How the Soviets Really Won WWII :)

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry for my drunk rants.

Why be sorry? It's fun to spar with someone who knows their stuff and has a very different perspective.

Have a good night serb.

[David Floyd]

Oh good God. This should be fun. So much ignorance on this thread that needs to be refuted, by almost everyone. Good thing I have a pitcher of beer standing by. In any case, stand by for my rather lengthy reply, starting with Patroklos, but extending to Serb (I do like talking to you about this) and BK (Ben, bit of advice, stick to what you know - it isn't WW2).

[Darius871]

Good thing I have a pitcher of beer standing by.

How the hell can you possibly care about these fantastical counterfactuals with even a single beer in your system?

[Ben Kenobi]

(Ben, bit of advice, stick to what you know - it isn't WW2).

Well then jump in and critique.

Despite what Che thinks I'm always interested in learning new things.

[David Floyd]

No DF, they were in Burma solely because it was an open front with a world power they were at war with. Thats it. The Japanese were smart enough to pick priorities, they were not expanding for the sake of expanding at the cost of the war.

No, they were in Burma because the Japanese were racist pieces of **** who thought they were the superior race, destined to rule the world, and wanted to subdue the barbarians in India and Southeast Asia. Also, if you claim that Japan was not expanding for the sake of expansion, at the cost of the war, then why in the hell didn't they wind down combat operations in China? Or, for Christ's sake, avoided WW2 altogether by simply withdrawing from China?

Oh, that's right. Because of a combination of pride and racism. You seriously, SERIOUSLY, misunderstand the motivation of Japan in the 1940s.

1.) That’s funny, since the resource problems of Japan were solved by invading Indonesia, not China. It’s also funny since there were already upwards of a million Japanese army personnel throughout the Pacific. Suffice to say while I am sure there was plenty of interservice rivalry, obviously no matter where those significant forces go the absence of a Burma front helps Japan.

The absence of a Burma front does not significantly help Japan. If they already have "a million" personnel spread throughout the Pacific, what is a 10-20% increase going to do for them? Not very much, is the answer. Furthermore, if Japan's problems weren't solved by the war in China, then why did they continue the war in China? The answer, of course, is that logical, reasonable war aims had absolutely nothing to do with what motivated Japanese decision making at the time.

2.) DF, the Japanese efforts in China did not resemble Vietnam. I am not sure where you are getting this "perpetual war" idea from. Everywhere Japan attacked they were victorious; they simply stalled when they did not have enough men and material to physically occupy the rest of China, primarily because of distractions like Burma. An Extra 200K soldiers in China and more importantly the lack of the resource drain that was Burma pretty much ensures that there is no strategic bombing of Japan until Okinawa (by enlarging their Chinese holdings where the first US bombers came from), which of course will be much delayed in this timeline.

Yeah, Vietnam isn't an exact comparison, but then again, what major battle in Vietnam did the US lose? Can't think of one, can you? And of course Japan stalled in China because they didn't have the men or material to occupy all of China - but just what in the hell is an influx of 100-200,000 men going to do, given the size of China and the troop levels already deployed? You're ****ing dreaming.

No DF, they wouldn't have. Think. They were already island hopping in the real timeline, however the very name of the strategy implies you have to take some of the islands. All else being equal, the existance of a previous nonexistant source of hundreds of thousands of free personel means that Japanese garriosons would be much stronger across the board. Stop cherry picking.

Wait, I don't get it. Where are the extra Japanese troops going, China or the Pacific? You're trying to make both arguments? Hmmm...

In any case, even assuming they go to the Pacific, the US still retains the ability to win and maintain absolute control of the sea by 1943-1944. If it takes an extra year to starve them out, so be it, but it doesn't change the outcome of the war.

So now Tarawa and the Siapan have that scale of resources too! Again, you can't just skip ALL of the islands. The US still had to take some and only so many had harbors suitable for their needs. Again, you are deliberately making the Axis act stupidly to justify your short sighted analysis.

No, because you can't just pack soldiers shoulder-to-shoulder on islands. You have to provide for the housing and supply of the soldiers, too. Even Japan had to do that. If you pack 100,000 men on Tarawa, so what? Look, the major amphibious battles of the war - Guadalacanal, Peleliu, Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. - most of those were simply islands in an island chain. The US was looking for bases to use as springboards towards Japan. It didn't always matter which island or atoll the used. Japan didn't have the manpower to fortify everywhere, nor did they have the airpower or seapower to deny the US the ability to land anywhere they wanted. Again, the more Japanese soldiers that get deployed to Pacific islands only leads to more Japanese deaths.

Honestly DF, how can you possibly maintain that having one less front and hundreds of thousands of freed up personal is not beneficial to the Japanese? Thats like saying if Germany didn't have an African front it wouldn't have mattered in Russia :crazyeyes:

You think the existence of Panzerarmee Afrika was the difference maker on the Eastern Front? I should just let Serb deal with that idiocy, but suffice it to say, you are making an asinine example.

And yes, having hundreds of thousands of personnel freed up from Southeast Asia DOES NOT materially contribute to the Japanese war effort, at least not in any meaningful way.

No, because further US landings in the Pacific are contingent on TWO things, the army/marine assets to actually conduct the landings, and the naval assets to defeat the Japanese fleet and cover the landings. Removing one of those bottlenecks, while beneficial, does nothing to remove the other.

True, but the USN was so massive by the middle of 1943, and certainly by early 1944, relative to the IJN, that it could have easily supported multiple amphibious operations, given the availability of additonal amphibious assets.

Your position would be the same thing as me saying that because the Germans beat the Russians their army is now free to invade America. Well, sure, technically you are correct. However, there is another bottleneck besides the availability of invasion forces that negates whatever benefits that availability provides.

The simple fact that you are making this "comparison" only proves how much you absolutely fail to understand the facts of the war.

1.) DF, the Dutch never surrendered during the war and were active participants with the Allies as a government as exile just as much as nations like Poland. You made this up.

Excuse me, good point. The Dutch never surrendered officially. My fault. And their active participation in the war had a material effect on the outcome

****, the most active participation of the Dutch that *I* can think of was the Battle of the Java Sea. That certainly didn't end well for the Dutch, or the Allies in general.

2.) Japan invaded the DEI and in the process declared war on the Dutch. However, with Britain out of the war it is beyond the realm of sanity to imagine the Dutch wouldn't have done the same, and unlike Britain Holland was occupied, so we can expect a quite compliant and Axis friendly government administering the DEI. Or in other words, a government friendly to Japan who would not deny the Japanese what they wanted.

Then why was there resistance when the Japanese rolled into French Indochina?

Look, the Dutch government in exile HAD to know it didn't have a chance of repelling a Japanese invasion of the DEI. Yet they resisted anyway Sometimes, nations don't act according to what seems logical or rational on paper.

3.) French Indo-China was invaded as a gateway south. If the Dutch are compliant resource providers due to any actual surrender (as opposed to the one you made up), there is no reason to get the resources by force. You seem to be under the impression that there was some myopic obsession with China for Japan, so you understand you maintaining that Japan would have invaded French Indochina and Indonesia regardless is not reconcilable right?

Sorry, but Indo-China was seized by Japan purely as the result of the German defeat of France in 1940. The Japanese saw weakness, and an opportunity to expand their empire, and they moved. Furthermore, the Japanese at this time don't know that the USN wouldn't be capable of interdicting the shipment of resources from DEI to Japan. In fact, that's much of the reason they went after Pearl Harbor in the first place, to preempt the possibility of American action against Japanese resources in the region. Also, again, remember that it wasn't the IJN that was making the major policy decisons, but rather the IJA.

My logic in this regard is sound DF, the hypothesis that strategic bombing had no effect is preposterous on its face and has been abandoned by anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

I'm not saying it had 0 effect, I am saying that it had zero MATERIAL effect on the war, given that a)US production was significantly higher than German production could have been in any case, and b)German production increased every year of the war, including 1945, in spite of strategic bombing, an increase that ebbed only due to the occupation of German industrial and resource regions.

To reiterate the fact that German production increased in spite of stategic bombing is irrelevant when assessing what it would have been without stategic bombing. You are again cherry picking to suit your own preconcieved notions.

My notions aren't preconceived, they are facts. Strategic bombing may have had an effect, but the effect was NOT to reduce German industrial military production, from a year over year standpoint.

Hold on one second, let me spit out a doctoral thesis real quick

In other words, you can't quantify it. Shut up.

Yet another hand wave from you DF, this does not bode well for you. I ask again. All things being equal, is your production more with your factories being bombed or less with your factories being bombed? The answer is again obvious, your refusal to answer it makes the answer even more obvious.

Yes, the answer does seem obvious. One only has to reference ACTUAL GERMAN PRODUCTION FIGURES. Pay particular attention to the increase from 1941-42,1942-43, 43-44, and 44-early 45.

[Drake Tungsten]

Before Floyd ruins the thread again, just let me say that the two keys to Allied victory on the Eastern Front were 1) the harsh winter of 1941 and 2) American Lend-Lease aid. The Soviets got lucky and were saved by the weather before the Americans could come to the rescue with supplies.

edit: Damn, Floyd got in a boring monster post before me.

[Kuciwalker]

Not tonight. I'm already out of beer. And tommorow I'll get my copy of Hearts of Iron-3.

Good man!

[BlackCat]

Yes, the answer does seem obvious. One only has to reference ACTUAL GERMAN PRODUCTION FIGURES. Pay particular attention to the increase from 1941-42,1942-43, 43-44, and 44-early 45.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say with this. German prod grows year after year, actually despite bombing. Are you claiming that it would be lower if they hadn't been bombed or that the bombings increased their effectiveness ?

You could of course claim that the bombings scrapped a lot of old and obsolete facilities thereby forcing them to build new and more effective, but that I guess that even you would find a bit far stretched.

No doubt, the prod grows despite bombing, but would likewise without have been even higher.

Leaves the rest to Patroklos, don't know much about the pacific arena.

[David Floyd]

Thats funny DF, because despite their lack of nuclear weapons and them being in a FAR worse position than Germany in 1945 in this scenario, the US did not consider the defeat of the Soviet Union to be anything close to a sure thing.

That's because the metric for defeat vs. victory was different. Patroklos, you are getting really tiring. You are being disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Look, the measure of victory in 1945 (our timeline) was the ability to repel the Soviet Union through conventional means, and without starting a larger World War 3. I say through conventional means, because we had already used our nuclear arsenal. We had a couple more bombs, but we were worried about the conventional war in Europe, and the political reality that the US public did NOT want to fight the Soviet Union, or accept the casualties necessary to win.

The measure of victory in WW2 was completely different.

Do you understand how self contradicting your statement above is? Besides the fact that you are assuming a US negation of German submarine warfare without any justification whatsoever,

You mean, besides the justification that we did historically? Yes, there was Allied assistance, but the lack of the Royal Navy would not have measurably changed the outcome of the conflict. Ultimately, the Royal Navy was too small to matter, given the eventual size of the US Navy.

you are then going to assume that the US will be able to concentrate their far inferior naval air forces in both numbers and capability for decisive victories in Europe, but for some reason the Luftwaffe (and allies) who enjoy unrestricted access to resources, interior lines of communication, numerical superiority of at least 10:1, far more capable aircraft in every way, and unsinkable and innumerable operating bases can't do the same? Why?

Because I don't advocate invasion. Could the Luftwaffe have provided a serious disincentive to US carrier forces, even as late as 1945? Sure. Would that have changed the outcome of the war, ultimately? Hell no.

I have no illusion that the USN won't destroy a great many U-boats, you should yourself refrain from the illusion that the Germans will not destroy a great many warships/fleet train vessels. Remember, all the Germans have to do is make it too difficult to successfully carry out an invasion; the US has to completely clear the seas and skies of all opponents. The bars are not even remotely the same.

Yep, but again, I'm not advocating an invasion of Europe, nor have I ever in this thread advocated such an act. As for the ability of U-boats to sink a "great many" warships, why don't you look at the results they actually achieved during the war? The answer might surprise you.

Again I must ask you, to avoid your continued hand waving, if US nuclear victory was such a sure thing why did the consider defeat by the Soviets such a real threat when they Soviets themselves didn't even test their first nuke until 1949, and didn't have anything remotely deliverable in relevant numbers until the late 50s?

Because the measure of victory was DIFFERENT. How can you compare the two? There was no public will for a war against the Soviet Union at any point in your time frame. Also, the US had an obligation to defend Western Europe against invasion, in your Soviet scenario, which wasn't the case in the scenario we are discussing. They are two different things. If you want to discuss a possible US-Soviet war in 1945, start a new thread.

Some partisans, sure, but in 1941 there were by far not only more Russians ambivalent to what dictatorial entity controlled them, but also Russians (Ukrainians, etc.) actively aiding Germany. It was only after the Germans own behavior reversed their welcome and there was an actual hope of liberation as an alternative that partisan activity really heated up. However, there is no reason to believe that any partisan activity after the defeat of the Soviets would be any worse than it was during the actual hot war, rather there is every reason to believe it would be significantly less. However, assuming it was the same then the Germans use as many forces as they were to combat it in real life, and that still leaves millions of front line troops with nothing to do.

First of all, I think Serb - who presumably should know - would strongly dispute your characterization of the Soviet resistance. Furthermore, you are also missing the point that Germany wouldn't be occupying all of the Soviet Union, but rather would have to deal by realistic necessity with a rump Soviet state, which would have possessed a significant army. That would have meant that in addition to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers engaged in anti-partisan activity - which would only be exacerbated by SS and Nazi excesses and death camps - the Heer would also be required to maintain significant forces to guard against the Soviets re-opening the war.

Out of curiosity, do you honestly think partisans would be a significant problem in areas of likely created states of Ukraine and the Baltic States? Sure they would still be puppets, but in all likelihood most of those peoples would be quite content to live in their covert puppet state as opposed to an overtly oppressive Soviet SSR.

Yes, initially this was correct. That is, until the Germans sent in the Einstatzgruppen. Why in the **** do you think the partisans had so much support? ****, man, the Ukrainians and Balts HATED the Soviets, and Stalin - even Serb would agree with that, I think. It's just that Hitler was conceptually incapable, due to racism, of properly capitalizing on anti-Soviet sentiment on those areas.

The Polish Home Army? DF, you have quite an imagination. No army "revolted," it was simply a resistance movement that blew its load on an ill conceived plot to liberate itself before the Soviets got there. And I say that not figuratively, the whole thing was designed to last only a few days UNTIL THE SOVIETS GOT THERE. The whole think hinged on the expectation that the advancing Soviets would be able to capitalize on their uprising to cement whatever gains they could hold onto. This is a perfect illustration of my point DF.

Yes, you're quite right. The Polish Home Army did assume the Soviets would relieve them. And the reason the Soviets didn't do so was entirely due to their desire to destroy any forces opposed to communism. With that said, I am 100% confident that the Poles would have revolted IN ANY CASE. They were being slaughtered wholesale, and they had managed to gather some significant amount of military equipment - certainly enough to defeat the German garrison of Warsaw, for example. They were bound to move, no matter the outcome.

There are certainly fatalists out there DF, but in reality if there is no hope of support or relief or independently defeating the enemy, most are actually going to accept their fate to a degree. Places like Poland who are facing extermination may resist because in that case they have no hope in either resistance of acceptance, but that is not the case in places like France or Holland or Greece

Yes, because by and large, French, Dutch, and Greek citizens were not being shipped to extermination camps. And even given that, there were SIGNIFICANT resistance operations in each of the countries you mentioned.

or portions of Russia.

Sorry, which portions were those? Serb, feel free to jump in here to correct this guy.

At worst they would simply be marginally independent in a puppet state, and you will note this is exactly what happened to Eastern Europe via the Soviet Union in the actual timeline. It all depends on just how sadistic the Germans treat them, and not all areas were inevitably going to suffer the fate of Poland, and a good bit of the non Holocaust related sadism was prompted by the war itself, which is now nonexistent in this scenario.

You're gonna have to be more specific. Exactly which "non Holocaust related sadism" are you referring to?

If the Soviets capitulate I expect a whole host of puppet states to be created, all fascist and allied to Germany of course.

Because that obviously happened historically. I mean, look how effective Vichy France was as a German puppet state.

If the Soviets capitulate they do so because they have absolutely no choice. There would be no real question of a Soviet rump state magically rearming and rejoining the fight using nothing but the Far East as the source of their reawakening.

I think you underestimate the resolve of the Soviet Union.

I didn't say it stemmed the attacks. What it proves is that the B-29 was indeed vulnerable to even crappy fighters. The fact that the B-29s did not take disastrous loses has little to do with the potential not being there, but rather with the Japanese not having the ability to capitalize on it. There was a reason that LeMay had his bombers fly that way, and it was because carpet bombing from 40K feet is useless. Face it DF, the B-29 would be susceptible to attack from not only the German airframes we know can get to it at is max altitude, but in all reality a host of more conventional airframes. This is not even considering what ever the Germans come up with in their years of free time.

Yes, carpet bombing from 40,000 feet would not be effective. Unfortunately for your argument, atomic bombing would be.

That was the only aircraft produced in quantity [b]in the actual timeline[b]. In THIS timeline, the German's have untouched industrial capacity not busy doing much else for several years. You need to realize that while the industrial outlook for America changes little in this scenario (them having been untouched in the real timeline as well), the industrial outlook for Germany is many times better.

But you need to understand that new designs don't appear overnight. The B-36 was conceptualized in 1941. The B-29 was a compromise design, based off design requirements from the B-36, but still a result of an adequate implementation of the B-36 concept. Let's say that in 1943, the Germans saw a need to develop, design, and deploy a new generation of high altitude fighter. Just why in the hell do you assume they would have been able to deploy that aircraft prior to the introduction of the B-36, which had been conceptualized 2 years before?

1.) You are right, the Me-262 would have been operating at the limit of its capability. Of course, so would the B-29. As you pointed out the B-29 is very unlikely to have actually operated at its ceiling limit in reality.

Except that, if it did, it is very likely that the B-29 could have conducted an atomic attack. Even if/when the A-bomb missed it's target, it would still have caused massive destruction and panic.

2.) The Me-262 was indeed a maintenance nightmare. Probably only rivaled by the B-29

Good point. Historically, the Americans found a way to deal with it, but the Germans didn't. You can argue that given more time, they would have done so, but you really can't back up that argument.

3.) Again, you are pretending that America and Germany are analogous when it comes to speculating industrial outcomes. They are not, so stop doing it. America in this scenario is pretty much the America of the actual timeline. The Germany of this scenario, however, is drastically different from the Germany or real life. So while there is good reason to assume America will look the same for the most part, there is no valid reason to assume Germany will even remotely follow the decisions (strategic, industrial, scientific, political) of the real timeline. This gives us far more leeway to speculate on the German side.

But Germany still faces the same constraints, most importantly, the fact that Adolf Hitler made the strategic decisions, and also that German scientists simply had NO idea how to develop the atomic bomb. This was incontrovertibly proven after the war.

Unless you think there is some technical challenge too great for Germany to design countermeasures to high altitude bombers, there is no reason to assume they wouldn't. Russia built them when needed; Germany would build them when needed.

Possibly, but not in time to counter the B-36, which Germany not only didn't know existed, but also that Germany had no conception was even possible. I don't think you understand. The B-36 was simply a generation beyond any strategic bomber imaginable to most countries at the time.

Why would it matter what Germany had on the drawing board in 1942-43 in the real time frame when the circumstances that prompted what was on that drawing board were altered radically in 1941-42? That drawing board would reflect thos radicaly altered circumstances, not the now assumed nonexistent actual timeline ones.

Yes, and if anything, a drawing board "altered radically" in 1941-1942 would most likely not even include a countermeasure for the B-29, much less the B-36. German had no perceived need for such a counter.

You have been doing just that (assuming similar objectives) and I am not the only one to notice this. You make a blanket statement than any investment in naval armaments is automatically wasted. That is because you are not being imaginative in determining where those investments would be.

Imaginative? Sorry, be more specific. Tell me just exactly what design, of any warship or submarine, that Germany could have deployed to prevent the US from gaining control of the Atlantic by 1943-1944.

The point wasn't that German should build surface combatants, but rather that your understanding of German naval technology is lacking. Specifically, Germany was a peer competitor in general naval technology.

Yes, they just weren't a peer competitor in RELEVENT naval technology. The most advanced battleship in the world wouldn't even survive against a CVE, in most cases, to say nothing about the ability of a modern fleet carrier in 1945 to completely dominate the largest battleship imaginable. History proves my point.

Carriers dominated fleet combat. They were mightily useful against submarines too, however they were not invincible.

Then name even ONE US fleet carrier that was sunk after 1943, by any power. The USS Franklin came close, but even it was saved. Also, your statement above proves my point.

Again, you do understand why the Soviets picked the naval strategy they did, right? You understand that that strategy was a severe threat to the US just trying to ferry forces to a friendly shore let alone amphibiously invade a hostile one right

Yes, absolutely the Soviet submarine force became a threat, once a)the US Navy was significantly drawn down even while the Soviet navy as built up and b)submarine technology began to exceed existed ASW technology. Neither of those conditions were all that relevant to Germany during WW2.

. Japan also had a full and capable stable of fleet carriers, that didn’t stop the Us from sinking hundreds of thousands of tons of Japanese economic and military goods WITH SUBMARINES!

Really? Do you seriously misunderstand the Pacific War this much? Here's the facts. First of all, Japan did not produce ANY ASW/convoy escort ships between 1941-1944, at least to any significant degree. Secondly, Japan NEVER produced a CVE-type warship. Thirdly, US submarines did absolutely dominate the Pacific, but that was because Japan NEVER DEVELOPED A COUNTERMEASURE!! You can't apply the same argument against the US, because the US ultimately WON the Battle of the Atlantic.

Thats not the point DF. The point is that if you can ram something, you can shoot at it too.

Are you sure? If this was the case, why didn't the Japanese simply shoot down the B-29?

1.) It took two to force a Japan with an utterly destroyed military, losing on every front, starving to death, and with no hope of organized industrial resistance to surrender.

Never mind the fact that the Japanese Army still opposed surrender, and in fact believed in Ketsu-Go, their defense plan against an American invasion of the home islands. The IJA informed the Emperor after the atomic attacks that there were 30 million Japanese ready to die for him. Military defeat didn't matter here; Bushido did. This is what you consistently fail to understand - our conception of logic and reason did not rule Japan during WW2. Their concept of honor, combined with racism, is what ruled Japan during that time.

How many would it take to force a Germany victorious over two of the worlds most powerful nations, in occupation of an entire continent, in control of the most powerful and undefeated military on the planet, and secure from any rational expectation of invasion?

Given the fact that elements of the Wehrmacht - from Canaris in Naval Intelligence, to Himmler in the SS, to NUMEROUS officers in the Army - were constantly conspiring against Hitler, I can easily envision a few atomic attacks as providing the impetus for revolt and regime change in Germany.

2.) While the Germans were not suicidal, they were certainly fatalistic. You may remember from you readings that we pretty much had to wrestle the vast majority of the territory of Germany itself from them tooth and nail.

That's actually incorrect. While some battles were very hard fought - such as the Huertgen Forest - ultimately, the Germans surrendered far more readily to the Americans and British than they did to the Soviets.

3.) There is certainly a possibility of a military coup, for a good number of reasons actually. However, I fail to see how this changes anything unless you think that military leadership will turn around and declare unconditional surrender. Remember, there is no expectation that Germany wants to invade America. Germany would in all reality be all too happy to have peace with the US from the day they beat the UK, you are the one maintaining that they will carry the torch for some reason.

I'm not sure unconditional surrender remains the standard. Remember, unconditional surrender might have been modified, if not for the Soviets. If the Soviets were out of the picture in this scenario, and a German coup ousted Hitler and the Nazis and offered to withdraw from Britain and France (as an example), as well as other easily imaginable terms, it's very possible the US would have agreed.

[David Floyd]

The one to Tobruk was strenuous only because it was up against constant British surface and submarine warfare as well as well as air attacks from Malta. This is now a non issue. The Med is an Axis lake, a superhighway of munitions and personnel invulnerable to Allied attack. Supplying an army in the middle east through Egypt or Palestine is no big deal.

Supply an army across a large sea is always problematic.

There is that little problem of the Japanese controlling INDONESIA (or as speculated above, it being controlled by a German vassal). There is this little bit of water that is very important known as the Straits of Malacca, which is closed to the US under any reasonable circumstances. The only access the US has to the Middle East is around South Africa or around Australia.

Yes, but that didn't stop the supply of India historically, nor did Japan ever exercise long term effective control over the Indian Ocean.

Which proves my point, not only did they redeploy from the Eastern Front regularly, they would then redeploy back! So why is there any doubt that they could redeploy through a pacified Europe anywhere they choose with relative ease?

That actually isn't the point; the point is that the Heer had to constantly redeploy because it didn't have the force structure to operate on multiple fronts.

Because they weren't on schedule. You are talking about campaigns in 1942-1943. If Britain is taken out in 1941 (and that’s being generous, if they were going to capitulate it would be after a loss of the Battle of Britain, so 1940) then the outcome of Barbarossa is entirely open for change. Russia may be defeated outright in 1941, or by any series of different events in 1942.

How? An earlier attack in 1941 has been seriously debunked as a war winner, due to the mud. I'm not sure how Soviet dispositions or decisions would have changed, even if Britain was out of the war. I'm also not sure why Hitler wouldn't have decided to go after the Ukraine, rather than Moscow, in August/September of 1941, no matter what the situation, given that he saw the opportunity to destroy 700,000 Soviet soldiers. He still would have had the opinion that his "generals understood nothing of the economic aspects of war" - that's virtually a direct quote, when Hitler insisted on avoiding an "early Moscow" campaign. As has been pointed out, Lend-Lease wasn't all that significant early on, when it came to stopping Germay (granted, it was essential in the actual defeat of Germany).

[David Floyd]

Before Floyd ruins the thread again, just let me say that the two keys to Allied victory on the Eastern Front were 1) the harsh winter of 1941 and 2) American Lend-Lease aid. The Soviets got lucky and were saved by the weather before the Americans could come to the rescue with supplies.

I mostly agree with this, actually.

Ben, I am now too drunk to post. I'll try to respond to you later on. The main point I want to make, though, is that while you are absolutely correct that the Soviets acted in an aggressive and unacceptable manner, so did the Poles. Don't fault the one without equally faulting the other, because that is intellectually dishonest.

[Ben Kenobi]

The main point I want to make, though, is that while you are absolutely correct that the Soviets acted in an aggressive and unacceptable manner, so did the Poles. Don't fault the one without equally faulting the other, because that is intellectually dishonest

Oh, don't get me wrong. Cutting deals with the Nazis for a small portion of Silesia, I have to ask myself wtf they were thinking. However, I don't believe that Poland's actions for the most part prior to '39 were all that aggressive. Stupid, yes, but aggressive?

I'm not going to say that the Poles are blameless, but to argue that what the Russians did to the Poles is morally equivalent to what the Soviets did is crazy.

[chequita guevara]

That is intellectually dishonest.

Ben intellectually dishonest? Perish the thought.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, to be fair, a kindergartner could pwn Kenobi.

...and just did

EDIT: note, I am assuming that this is what happened, as Ben's posts all seem to consist of exactly the same message and I can't be bothered to read anything Serb writes, ever.

[Heraclitus]

Get the same chart for the number of AXIS killed by Soviets and the rest of allies. 2/3 of Werhmacht was destroyed by Soviets. Nearly 2/3 of the Soviet loses were CIVILIANS.

****er.
Damn you. Assh*ole. ****ing western liers. Hate you ****ing revisionists. God damn liers.
Burn in hell.

You've drawn the wrong conclusions about my opinions from what I posted.

I sure as hell know that most allied civilian losses where Soviet, but the chart's in themselves are correct (they must be I found them on Wikipedia ).


Also the wasn't at the fact that millions of Russians died it was at the some of the tactics used by the Soviet Union. I mean seriusly sending in two guys with one gun...




Also WW2 threads

Didn't someone in another thread say WW2 was ancient history?