Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

[Milosh]

lend/lease tonnage shipped to the Soviets

Year Totals

Persian Gulf - Pacific - Atlantic - Black Sea - Arctic > total (% of total)

1941-- 360,778 - 13,502 - 193,299 - 153,977 > 721,556 (~2.4%)
1942--2,453,097 - 705,259 - 734,020 - 949,711 - 64,107 > 4,906,194 (~16.1%)
1943--4,794,545 - 1,606,979 - 2,388,577 - 681,043 - 117,946 > 9,589,090 (~31.5%)
1944--6,217,622 - 1,788,864 - 2,848,181 - 1,452,775 - 127,802 > 12,435,245 (~40.8%)
1945--3,673,819 - 44,513 - 2,079,320 - 726,725 - 680,723 > 2,804,556 (~9.2%)

total - 30,456,641

 

[Jenisch]

It is necessary to considerate the "pre Lend Lease", in which Britain played a good part in 1941.

Also, the numbers alone while appearing little in the first years, need interpretation. Weapons were of great use, specially planes and tanks with the horrible losses. The Soviet also could focus their industry in specific things that in medium and long term would be covered by the LL. Not to mention that full German strenght in the East, the Germans would have more planes, more tanks, etc. The Soviet would need to compensate such things by producing more and more to replace losses and obtain advantage in numbers, and consequentely would have less overall productuion and less resources in the battefield.

Something more:

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

Moreover, he underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a
backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. "It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

I give 1 cent for the first one that tell who told this. Of course this is still not a conclusive evidence, but it came from someone who was really inside the Soviet war machine.

 

[parsifal]

It was Marshal Zhukov speaking in 1963, during the height of the cold war.

 

[Jenisch]

Yeah.

Another thing came to my mind now: Hitler did not only had more industrial base than the USSR, specially alone, but also had an extermination industry. Even Glantz tells that the war would last 12-18 months more without LL. I think it's fair to considerate how much millions more of Soviets citizens in the occupied territories would be killed or deported as slaves to Germany. The Soviets drafted many men from the recuperated territories. This could represent really a problem for the USSR in my view. At least to keep pushing Germany to an unconditional surrender.

 

[parsifal]

The scenario suffers because of its unlikley preconditions. To me, fundamental problems arise in relation to how Japan stays out of the war, and how the USA gets into the war. Whether and if and when the USSR gets into the conflagaration is another massive intangible hard to predict. All we can do is speculate really

With regard to Japan, the central issue about Japanese involvement in China, and her clash about spheres of influence versus free markett access in China. In hindsight nothing short of a complete retreat from either one or both of these "isms" would avoid Japans entry into the war as an Axis nation. I can really only deal with generalities here, but fundamental changes would need to occur in the political dynamic.

Some suggestions:


1) Full blown war breaks out in 1939 between Japan and the Soviets, resulting i the complete removal of Japan from the China. What happens after that is problematic, but i expect a communist China acting as a client of Stalin.....for a few years at least. In the scenario we have now, (no Russian involvement in the war in the west) the japanese find themselves alone, friendless and defeated. There are coups and upheavals within Japan. militaritim is rejected, and towards the end of the war, say 1945-6, the Japanese hoist their star with either the british and/or the Americans. In effect, they become a client state of the western alliance

2) The emperor makes some statement along the lines that the "china incident is wrong, and we must get out of the conflict". he lasts about 10 minutes before he is killed, but the damage is done. Japan descends into anarchy because ther are those loyal to the emperors wishes, and those loyal to the bushido code. Either way, japan is in no state to take on the allies becausde of internal conflicts.

3) The US president is assassinated by a radical isolationist in 1937. There is a radical backlash to this outrage, and the first item on the agenda is to eliminate Japanese militarism. The US emabarks on a rearmament program and issues a *** point plan to the japanese, demanding an immediate pullout from China. In exchange the japanese are offered "most favoured nation" status to US markets. Japan is forced to accede to US demands, ther is a loss of face for the military factions and a gradual regaining of power by the doves.


What I am doing here doesnt help or achieve much, I am mostly trying to illustrate that this scenario is not really realistic or likley to have ever occurred

 

[michaelmaltby]

I admire Mr. Glantz. I have read only one of his works ... August Storm (Japan-Russia August 1945). Very thorough and impressive. That said, he spent his formative life as a US Army military historian at the Kansas staff college. And in a highly pro-USA culture *** , I am sure his job was to make sure the Soviets received thorough analysis. Anyone doing so honestly would have much to remark on and respect in Soviets efforts, tactics and strategy. That doesn't make Mr. G. into the oracle of WW2, , just a fine WW2 historian among several, IMHO (as always)

*** Oh No, Joe:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh378oyTQWQ

 

[Jenisch]

Yes, he makes a good job, and as everybody, he is not perfect. The problem I found with Glantz is just some of his conclusions he put as facts. According to Glantz, the Soviets could have probably won the war alone (even this meaning being attacked or attack Japan). Then I say, great, the other Allies perhaps also could! Respect the Soviet effort and get rid of it's stereotypes is one thing, but rely mainly in Soviet views (desconsiderating the Germans as "loosers"), and belive the Soviet Union who really won WWII, and we must have an almost loyal respect towards the Russians, is what I perceive as the negative side from Glantz. Even so, I will not affirm he is really wrong. This is much the way of the angle one wants to see the war. I considerate the Soviet more important directly against Germany, but in good part, perhaps decisively, I considerate this because his Allies were helping by not letting the Axis concentrate their total power against it, and were also supplying the Soviets. So, my opinion was that Germany was decisively defeated by a joint force. While Glantz considerates only the combat efforts of the Soviets as critical.

 

[davparlr]

I see, please explain why germany should have ground troops of 180 Divisions without a war in the east in this given Scenario?

100-120 Division would be enough! That would be ( for 120 Divisionen) 960000 less men to the army.
More then 2,7 millionen were kiled in action at the war in the east.

Except for total apathy on the part of the US, there is no scenario where Germany could out produce the US. They did not have the workers, access to resources, or the infrastructure to do so. So, unless those troops could swim the English Channel with full packs, their fate was sealed.

Feel free to do the mathematic on your self, what this imply to german economics, pilotes in training and abstract please the whole war would be at sea and at air, bevor an invasion would perhaps start. And then think again about your above statement!

I suspect I would have to live in another dimension, maybe using the world of imaginary numbers, to do that kind of mathematics. Germany had already mobilized for war, maybe not efficiency, but still did. It fought England without being at war with the USSR and failed and in fact started falling behind in aircraft resources. I don't see this changing. They would have had to subjugate Britain in order to consolidate their conquest, something I think their military leaders fully understood. Starting a second front with an enemy stronghold on your rear was the height of arrogance and stupidity. Britain was the high ground overlooking Europe. With this occupied with a powerful force, Europe would always be at risk. Even without developing a second front, having an enemy that occupied a strong point overlooking your defenses and continually getting stronger and stronger and at a faster rate than you could respond was a doomsday scenario.

Now, if Germany had waited a few more years, as its Navy wanted to do, the war would have been much different. That would also be an interesting discussion issue.

 

[Jenisch]

Starting a second front with an enemy stronghold on your rear was the height of arrogance and stupidity. Britain was the high ground overlooking Europe. With this occupied with a powerful force, Europe would always be at risk. Even without developing a second front, having an enemy that occupied a strong point overlooking your defenses and continually getting stronger and stronger and at a faster rate than you could respond was a doomsday scenario.

Words from the old Churchill:

"Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war"

I guess Churchill overestimated Hitler's intelligence, because he didn't know.

The problem of let Britain was much more a safety one in my view. And in fact, it proved critical. Even if Hitler could not defeat the USSR alone, without Britain and consequentely the US, he would be capable of probably not be defeated by Stalin either. The problem is the Fuher didn't thought much about this. Even the US he underestimated.

 

[Gixxerman]

my opinion was that Germany was decisively defeated by a joint force.

Ultimately I think this is indisputable in terms of what happened.

My own view is that the joint force gave the win speed, the win itself I do not see as ever in true doubt.

A medium sized country like Germany just can't win the vast world war they embarked upon fast enough for their lack of resources - and the choices in priorities that forced upon them - not to become a growing handicap and no amount of 'political will' can disguise that, no matter how many relatively easy (but also relatively small) gains are made initially.
Thank God.

The one caveat to this would have been what I see as the only true WW2 'game changer' possible to Germany (the bomb), but then they were crazy enough to rid themselves of almost all of the best nuclear scientists in the world.....and worse for them have them go over to the allied side.

Irony?
Miracle?
Hand of God?
However you describe it there's something so utterly sobering magical about how that one worked out, in my book at least.

 

[Jenisch]

Ultimately I think this is indisputable in terms of what happened.

A medium sized country like Germany just can't win the vast world war they embarked upon.

That's the point. A world war. That's what most people forget when talking about the importance of the Eastern Front. While the EF consumed more resources from Germany, in my view it was not the only or even the major cause of it's defeat in the global conditions of the conflict. Simply because if the Axis could concentrate everything against the Soviets, perhaps there would not be an EF to be "most important" anymore, but a conquered USSR or a stalemate with the Axis powers surviving the war. The same for the other Allies without the Soviets. So, I don't see much sense in all those discussions of "who did more". Everyone was fundamental.

 

[Readie]

I suspect I would have to live in another dimension, maybe using the world of imaginary numbers, to do that kind of mathematics. Germany had already mobilized for war, maybe not efficiency, but still did. It fought England without being at war with the USSR and failed and in fact started falling behind in aircraft resources. I don't see this changing. They would have had to subjugate Britain in order to consolidate their conquest, something I think their military leaders fully understood. Starting a second front with an enemy stronghold on your rear was the height of arrogance and stupidity. Britain was the high ground overlooking Europe. With this occupied with a powerful force, Europe would always be at risk. Even without developing a second front, having an enemy that occupied a strong point overlooking your defenses and continually getting stronger and stronger and at a faster rate than you could respond was a doomsday scenario.

The Germans would have to defeat the Royal Navy, apply a stranglehold on the convoy systems with more U boats, defeat the RAF, build a 'D Day' amount of infrastructure and resources to invade Britain and study history more. Had Herr Hitler done that and seen the fate of Napoleon he may have thought again about invading Russia....
The Nazi's were at their height of adulation after the invasion of Poland, France, Norway , Holland Belgium. The failure to consolidate cost them the war.
Germany was too small to fight the world.
No amount of scenarios and what if's alter that basic fact.

John

 

[cimmex]

No clue what you are discussing here, original question was: "Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power", answer is very simple: NO!!!

 

[Ratsel]

Germany was too small to fight the world.
John

Big enough to hold most of Europe for 4 years. The Germans did not want the world.. the russians did. What about Neville Chamberlain?.. His role was slightly more then minor in Germanys invasion of Chez republic etc.. Whats funny in this thread is some peoples notion that England or Russia would do just fine w/o LL, American help.. whatever one wants to call it. How many trucks/planes shipped to russia from US? how much food/ammo/fuel shipped to England from US? British in N.Africa would win without Operation Torch? How long could russia hold out w/o US planes/supplies in the Early part of Barbarosa? These are question that I'm curious to know.

No clue what you are discussing here, original question was: "Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power", answer is very simple: NO!!!

My belief also. But seem this thread took on a whole new direction! Regardless some very good information anyways =)

 

[Readie]

Big enough to hold most of Europe for 4 years. The Germans did not want the world..

» What If…The Nazis won World War II? » FactPile

An almost endless 'what if'. The one thing I'm sure of is that had the Nazi's won we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

John

 

[cimmex]

IMO everybody here will agree

 

[parsifal]

No clue what you are discussing here, original question was: "Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power", answer is very simple: NO!!!

Not exactly. The question was really, using Air Power, to prepare for other forms of warfare, including invasion, could the allies do it. Russia was basically removed from the equation, meaning initially no help for either side....an obviously unrealistic approach, with some pointing out that Russia might continue to provide resources to the Axis, others recognizing that frontiers need to be garrisoned. There was also the vexed question of japan, and involvement (when and how strongly) of the US in a purely European war. We could not reach common ground on a "southern front" alternative.

These are all valid complications, but really they are modifications to the original question.....could the allies defeat Germany without Russia?

 

[Jenisch]

Thanks for let the things clear Parsifal.

We also need to considerate a basic thing here: COULD is different from WOULD. I think some people here started to become agressive because they misunderstood this. We are just posting opinions, but obviously noboby can prove something that didn't happened. Let's keep this in mind and everything will be fine.

 

[Readie]

Not exactly. The question was really, using Air Power, to prepare for other forms of warfare, including invasion, could the allies do it. Russia was basically removed from the equation, meaning initially no help for either side....an obviously unrealistic approach, with some pointing out that Russia might continue to provide resources to the Axis, others recognizing that frontiers need to be garrisoned. There was also the vexed question of japan, and involvement (when and how strongly) of the US in a purely European war. We could not reach common ground on a "southern front" alternative.

These are all valid complications, but really they are modifications to the original question.....could the allies defeat Germany without Russia?

lets clarify who we mean by 'allies'.

Do we mean Britain, Australia, NZ, South Africa, India Canada ( ie Empire / Commonwealth) ? Or, do we assume USA involvement with or without the Japanese attack?

Germany did not have the bomber power to destroy British industry so, there would always be a capacity for us to build heavy bombers and drawing on the Commonwealth /Empire there would have been no immediate shortage of crews.
I can find no evidence to suggest that the RAF alone had the power to deliver enough blows to the Nazi war machine to cripple it.
So, I can see a stalemate developing with neither Germany or Britain able to defeat each other.

The same stalemate as WW1 pre USA involvement.

What was needed was someone to tip the balance. The Americans or the Russians?

John

 

[Jenisch]

The scenario was Britain and the Commonwealth against Germany and it's Europen allies, plus a US involvement in late 1941, with Japan and the USSR in neutrality. The Soviet Union would pose a problem in the defense area for Germany, and Japan perhaps would pose a problem for the Soviets as well. It was still a world war. That's it.