl harbour. I believe (but have no evidence for) FDR's plan was to escalate this into war with Germany, but Japan got involved and everything happened earlier.

Instead, FDR funded the Russains' to fight from another front.The Lend-Lease program you mean? I'll get to the details of that later.

The only reason American joined in was because of the attack on Pearl Harbour. If the Japanese hadn't made the tactical error of not finishing the job then America's naval fleet would have been decimated and would not have been able to join in anyway.Well, that's arguable. The American fleet would have eventually rebuilt (the US industrial capacity was way beyond Japan's) and the USA still had their pacific fleet fully intact. I doubt you could knock out the US quite that easily.

Have you watched the documentary? I'm not saying that everything on there is true because I'm not in a position to be certain.
I've watched a lot of Documentaries, which one are you refering too?

--

Any questions?

[russ_watters]

So far, so good, Smurf. One little comment on Pearl Harbor:

Pearl Harbor actually helped the US more than it helped Japan. And I don't just mean that a good kick in the butt got us off our chair and motivated us. Tactically, as well: It forced us to lean on naval aviation before we really wanted to and we quickly became good at it. It also forced us to enter the war slowly while the fleet was rebuilt (the only ship that didn't get back into service was the Arizona itself) and while our manufacturing capacity kicked-out ships like gingerbread cookies.

Well, two things:
Something to remember, politicians will say damn near anything to get elected as long as they can qualify it enough to avoid an outright lie. Roosevelt could reasonably claim he did do everything possible to stay out of the war "at all costs" because that's a statement open to interpretation. There is a reason he didn't say "under any circumstances"...

Ok, two and a half things.... Whether or not he wanted to go to war, the fact of the matter is that the US had a pretty big fleet in 1940 and a lot more ships under construction. Curious for a country that was not expecting to fight...

[selfAdjoint]

Ok, two and a half things.... Whether or not he wanted to go to war, the fact of the matter is that the US had a pretty big fleet in 1940 and a lot more ships under construction. Curious for a country that was not expecting to fight...

The sizes of the naval fleets of the US, Britain, and Japan were established by the Kellogg-Briand treaty of the 1920's. I don't believe the size or building rate of the US fleet was in violation of this treaty.

[russ_watters]

Japan ended the treaty (Washington Naval Treaty) in 1936. ONE LINK (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Washington-Naval-Treaty) I just found says the treaty actually helped the US's conversion to a carrier-dominant fleet because it focused more on battleships (since, at the time, they were dominant). Since we were above the tonnage limit in the 20s, battleships were converted to carriers.

Anyway, the US did a lot of shipbuilding in the late 1930s, which, to me, indicates preparation for a war they considered a good possibility.

However, people at the time may have just considered that an arms race and not an actual precursor to war - I just don't know.

[GENIERE]

Okay. The most controversial thing about FDR ... Smurf – the history is good but the reasons for a particular action/inaction are not so straightforward. Don’t have time now but I’ll try to respond more in the late evening. In the meantime I suggest some research on the Roosevelt philosophy leading into the present day neo-con philosophy as well as the 1930’s Communist influence on Roosevelt’s staff/advisors. Roosevelt did run on an anti-war platform while fully intending to go to war, most Republicans of the day were avid isolationists and later referred to the war as “Roosevelt’s war”.

Smurf, your posts have much improved lately.

[selfAdjoint]

Japan ended the treaty (Washington Naval Treaty) in 1936. ONE LINK (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Washington-Naval-Treaty) I just found says the treaty actually helped the US's conversion to a carrier-dominant fleet because it focused more on battleships (since, at the time, they were dominant). Since we were above the tonnage limit in the 20s, battleships were converted to carriers.

Anyway, the US did a lot of shipbuilding in the late 1930s, which, to me, indicates preparation for a war they considered a good possibility.

However, people at the time may have just considered that an arms race and not an actual precursor to war - I just don't know.

My father, a naval officer, told me the Navy, including himself, firmly believed that war with Japan was inevitable. Japan's determination to become a great power meant that she had to obtain a secure source of oil. The nearest was in southeast Asia, which she would therefore have to conquer. But the Phillipine Islands, a US occupancy, lay athwart that path of conquest, and therefore Japan and the US would have to come into conflict.

You are right about the carriers. The K-B treaty did not specify them, and both Japan and the US took advantage of this. Several other factors affected naval construction in the thirties: the conversion from steam to diesel power, electrification of onboard systems, and so on. WWI era destroyers (four stackers) became totally obsolete and had to be replaced. A new doctrine affecting cruisers meant new ships conforming to the doctrine (heavy guns at the cost of every other kind of arm) had to be built, and so on. I don't think the Navy saw itself as being in an arms race with anybody, but just fulfilling its felt needs. Roosevelt, a former Under Secretary of the Navy, was willing to back them. Naval construction was a desired source of jobs during the depression.

[Smurf]

Tactically, as well: It forced us to lean on naval aviation before we really wanted to and we quickly became good at it.This is a good point, I hadn't thought about that. It was probably a fairly big factor contributing the America's success (well, the speed of, at least)
Japan ended the treaty (Washington Naval Treaty) in 1936. ONE LINK I just found says the treaty actually helped the US's conversion to a carrier-dominant fleet because it focused more on battleships (since, at the time, they were dominant). Since we were above the tonnage limit in the 20s, battleships were converted to carriers. You know, I find it odd that everyone full accepts the US policy of carrier-dominated fleets and emphasis on aviation. Now, I'm not questioning the policy today, but in WW2-era it seems less effective. I can't think of or find a single Battleship that was sunk by anything other than another battleship except in extreme circumstance (i.e. Yamato was attacked by 3-400 aircraft, sunk in port, already severly wounded) with the single exception of the Bismark, which was chased all the way around the british isle. It seems to me that a battleship, on the high seas, was still quite a formidable force.

Food for thought, anyway.
My father, a naval officer, told me the Navy, including himself, firmly believed that war with Japan was inevitable. Japan's determination to become a great power meant that she had to obtain a secure source of oil. The nearest was in southeast Asia, which she would therefore have to conquer. But the Phillipine Islands, a US occupancy, lay athwart that path of conquest, and therefore Japan and the US would have to come into conflict.Indeed, That was probably one of the main motivators for the Japanese to go to war with the USA. However, It's not a certainty as there was oil elsewhere in East Asia, namely French indochina (which it had already aquired) and the Dutch East Indies (which it had already planned to take for rubber).

[Hurkyl]

Sure, battleships were amazingly powerful, but it has to be relatively close for it to exert its power. On the other hand, carriers can wield influence over an immense amount of territory, and aren't as exposed to counterattack.

As I understand, battleships of the era could easily dominate the carriers of the era if they get close, but that's a big if.

I imagine that the reason so few battleships were sunk is because they weren't the main targets. :tongue2:

[Smurf]

Sure, battleships were amazingly powerful, but it has to be relatively close for it to exert its power. On the other hand, carriers can wield influence over an immense amount of territory, and aren't as exposed to counterattack.That, and the speed of the aircraft. The carrier's strength was mobilitiy, as opposed to combat prowess.

As I understand, battleships of the era could easily dominate the carriers of the era if they get close, but that's a big if.Battleships actually have pretty amazing range. Now, I'm not saying that Battleships could dominate the seas with a few quick modifications, but (!) had the USA put as much resources into developing Battleships as they did into developing and building Carrierrs, then perhapse they could have become a much more influencial part of Naval tactics.

I imagine that the reason so few battleships were sunk is because they weren't the main targets. :tongue2:I would attribute it more to the Axis' unwillingness to risk taking them out of port. It seems like everyone was so scared of Britain and USA's navy they barely ever tried confronting it outside of the Sub war.

[russ_watters]

My father, a naval officer, told me the Navy, including himself, firmly believed that war with Japan was inevitable. Oh, I don't doubt that, but Naval officers don't write national policy. Whether (when) FDR beleived it or not is something that is tough to know for sure. You know, I find it odd that everyone full accepts the US policy of carrier-dominated fleets and emphasis on aviation. Now, I'm not questioning the policy today, but in WW2-era it seems less effective. I can't think of or find a single Battleship that was sunk by anything other than another battleship except in extreme circumstance (i.e. Yamato was attacked by 3-400 aircraft, sunk in port, already severly wounded) with the single exception of the Bismark, which was chased all the way around the british isle. It seems to me that a battleship, on the high seas, was still quite a formidable force. Even if it did take several hundred planes, carrier forces had a relatively easy time with battleships, precisely because a battleship's guns have a range of ~30 miles and a carrier's planes have a range of ~300 miles. The battle of Leyte gulf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf) (really, 4 battles in one) was the decisive engagement of the Pacific war and in one of the bigger battles, the battleship Mustashi was sunk by carrier air power. Sunk or not, Yamato was taken out of the battle and would never fight again.

Anyway, the importance of carriers wasn't just in fighting other warships - they also were critical for supporting the Marines in their island-hopping. And they made quick work of support ships.

[Joel]

I also think the carriers where quite superior in the pacific war. They where always the ones to be attacked first and airplains (and submarines) often made the only damage to enemy ships. Battleships where mainly used to bombard islands before invasion. And to name a few more, Prince of Wales and her other english friend where sunk by japanese torpedo-bombers.

In my understanding carriers where one of the most revolutionary military advances in ww2.

[Smurf]

2. The prevailing assumption that Churchill wanted Roosevelt to go to war in Europe and East Asia.

Churchill was not against the USA joining the war against Germany, in Europe. What he was against was the USA's constant attempts to provoke Japan into war. Stimson had been advocating war with Japan since 1931 (Under Hoover, oddly enough).

Now, Hitler had never included Great Britain in his plans for lebensraum and had often regarded them as a potential ally in the war, possibly thinking to use British planes and tanks against his most despised enemy - the USSR.

After the fall of France, Hitler systematically attempted to attain white peace with Great Britain, and the British government (now led by Churchill) systematically shut him down. Hitler was dumbfounded as to why Churchill would want to contnue the fight, when he lost patience he ordered the bombing raids on the British Isles that would lead to the Battle of Britain.

Churchill had many reasons for doing this, probably the most prominent being:

1) British honour. The British were pretty embarassed, having betrayed parts of Europe over and over again to appease Hitler. Poland, Czechoslovakia and Austria were all sacrificed and when France surrendered it was a huge moral hit to those still wanting to resist the Nazis.
2) Stalin. Churchill was anticipating the non-aggression pact being broken the moment one of them had nothing better to do.
3) Mussolini. Mussolini, oddly enough, continued secret contact with the British. He wanted Britain to sue for Peace and he had no intention of declaring war on Hitler. He just wanted Italy to come out on top.
4) The British Empire. The Empire was still fully intact and had huge amounts of manpower and resources. Churchill felt confident that they would win the U-Boat war and was possibly planning his own D-Day when Stalin and Germany went to war. This might be why he continued secret contact with Mussolini.
5) Ultra. The single greatest secret weapon of the war. The British were already capable of breaking all the German codes, this was a huge advantage.

Roosevelt's plan to enter the European theatre was somewhat confusing, and probably foolish. Roosevelt should have realised that war with Japan would not mean war with Germany because the tripart pact was not a true military alliance, but a mutual defence treaty. Common sense should dictate this as well because when Germany declared war on the Allies and the USSR, Japan did neither. Roosevelt probably had other motives to wanting a war with Japan as well, but I won't get into that now.

Great Britain was against war with Japan.

After WW1 the British High Command realised that the Empire could not singlehandedly sustain it's self against all the new rising powers in the world. Most noticably, it was unanimously agreed that Great Britain could not win a war both in Europe and in the far East at the same time. Priority would be given to fighting war in one theatre, and avoiding war in the other.

-Britain was still trying to ally Japan in 1939
-When America started stepping up aid to Japan’s enemies, Britain cut back.
-When FDR froze Japanese assets, and called for a total embargo on Japan, even including food; all of the Allies resisted. (The Dutch could sell their oil to Britain instead, that wasn’t the point, they didn’t want war with Japan.)
-British forces continued to be moved away from India, Australia, and other parts of the Empire untill Pearl Harbour.

If Churchill did support FDR's provokation, he was a fool as his entire General Staff would've opposed him. Actually, the General staff did almost forced Churchill's resignation after the signapore surrender. The Empires of Europe had so much more to lose than the USA did.

America bringing Japan into the war helped 3 parties: America, the Soviet Union, and Germany.

After Japan declared war on the allies there was much dissent in the British General staff towards America, and Churchill for letting it happen. Churchill and Roosevelt were branded as a traitors to the Empire in many circles for quite some time. It did end eventually, after all, History is written by the victors.

[ray b]

battleships lost to aircraft in addition to pearl losses
italy lost several to british carrier aircraft in harbor of Tranto in 1940
just like pearl harbor
bismark was crippled by aircraft torpedo
turpits [bismark sister ship] sunk by aircraft in norway 1944
japan sinks two british battleships off viet-nam 1941

then the battleship strikes back north sea german battle cruisers [ smaller lite battleships] sink a british aircraft carrier without aircraft being launched
and in the leyte gulf japan sinks an escort carrier and dammages several others
but lost several battleships in other actions

about 20 battleships lost to aircraft vs 2 aircraft carriers lost to battleships
as battleships are old fashion and no longer rule the seas


BTW as far as the german part of the war RUSSIA beat them we [USA] bombed their citys along with the british and were a minor distraction in france and italy
but RUSSIA WON THE WAR but at a very high cost in men lost 10-20 million vs our less then 200,000 total killed against germany
japan we beat with minor british and allied help

[TheStatutoryApe]

William Stephenson, of British intelligence, was sent by Churchill to meet with Roosevelt in 1940 to negotiate setting up a British intelligence branch in the US, the BSC. Roosevelt cooperated and even introduced Stephenson to Hoover to set up relations with the FBI. With the unofficial aproval of Roosevelt the FBI assisted Stephenson in tracking Nazi spies and Nazi funds being transfered from the US. Stephenson had his own office in New York and people working for him. With the help of Roosevelt Stephenson set up an offshore censor to check all mail coming and going between the US and Europe. Eventually when the scope of Stephenson's activities became international it was no longer wise to use the FBI for help, since they are not supposed to work outside the US borders. Roosevelt introduced Stephenson to Willaim "Wild Bill" Donovan of, if I remember correctly, US Naval Intelligence. This relationship eventually brought about the official formation of the OSS when the US entered the war. With out Roosevelt's comlicity none of this would have ever happened.

[Daminc]

I've watched a lot of Documentaries, which one are you refering too?
Sorry I haven't replied sooner. There's been a number of problems with our computer systems. Sorted now hopefully.

The documentary was called The Warlords. It was the part two of a four part series and was called Churchill v Rosenvelt.

[BobG]

BTW as far as the german part of the war RUSSIA beat them we [USA] bombed their citys along with the british and were a minor distraction in france and italy
but RUSSIA WON THE WAR but at a very high cost in men lost 10-20 million vs our less then 200,000 total killed against germany
japan we beat with minor british and allied help
The D-Day invasion and the invasion up the Italian peninsula was more than a distraction. Not only were the Soviets unable to beat the Germans on their own, they spent most of the war with the German army occupying large parts of the Soviet Union.

I agree that the Soviets paid more for victory than Britain and the US. The US lost about a 100 people per day, virtually all of them military personnel. The Soviets lost about 10,000 per day with about half being civilians. (That kind of explains their cold war thinking, at least a little bit - you had a country that was committed to never, never, going through something like that, again).

[TRCSF]

The D-Day invasion and the invasion up the Italian peninsula was more than a distraction. Not only were the Soviets unable to beat the Germans on their own, they spent most of the war with the German army occupying large parts of the Soviet Union.

I agree that the Soviets paid more for victory than Britain and the US. The US lost about a 100 people per day, virtually all of them military personnel. The Soviets lost about 10,000 per day with about half being civilians. (That kind of explains their cold war thinking, at least a little bit - you had a country that was committed to never, never, going through something like that, again).

Are you kidding? The Red Army had utterly smashed the Germans at Kursk and they were retreating and essentially in defeat since the summer of 1943, eleven months before D-day. The Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany was inevitable. American, British, French, and Canadian forces only hastened the defeat.

[Daminc]

I would like to thank Smurf and the rest of you for this bit of education. You must have done a lot of studing to get this much info :)

I think TRCSF has even more studying than me to do before he/she gets a more accurate picture.

[Smurf]

I would like to thank Smurf and the rest of you for this bit of education. You must have done a lot of studing to get this much info :)Well it's not that tough if you know what you're looking for. Besides, it's not work when you like doing it. :biggrin: I think TRCSF has even more studying than me to do before he/she gets a more accurate picture.You think so? How come?

[TRCSF]

I think TRCSF has even more studying than me to do before he/she gets a more accurate picture.

You're right, I've got more studying to do. I mean, I've done little more than read Marshal Zhukov's memoirs on the subject. Since you're obviously an expert, could you please reference some study materials, or just plain point out where and how I'm wrong?

[Smurf]

I mean, I've done little more than read Marshal Zhukov's memoirs on the subject.
Ha, that must've been interesting. Who's translation was it? (or do you know russian?)

[TRCSF]

Ha, that must've been interesting. Who's translation was it? (or do you know russian?)

Theodore Shabad.

It's mostly a lot of technical material and a rebuttal to his critics. Occasionally there's interesting bits on particularly heroic small unit actions and some neat introspective behind-the-scenes stuff on the Supreme Command.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Are you kidding? The Red Army had utterly smashed the Germans at Kursk and they were retreating and essentially in defeat since the summer of 1943, eleven months before D-day. The Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany was inevitable. American, British, French, and Canadian forces only hastened the defeat.
You're right, I've got more studying to do. I mean, I've done little more than read Marshal Zhukov's memoirs on the subject.
Good point. Perhaps you should read a more unbiased source that wasn't as subject to the soviet war time propaganda.

[Smurf]

Good point. Perhaps you should read a more unbiased source that wasn't as subject to the soviet war time propaganda. :confused: I'm not sure if you just don't know who Zhukov is or if you're alluding to something else, but Zhukov was considered Stalin's natural successor during the war he was so powerful and popular. Why would he have dillusions from soviet propoganda? He WAS soviet propoganda.

[TheStatutoryApe]

:confused: I'm not sure if you just don't know who Zhukov is or if you're alluding to something else, but Zhukov was considered Stalin's natural successor during the war he was so powerful and popular. Why would he have dillusions from soviet propoganda? He WAS soviet propoganda.
Another good point. Even leaders and propagandists are subject to propaganda though. The history of WWII is still a bit hazy on some of the finer details due to double layer, triple layer, ect disinformation programs.

[Smurf]

I'm confused, what are you arguing? That Zhukov's memoirs don't have historical value? That the USSR couldn't have won on their own?

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm confused, what are you arguing? That Zhukov's memoirs don't have historical value? That the USSR couldn't have won on their own?
I wouldn't argue that they have no historical value only that they are most likely biased. All information ought to be cross referanced with other sources.

[Smurf]

Well what he said was true. The Battle of the Kursk was Germany's last attempt to stop the Soviet advance, they struggled to get together all the forces they could in that area and still came up slightly lower than the Soviet's. They were completely smashed by Zhukov's forces. It was their last stand in the east, and quite probably the whole war.

[Daminc]

You're right, I've got more studying to do. I mean, I've done little more than read Marshal Zhukov's memoirs on the subject. Since you're obviously an expert, could you please reference some study materials, or just plain point out where and how I'm wrong?
I'm nowhere near to being an expert. It's my understanding though that it took the combined might of the allied forces to beat Germany. Russian alone would not have beaten them, nor would Britain or America. Britain (along with it's commonwealth brethrin) did serious damage to Germany's Air support as well as battles at sea. Our bombing strikes and land battles and all the rest combined resulted in a depleated force attacking Russia. Our radar and code breaking skills played a neccessary part. America provided support and supplies which were also essential. Without this the Russians would have been defeated. Without the Russians, Europe would have defeated.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[Daminc]

Didn't I read somewhere that the weather also had something to do with the Russians defeated the Germans?

[Smurf]

Didn't I read somewhere that the weather also had something to do with the Russians defeated the Germans?
You mean that the winter after Hitler first invaded was paticularly bad? Yes, that's true. It's inaccurate to credit that to 'The Weather' though as there's never once been a year when Russia hasn't had a bad winter, the only change was that this one was slightly worse.

It does speak about Germany's (or Hitler's, if you prefer) incompetence in planning this invasion. Hitler had planned to be in Moscow and have negotiated a Russian surrender by the time Winter came around. This not happening is often attributed to the German's having to help the Italians out in Yugoslavia and Greece, which was not planned. This resulted in Operation Barbarossa being delayed a few months and, consequently, less time before Winter (which is when the Russians finally managed to get up a feasible defence and counter attack).

Almost all German tanks were diesel fuelled engines at the time (as were most tanks anywhere). If you've ever tried starting a diesel engine car in winter imagine how much worse it would be in a chasis weighing several tons. Remember too, that this was back when Tanks were still radical, new and (most importantly) inefficient vehicles. The Russians often left their tanks running during winter.

Also, realise that because Hitler didn't expect the war to last into winter he did not equip his troops with Winter gear. The impact this had on the troops brought their efficiency far below that of the Russian winter divisions (some of which used horses when their trucks wouldn't start). Some believe Moscow would not have held out if it weren't for the Winter's affect on German troops. And the Russians did manage to take large amounts of land around Moscow during the winter... Which the Germans never took back.

[Smurf]

I'm nowhere near to being an expert. It's my understanding though that it took the combined might of the allied forces to beat Germany. Russian alone would not have beaten them, nor would Britain or America. Nah, either Britain of the USSR could've taken them on their own.
Britain (along with it's commonwealth brethrin) did serious damage to Germany's Air support as well as battles at sea. Our bombing strikes and land battles and all the rest combined resulted in a depleated force attacking Russia.The only depleting of forces Britain did for most of the war was in Africa, and Hitler didn't prioritize it too high.
Our radar and code breaking skills played a neccessary part.There was actually very little sharing of codes between the Russians and the British, neither of them seemed to trust eachother enough for anything.
America provided support and supplies which were also essential. Without this the Russians would have been defeated. Without the Russians, Europe would have defeated.If you look at the actual tonage in the lend lease program you'll see that it was really very little (by comparison) untill after D-Day, and by then the Russians were already winning.

Just so you know, this is the first thing I typed, then I realised I was way off topic and so I wrote the bit up top:

I believe that Britain or the USSR could have taken Germany single handedly given favorable (but not unlikely) circumstances in pretty much any scenario. Germany's power was perceived to be a lot larger than it really was. For starters: Germany's industrial capability was far below that of both the UK and the USSR. Their technology wasn't spectacular either, everyone seems to believe that German tanks were top notch, why? The only people who they had better tank designs than were the Americans, who insisted on pumping out insane numbers of that silly Sherman. Mind you, the English tanks weren't that much better than the yanks, but at least they were comparable.

He also gave contracts to stronger Nazi supporters, instead of whoever came out with the better designs. For example, producing many more of the bf 109, and bf 110 instead of the superior He 112 and delaying the production of the Fw 190. It seems that a lot of the time Hitler was more concerned with "How many" instead of "How good". This would've been (and was) fine for the States, England and Soviets, but Germany didn't have huge amounts of manpower like they did, and that's who they were going up against.

To quote Sun Tzu "You can secure yourself against defeat, but the opportunity for defeating the enemy is provided by himself"

(ok that was more of a paraphrase but w/e)

disclaimer: everything in this post (and the last) is from memory - so there may be historical inaccuracies

[Daminc]

My mate is a more well versed in the actual military numbers and specific details than I but he's not around at the moment. I'll see if I can distract him tomorrow for a while :))

[TRCSF]

Good point. Perhaps you should read a more unbiased source that wasn't as subject to the soviet war time propaganda.


If I were entirely relying on Zhukov's memoirs you'd have a point. Since my comments match the general consensus of real historians all over the world, you haven't got one.

[TRCSF]

:confused: I'm not sure if you just don't know who Zhukov is or if you're alluding to something else, but Zhukov was considered Stalin's natural successor during the war he was so powerful and popular. Why would he have dillusions from soviet propoganda? He WAS soviet propoganda.

Yes, Zhukov was considered Stalin's natural successor, which is why Zhukov farmed him out to some backwater post and effectively ended Zhukov's political career. It certainly wasn't propaganda that defeated the Germans at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin. In fact, it was Soviet propaganda that nearly erased Zhukov from history.

[russ_watters]

You mean that the winter after Hitler first invaded was paticularly bad? Yes, that's true. It's inaccurate to credit that to 'The Weather' though as there's never once been a year when Russia hasn't had a bad winter, the only change was that this one was slightly worse. It was my understanding that it wasn't the fact that the Soviet winter existed, the fact that he choose to do so much fighting during it.

In any case, Germany was fighting a 3 front war (though he took western Europe relatively easily, it still needed troops to defend it) - had Hitler chosen to move east only, he may well have been able to defeat Stalin. It really isn't justifiable to claim that Russia could have won the war alone.

[Smurf]

It was my understanding that it wasn't the fact that the Soviet winter existed, the fact that he choose to do so much fighting during it.Yes, I think I addressed that when I mentioned the invasion was delayed in Yuogslavia.

In any case, Germany was fighting a 3 front war (though he took western Europe relatively easily, it still needed troops to defend it) - had Hitler chosen to move east only, he may well have been able to defeat Stalin. It really isn't justifiable to claim that Russia could have won the war alone.I think it is perfectly justifiable. Germany was not capable of prolonged warfare, especially not against an enemy as powerfull and big as Russia. I'm not saying Russia would have no matter what, but that it could have.

In respect to the Atlantic wall, Germany had been pulling forces out of western europe to help in the east since the first signs of serious resistance in '41. However, they did probably still have enough forces to prevent a successfull allied landing had their orders not been so divided. The problem was that Rommel and his strategy were given some support, and Rundstedt given some too. If either one of them had gotten full support they could've had an effective defence but the conflict created too inefficient a fighting machine, and in the end the Allies took Normandy anyways.

[loseyourname]

Smurf, are you forgetting there was a war in the Pacific? The Soviet Union, Britain, and France were definitely not going to beat the Japanese without American help.

[ray b]

I'm nowhere near to being an expert. It's my understanding though that it took the combined might of the allied forces to beat Germany. Russian alone would not have beaten them, nor would Britain or America. Britain (along with it's commonwealth brethrin) did serious damage to Germany's Air support as well as battles at sea. Our bombing strikes and land battles and all the rest combined resulted in a depleated force attacking Russia. Our radar and code breaking skills played a neccessary part. America provided support and supplies which were also essential. Without this the Russians would have been defeated. Without the Russians, Europe would have defeated.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Germans were stoped and throwen back in dec 1941 in front of Moscow
thats way before much lend-lease western equipment was sent let alone
arived in the USSR
sure later our stuff helped but the direction of the war was set in 1941
biggest part of our aid was TRUCKs not realy fighting vechicals but important in tranport and supply, sherman tanks were not very good fighting the germans tanks , nicknamed ronsons they light up the first hit every time
only the fact the the USA produced 10 times the numbers of them allowed us to win in the west
the T-34 was also mass produced and a much better tank that helped
russia win the land war on their own, taking Berlin ALONE without any allied help

russian spys were more effective then the limited sharing of the code breaking by the english, that info was mostly used againts the U-boats

other misinformation in this thread
ALL GERMAN TANKS USED GAS not diesel fuel, that was a problem for them
as a glass bottle with gas in it would lite them up [molitov cocktail]
most russian tanks inc the T-34 did use diesel

[TRCSF]

russian spys were more effective then the limited sharing of the code breaking by the english, that info was mostly used againts the U-boats


Spies and more importantly prisoner interrogation. I don't think Enigma code-breaking played much of a role at all in the Eastern front before 1943.

[ray b]

Smurf, are you forgetting there was a war in the Pacific? The Soviet Union, Britain, and France were definitely not going to beat the Japanese without American help.

earlyer in this thread I said the russians beat germany with limited allied help
witnessed by 10,000,000 troops killed or captured vs less then a million western troops total lost

USA beat japan with minor allied help. but once russia beat germany had we avoided being attacked by japan and stayed out of WW2 england and russia would have an eazy time beating japan with the help of the british empire and common wealth plus china
japan lacked any armored tanks, heavy guns, 4 motor bombers, armored deck aircraft carriers and industial base to build a realy modern army or enuff oil suppy
to suport their war efforts
study pre and late war battles againts the russians by japan they got beat souldly and quickly mostly do to their lack of tanks and heavy support guns
banzai charges simply fail againts tanks and heavy guns :rolleyes:

[Art]

earlyer in this thread I said the russians beat germany with limited allied help
witnessed by 10,000,000 troops killed or captured vs less then a million western troops total lost

USA beat japan with minor allied help. but once russia beat germany had we avoided being attacked by japan and stayed out of WW2 england and russia would have an eazy time beating japan with the help of the british empire and common wealth plus china
japan lacked any armored tanks, heavy guns, 4 motor bombers, armored deck aircraft carriers and industial base to build a realy modern army or enuff oil suppy
to suport their war efforts
study pre and late war battles againts the russians by japan they got beat souldly and quickly mostly do to their lack of tanks and heavy support guns
banzai charges simply fail againts tanks and heavy guns :rolleyes:I agree, in fact in July 1938 Russia beat the Japanese in a major battle near Lake Hassan on the border of Manchukuo. The major difference to the outcome without US military involvement is probably that after the war Russia would have controlled pretty much all of europe.

[loseyourname]

but once russia beat germany had we avoided being attacked by japan and stayed out of WW2 england and russia would have an eazy time beating japan with the help of the british empire and common wealth plus china


You really think so? I'm not all that knowledgable concerning this particular war, but I was under the impression that Japan was pretty well protected, given that their homeland and foreign strongholds were mostly on fortified islands. Could Russia and Britain really have unseated Japanese naval power? Did they even have Pacific fleets? Taking back China is one thing, but what about the rest of the Japanese holdings and the Japanese islands themselves?

[Smurf]

other misinformation in this thread
ALL GERMAN TANKS USED GAS not diesel fuel, that was a problem for them
as a glass bottle with gas in it would lite them up [molitov cocktail]
most russian tanks inc the T-34 did use diesel
My mistake. Good thing I had that disclaimer :approve:

[Smurf]

Smurf, are you forgetting there was a war in the Pacific? The Soviet Union, Britain, and France were definitely not going to beat the Japanese without American help.
It's an interesting idea. In truth the Americans caused the Pacific war as they entered it. It is possible that it may not have happened at all if the Americans (and British) had continued peacefull relations with Japan. As I stated in one of my first posts Britain believed it's self capable of effectively fighting in Either Europe or the Far East, but not both simultaneously. If Japan was not provoked by the USA they would not have gone to war with Britain so soon, and so Britain would have:
1. More resources to use against Germany - Possibly ending the war much earlier than with American intervention.
2. After the European war, could have pursued either peacefull relations with Japan or moved larger portions of their navy to the pacific fleet which would still be intact at Singapore in order to fight Japan on the seas.

I don't doubt that if Britain really wanted to they could have defeated both Japan and Germany single handedly. Just not both at the same time... or perferably just one over-all. (in which case it wouldn't have been a world war :biggrin: )

The USSR was also capable of defending it's self from the Japanese if not at war with Germany at the same time, or at all (which is obviously less likely). Or, at the least the USSR was capable of defending it's continental territory.

[Smurf]

I agree, in fact in July 1938 Russia beat the Japanese in a major battle near Lake Hassan on the border of Manchukuo.Well the soviets are credited with the Victory, but in truth they suffered heavily in that battle from Japanese air superiority.The major difference to the outcome without US military involvement is probably that after the war Russia would have controlled pretty much all of europe.
That's probably true, except Britain may have launched their own D-Day on their own if they had all the resources of the Empire backing the war in Europe. They could have, and probably would have liberated France and the Low lands, possibly more. But this is all speculation now as nothing even close to this happened historically. All we can say is that Britain would have had the capability, we can't predict what they would have done.

[Smurf]

You really think so? I'm not all that knowledgable concerning this particular war, but I was under the impression that Japan was pretty well protected, given that their homeland and foreign strongholds were mostly on fortified islands. Could Russia and Britain really have unseated Japanese naval power?They could have, at the least, starved the Japanese islands into surrender like Germany tried to do with England, but with much bigger, surface, fleetsDid they even have Pacific fleets?Yes, sort of, it wasn't called that I don't think. The British fleet was based in Singapore though. The Russian navy however wasn't a whole lot to be reckoned with, pacific or otherwise, it's mainly Britain in this scenario.

[Smurf]

sherman tanks were not very good fighting the germans tanks , nicknamed ronsons they light up the first hit every time
only the fact the the USA produced 10 times the numbers of them allowed us to win in the west.
Yes, that was the German nickname for the Sherman, however it was somewhat unwarranted. Other tanks often blew up on their first hit too, namely because the ammunition was not secured properly and ignited when it got hit. The Sherman received it's nickname before this was known, when the problem was thought to be part of the engine or fuel tanks (can't remember exactly) that caused ignition when aggrevated.

[Art]

Well the soviets are credited with the Victory, but in truth they suffered heavily in that battle from Japanese air superiority.It was a severe enough blow to the Japanese (having suffered 17,000 casualities from 30,000 troops engaged in the battle) to persuade them to sue for peace and to change their policy to seek new resources to the south instead of the north. It's long term effect was a huge reluctance by the Japanese to attack the USSR in support of Germany during WW2.

[ray b]

You really think so? I'm not all that knowledgable concerning this particular war, but I was under the impression that Japan was pretty well protected, given that their homeland and foreign strongholds were mostly on fortified islands. Could Russia and Britain really have unseated Japanese naval power? Did they even have Pacific fleets? Taking back China is one thing, but what about the rest of the Japanese holdings and the Japanese islands themselves?

on land japan had a lite army with no heavy or even medium tanks their light tank was little more than other armys scoutcar
they used mortors instead of artilery even moved troops by bicycle
this was very succesfull early in the war againts understrenght colonial troops
and in china
but once we and the brits were moderized and supplyed and went on the attack with heavy equipment
we NEVER LOST A BATTLE againts japan by 1943

navy aircraft they had were good and long ranged but poor or no armor and lite consturction led to many losses of their better pilots and they never were able to train effective replacements and they didnot upgrade the aircraft intill very late in the war
japans aircraft carriers were fast BUT UNARMORED so a few hits distroyed them
all british aircraft carriers were armored on the decks and able to survive far more bomb hits as were their aircraft with armored fuel tanks that selfsealed
and armor protection for the pilot
submarine warfare japan allmost never attacked convoys or ever lone supply ships
but only saw honnor in attacking warships this led to heavy losses of their subs and free flow of our supplys
while we attacked their oil tankers and supply ships leading to japan being very short of fuel and food in later part of the war

we island hopped and left many of the stronger islands to starve without needing to take everyone

[Anttech]

That strategy was strongly considered for most of the war. The unconditional surrender policy only took effect after the Africa campaign (i think). No, I don't think it would have really been stupid. A country doesn't regain full capacity to fight war in a few years <- THAT is stupid.

I dont understand, are you being ironic? becuase it certainly is a stupid statement! (and you are usually so clever smurf ;-) )Considering the Fact that WW1 and WW2 were started by the Germans... ?

I think it is perfectly justifiable. Germany was not capable of prolonged warfare, especially not against an enemy as powerfull and big as Russia. I'm not saying Russia would have no matter what, but that it could have.
Considering Finland kick the Russians ***, the Nazi's (at the begining of the war) would have ahad no problems at all

[Pengwuino]

How did this get resurected?

[Anttech]

How did this get resurected?
I was sent here by smurf from this thread:
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=784335#post784335

[Manchot]

It took Germany less than 20 years to recover from WWI, in which they were completely eviscerated. It probably would've taken them less time if not for the worldwide depression in that time span. You see, the thing about fascist countries is that though they are terrible places to live, they tend to have excellent economies. At the same time, they manage to stir up feelings of nationalism to get peoples' spirits up. Therefore, they can rebound from war relatively quickly. Obviously, there's also a chance that they wouldn't have rebounded quickly, but why take the risk? What compelling reason would we have to give the aggressors of a war the benefit of the doubt? Should we also throw convicted murderers back on the street without any prison time, simply because they might not kill again?

Actually, this is related to another huge problem with not finishing the war: the justice issue. Do you not think that the people responsible for the Holocaust should have been held responsible for their actions? What about the rape of Nanking? Or the murder of 2500 people through the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor? Should Hitler himself have gone scot-free? (By the way, that would've happened if we had just stopped attacking Germany.)

[Smurf]

After world war two Russia was easily the most powerfull state on the continent, and dominated Europe. It would never have let Germany get back to a power strong enough to rival it. Provided the USA follows the same course it did historically, neither would they.

So, in conclusion, even if the Germans had negotiated a peacefull end tot eh war and even kept their original borders they would still be caught between the cold war, a few years earlier.

Also, keep in mind that nearing the end the Nazi party was losing confidence in Hitler. If Hitler had negotiated peace he could very well have been forced out of office (and probably executed), not making democracy impossible in Germany.

[Smurf]

It took Germany less than 20 years to recover from WWI, in which they were completely eviscerated. It probably would've taken them less time if not for the worldwide depression in that time span.
1. Actually if not for the depression I would argue it never would have happened at all. The weimer republic was the german people's first experience with democracy. When their economy fell to shambles they blamed it on democracy, allowing someone like Hitler to take control in the first place. Hitler was the one that brought Germany to the state of strength and aggression it was in for WW2.

2. Germany was never actually invaded in WW1. They never had any of their territory bombed or occupied. German civilians, while many died of Famine, did not know the horrors of their new weapons. It was fought entirely on, above and off the coast of foreign land.

In World War Two, I need only say one word: Dresden, and you know it wasn't the same. But even more significant is the deaths. The deaths from WW1, while huge, pale compared to WW2. In World War one, Germany lost 1,800,000 soldiers, about 500,000 civilians. In WW2: 4,000,000 military, 2,350,000 civilian. If you're wondering about the ratio, that's 81 people per 1000.

Also remember their industry was being flattened by British bombers continuously.

So really, there is no comparison to World War One.

[Smurf]

Actually, this is related to another huge problem with not finishing the war: the justice issue. Do you not think that the people responsible for the Holocaust should have been held responsible for their actions? What about the rape of Nanking? Or the murder of 2500 people through the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor? Should Hitler himself have gone scot-free? (By the way, that would've happened if we had just stopped attacking Germany.)Frankly I consider the entire war crimes thing for the Holocaust one big publicity stunt and I don't see the world being worse off if it hadn't happened.

Here's an article discussing certain effects of the unconditional surrender policy:

http://www.ihr.org/books/hoggan/10.html

Also, look to earlier parts of this thread. If America had not entered the war at all (unconditional surrender was roosevelt's idea) it could very possibly have prevented a lot of bloodshed.

[Astronuc]

A correction on the American fleet losses at Pearl Harbor - five ships were permanently lost. These were the battleships Arizona, Oklahoma, the old battleship Utah (then used as a target ship), and the destroyers Cassin and Downes; nevertheless, much usable material was salvaged from them, including the two aft main turrets from Arizona. Heavy casualties resulted due to Arizona's magazine exploding and the Oklahoma capsizing. Four ships sunk during the attack were later raised and returned to duty, including the battleships California, West Virginia and Nevada. California and West Virginia had an effective torpedo-defense system which held up remarkably well, despite the weight of fire they had to endure, enabling most of their crews to be saved. Many of the surviving battleships were heavily refitted, allowing them to better cope with Japanese threats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

Down the road, a major turning point in the conflict between Japan and US was the Battle of Midway, where the Japanese Navy lost 4 fleet carriers - Soryu, Hiryu, Akagi and Kaga.

The loss of four fleet carriers—leaving only Zuikaku and Shokaku—stopped the expansion of the Japanese Empire in the Pacific, and put Japan on the defensive. What made it a turning point for the Japanese Navy was that they lost their dominating force of large numbers of carriers with well-trained pilots, and from this, the Japanese would never recover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

It would have been difficult for the US to stay on the sidelines during the war as many or most of its principal trading partners were being attacked.

Another factor in the Pacific Theatre was the US submarine force, which IIRC sank more than 4 million tons (or its 54% of this number) of Japanese shipping - both naval and merchant. There is a book, PIG BOATS, by Theodore Roscoe originally re-published by Bantam in 1967, which chronicles a lot of the US submarine warfare in WWII.

See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_of_World_War_Two
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy

And don't forget the impact of the Battle of Britain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

And an interesting read by a guy named Gene Whitt - http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.38Learning%20More%20from%20History.htm
http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.37Learning%20fromHistory.htm#Learning%20from %20History
http://www.whittsflying.com/index.htm

[Smurf]

And an interesting read by a guy named Gene Whitt - http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.38Learning%20More%20from%20History.htm
http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.37Learning%20fromHistory.htm#Learning%20from %20History
http://www.whittsflying.com/index.htm
Awsome stuff, thanks a load.