Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[Hunter368]

Not sure I am understanding Syscom's comment or not. But what I am reading or getting from it (correct me if I am wrong Syscom), but you think Russia could of defeated Germany by itself?

From what year on? 1941? or when?

Clearly in my mind if there was no Allies, if it was just Russia vs Germany from 1941 on........Germany would of beaten Russia in IMO.

Would there of been Germany Allies involved? Italy, Rom, Hung, Japan, etc?

If yes then it would of been a bigger defeat and faster win by Germany. IMO

Please explain that comment more clearly Syscom so we know 100% what you are saying (include years involved).

 

[Udet]

Quote:

Syscom...and you will not see it for there is none...the debate on this matter is almost over.

??? The debate is over when we all finish discussing it - what's your point?

The point? The deliberate willingful blindness of some people who have issues with a quite simple premise: No USA in Europe, No victory over Germany. You can push it in farther as you wish the problem being the debate will commence losing substance.


Quote:
I can not believe several of the arguments i can read here that point out some really bizarre idea that even without the entrance of the USA into the war, "Germany would still eventually lose the war"...unbelievable and unconceivable.

Nobody said "Germany would lose" What the question was is it POSSIBLE for the UK Russia to beat Germany -Yes

It´s been said by a few Germany would still get beaten, read the thread from the beginning. And my answer to the question, well you know it: NO, due to the reasons i have been stating.

Quote:

Keep the feet on the ground: by even suggesting such a thing you are likewise suggesting it is the Soviet Union and Great Britain defeating Germany. This constitutes a drama far beyond rubbish; the utmost tragedy in the anals of reason. The idea of the Red Army reaching the Channel Coast is as laughable as, say, the idea of the Wehrmacht as a tool for genocide.

As laughable as the Japanese thinking that they could put almost all the US capital ships out of action destroying 200+ aircraft at Pearl Harbour, for the loss of 29 aircraft. (against a US military that was pre-warned had radar)

As laughable as the British destroying an Italian army in 1940 that had more tanks, planes was 5 times the size.

Or perhaps as laughable as the Germans thinking they could defeat the French nation in 40 days, considering that the Allies had more divisions, tanks, planes and had a formidible defensive Maginot line along more thn half the border.

So anybody that has an opinion different than your is "Rubbish"?

No, not like that. I respect and value opinions that are at variance with my own, but one enters the realm of Rubbish when resisting evidence that is as sound as 1 ton of solid concrete falling on top of your head.

So you are trying to apply some sort of universal principle that might indicate anything´s possible; then when you are committed to an effort it will yield good results sooner or later. I like the notion, also i live by such principle. But in the case we are discussing it is not likely to apply.

Do not forget we are referring to some type of scenario that did not occur.

And yes, the notion of the Red Army steam rolling all before it, reaching the Channel Coasts belongs in the Fantasy Realm of Walt Disney´s Classics.

So -repetitive- without the USA in Europe, you think Great Britain alone had the potential to open the extra-fronts that relieved the pressure in favour of the soviets?

That the Germans would not have had a large number of extra divisions available to form new Armies and/or Army Groups to slam the soviets?

 

[Marcel]

Hi Udet,

Not wanting to disagree with you as I consider myself not an expert on this thing by a long shot, but just a question for me to learn from. Why do you think it is obvious that Germany would win the war with the USSR if no other country was involved? In my (amateuristic) view, the ruski's could have retreated as much as they wanted, sacrifice many more people and land than the Germans and in the end just let the germans run out of manpower. Not exactly an army steam rolling over the germans, but it would bring them a stale mate or even victory in the end.

 

[Udet]

Marcel:

It was not necessary to occupy the entire territory of the Soviet Union. The word "necessary" as i used it here sounds hilarious...it was something well beyond the human and material potential of Germany. It was simply not contemplated.

To illustrate this better: in Germany´s plans, as outlined for Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the USSR), the goal was to reach Arkhangelsk (Archangel in English), which is located in what perhaps is the northernmost sector of the European Continent (the White Sea), and to form a "barrier" that would follow its way south the Caspian Sea, thus erasing Russian presence in Europe. So not even in Hitler´s huge mind was the notion of taking the entire territory. Simply impossible.

Yes, it seems natural to see the immense soviet territory as natural space for retreating as deep as you want, and also to have your military industry either moved or erected in the depths of such vast land.

But wars in the fashion of World War Two can not last that too much time; it was too violent, to bloody and excessively costly. No more Peloponnesian or Punic Wars in this new style of waging war. To some extent it would seem most of us acknowledge WW2 lasted "only" 6 years...too little and too much at the same time.

Without the USA in Europe, i see the original goals of Barbarossa more than attainable...even with the events that took place, Wehrmacht units reached the shores of the Caspian Sea, near Astrakhan -southern Volga-...even if they did not remain there for too long, since the whole thing collapsed up North that sector in Stalingrad. (Also i have data yet to be confirmed but my suspicion is that some Luftwaffe units that saw action across the Don River bend and Stalingrad battles of 1942, might have flown real close to Asian territory -if not effectively over it- east/north east Stalingrad in recon and even combat missions -Kazakhstan-, but this is not the topic here...ok.

Even with all that space for retreating and even replacing its industry, all that German power that during the war got scattered away from the east is now used against the Soviets, the dimension of the German advance and victories would have eventually lead to political negotiation, even the demise of Smiley Dzhugashvili.

 

[Hunter368]

Even more Udet,

Could you imagine what would of happened if there was no BoB, no BoF, no Torch, no Africa......thousands of extra planes available.

Germany would never of lost control of the air in Russia. All those extra men and tanks/planes not used in Africa, Italy, France, Greece, Med., Norway.

Moscow would of fallen, their central hub of industry and transportation (not to mention capital). Stalingrad would of fallen, Leningrad would of fallen, oil fields would of fallen.

No lend lease help for Russia. LOL

Russia would of fallen or surrendered most likely before 44.

As it was Germany almost had Moscow in 41 (within sight of Moscow), nearly Stalingrad in 42 (Russia only held are very small percentage of the city), Leningrad nearly starved to death.

The total shock that Russia would of felt if all those extra losses in men and territory might of been just enough to make them surrender in 43.

 

[Soren]

Good post Udet. I agree.

It seems hard for some people to realize just how much manpower material was used to defend the reich from aerial bombing, that and about 20% of the entire Wehrmacht was by 44 fighting the Western Allies. Just another 20% more manpower in the east and a million more men at home to help supply the troops and Stalingrad would've fallen quickly.

 

[Udet]

Hunter, hello.

I agree for the most part, but i would think the BoB still happens and has the same outcome. Germany fails to crush the RAF to then switch the sight to the east.

I digress: if Germany beats the Soviet Union for good, i do not see Hitler turning its eyes back on England with the purpose of invasion and occupation.
Many times i´ve said it: the war in Europe could have lasted almost half the time it actually did. Millions of lives could have been saved.

As for all the other events, i agree with you completely.

After having read so many books and articles about the eastern front, i find it amazing to realize there are countless historians which see "Barbarossa" doomed virtually from its inception. I am bewildered.

With all mistakes and unwise decisions made they were still so damn close to beat the Soviets i can not believe there are people who truly believe things could not have happened differently if some pieces on the chessboard would have been placed correctly.

Acknowledged is the fact Germany had already scattered its forces throughout Europe prior to June 22, 1941. The day Barbarossa was launched the Heer had ~50 divisions still stationed in the West. It is relevant to notice that by such time, the USA was not still in the war though.

But, let´s move to a period of time when the USA was now a combatant: 1943; by this year the contribution of the USA to the allied war effort had become more than significant. Torch had already taken place, and the allied presence in the West/Mediterranean seemed more threatening than ever. Throughout the entire 1943, the Heer maintained an average of ~50 divisions stationed in the West only...think of any % of such divisions sent to the East, say, for Kursk.

Look, i will try to search some of my Eastern Front books, where i recall reading on a large number of cases where fast counter-attacks carried out by German units or parts of German units -Panzer units for example- managed to stabilize critical front sectors during late of 1943 and 1944, at least for a few days...a time when things really commenced falling in the East.

Most times such units were greatly outnumbered and were even close to exhaustion due to constant re-deployments from one point or sector to another for dealing with Soviet penetrations and/or attacks....if things like these were attained by small units experiencing weeks and weeks of non-stop fierce combat, mostly outnumbered and even under strenght, think of the presence of several complete divisions that could not be there thanks to the essential help of the USA.

Soren, right!

The dimension of the Reich´s air defence system was astounding, and as i put it, that was mainly courtesy of the massive 8th, 9th and 15th Air Forces; without such fleets involved the size and effort invested in such venture would of been way less significant, releasing a huge number of men and material that goes to the east.

 

[Captn javy Wilson]

nah I still say Germany would had it.

 

[Soren]

Imagine what difference another 650,000 highly trained troops would've made at Stalingrad! Thats the same amount as that committed to the fighting in the first place! Any pincer movement by the Soviets would've been out of the question!

And here's another little benefit: Winterclothing actually being fraighted to the frontline troops, another million support personnel being more than enough to ensure a timely delivery.

 

[dark child]

lucky13 what does beer have to do with anything?

 

[syscom3]

Soren, you underestimate the damage that Hitler would have inflicted in the Army.

All those extra troops and supplies would be squandered.

 

[Freebird]

There is no way the Soviet Union would have "steam rolled" all the way to the Channel coasts if the USA decides to remain neutral...it´s become some sort of allied mantra.

In this you are correct, if the Russians can defeat Germany in the "No USA" scenario, then it would be a long, slow, hard, bloody fight. No "Steam-roller"

Sometimes it´d appear the allies do no yet fully recover from the wild celebration held following the German surrender; too much alcohol, too much ladies, panties and bras scattered all over the place, too many sleepless nights...

"No matter what the Germans would do or would not do, they in the end would lose the war..."; so easy huh?

No, IMO a German loss would be POSSIBLE, not inevitable

Whether commonwealth people like it or not, the U.S.A. is ESSENTIAL for allied victory.

Was Great Britain essential for allied victory? Hmm...i do not think so...let´s see: protected by the mighty channel, and cursed by U.S. neutrality, Germany and Great Britain attain what we call a stalemate. So Great Britain is essential when it comes to reaching stalemates only. No victory scenario.

You have just contradicted yourself!!! Without the UK Commonwealth tying down 50 divisions in the west, keeping a big chunk of the Luftwaffe Flak units in the West, delaying Barbarossa by 2-3 months not to mention supplies to the Soviets in 1941 - it would be almost impossible for the Soviets to survive. Do you think the USA UK could then defeat Germany without the USSR?

In the past i have commented the allies reached the perfect balance of ingredients to formulate victory: the large army of some brutal regime who did not care for losses (USSR); a very large and very competitive air force (USAAF); two large navies (US and Royal Navy); a powerful military industry safe and away from significant enemy harm (USA); an assembly base separated from the continent (UK), plus the armies of both the USA and Great Britain.

This, however, will not undermine the accuracy and validity of the argument: while the U.S.A. did of course benefit from the intervention of the other 2 major allies, the U.S.A. could have remained in the comfort and safety of their neutrality while in Great Britain new religions, cults and sects are created that worship the Channel, and the Soviets accept German terms for ending the war in the east, losing a chunk of their territory.

And after the Japanese Germans have conquered all of Asia, Africa, etc. how does the Neutral USA at peacetime status face down the Axis?

The USA is essential. An issue not subjected to doubt or inquiry.

Why? Because you say so? Apparently some here on the forum didn't get your memo because we disagree with you

Of Great Britain, oh well, i do not bother that much. (??)

So, again, no U.S.A. in Europe, no allied victory at all and no soviet "steam rolling" all the way to the Channel coasts. At minimum, we have a stalemate, if not a clear Germany victory.

The real issue here should be that given the status of things in Europe in the early 1940s, it was Great Britain who needed the U.S.A. and not vice-versa. They needed the help of the U.S. for the very simple and pristine reason Germany was an enemy to tough and too powerful to deal with all by themselves. The Heer was not an enemy, it was THE enemy. British/Commonwealth army forces were decisively routed and/or defeated by the Heer wherever they clashed until Al-Alamein.

PERIOD.

NO, WRONG. In November 1941 in operation Crusader AGAINST ROMMEL following the battles of 18 - 26 Nov Dec 2 the British forced the Africa Korps to withdraw, abandoning 100's of tanks. The British regained Cyrenaica and relieved the siege of Tobruk. The British had 18,000 casualties, while the Axis had 24,500 and the British took 36,500 prisoners.

So what kind of decisive rout/defeat was this for the British?

(figures quoted from WWII by Brig. P Young p.84)

 

[Hunter368]

Soren, you underestimate the damage that Hitler would have inflicted in the Army.

All those extra troops and supplies would be squandered.

Explain this comment more Syscom.

 

[syscom3]

Explain this comment more Syscom.

If germany had to fight Russia without interference from Hitler and his sycophants, then I'd wager the odds of Germany winning as 3-2.

But since Hitler is Hitler, id say its still a 50-50 chance for either side (germany or Russia).

One thing to ponder on about the US contribution to the war in Europe..... it wasn't untill summer of 1943 that there were enough troops and amphib ships for the US and Brits to be a factor in Italy.

The Germans essentially lost the war in Russia at Stalingrad long before the US's power was felt.

 

[Marcel]

Marcel:

It was not necessary to occupy the entire territory of the Soviet Union. The word "necessary" as i used it here sounds hilarious...it was something well beyond the human and material potential of Germany. It was simply not contemplated....

Thanks for the explanation, Udet. Yes I agree with you that it is definately possible, the germans would have reached their goal.

Another question to all: Could the western allies have won without the USSR?

 

[syscom3]

....

Another question to all: Could the western allies have won without the USSR?

Once the allies had the atomic bomb, then they would win.

 

[Soren]

Again syscom3 you're forgetting the resources spent on the Allied air raids the campaign in Africa.

With 650,000 more troops the Soviets would've lost Stalingrad for sure, esp. when the German troops were fully equipped with winterclothing which undoubtedly would've been the case with an extra million support personnel. The LW would be present in stronger numbers as-well.

 

[syscom3]

Again syscom3 you're forgetting the resources spent on the Allied air raids the campaign in Africa.

With 650,000 more troops the Soviets would've lost Stalingrad for sure, esp. when the German troops were fully equipped with winterclothing which undoubtedly would've been the case with an extra million support personnel. The LW would be present in stronger numbers as-well.

And youre forgetting the impact Hitler had on the conduct of the war. And why should the lack of a US pesence in the war mean the German army would have had all those extra winter uniforms? They didnt have them in the first place because of a failure in supply.

 

[Civettone]

I agree with Syscom. First, the war would eventually have been decided by the A-bomb. No matter how much Germany conquered, dropping A-bombs on German cities would eventually have brought Germany to its knees.

Also, the notion of winter clothing is a farce. There was winter clothing - the Germans were preparing to occupy the country in the Winter, were they not? - but the problematic supply system meant they didn't arrive at the troops in time when the winter cold suddenly appeared. Plus Soren, this was mainly in 1941, not in 1942.

Kris

 

[Freebird]

Keep the feet on the ground: by even suggesting such a thing you are likewise suggesting it is the Soviet Union and Great Britain defeating Germany. This constitutes a drama far beyond rubbish; the utmost tragedy in the anals of reason.

So anybody that has an opinion different than your is "Rubbish"?

No, not like that. I respect and value opinions that are at variance with my own, but one enters the realm of Rubbish when resisting evidence that is as sound as 1 ton of solid concrete falling on top of your head.

You havn't presented any "evidence" only opinions.

No I dont forget how crucial it is. Germany was not going to defeat Russia. They had a chance in 1942 and they lost it. After that it was just a long march back to Berlin.

This is my opinion too. The Germans were on the offensive until Stalingrad, after that it is only defending, it had reached a point where the Russians out-produce Germany, it is no longer possible to win.

My argument is that there would be no reduction in the level of help the Soviets get before Stalingrad {*see below*} (both material by occuping German forces in the west), by 1943 the level of help to the Soviets will fall off, but by that time it is too late for Germany to win, by then the Soviets are producing enough tanks, aircraft, guns divisions to defeat Germany. The critical aid (IMO) is that that arrives in USSR by Sept 1942, which would be in time to be used in the November counter attack. (assumes that 6 weeks is required to unload supplies, train, assemble, do maintainance, ship by rail to the front.

*note* As I have written in a previous post, this assumes that the British completes the rail link to Egypt early 1941 to the Soviet Union through Persia in early fall 1941. Prior to Sept 1942 the Soviets would not get approximately 550 US tanks (Lee's!!) and about 300 aircraft. The British would be able to supply at least this many British built ones because:

1.) The supplies would be shipped to Nigeria, then by rail to Russia, avoiding the "Murmansk" route where 80 - 90% of the shipping losses occured. While the Soviet got those (approx) 550 US tanks 300 US aircraft prior to Sept 1942, the total # of supplies to Russia lost by sinking in 1941 1942 was 1,226 tanks 656 aircraft. At LEAST half of those would not have been lost if they had not been sent on the Murmansk route.

{Supplies to Russia figures quoted from Churchill's "Hinge of Fate" p. 241}

2.) Canadian production would be much higher, because they would not have been scaled back because of the US entry into the war - In early 1942 "Plans for a large increase in production at Canadian facilities was dropped because it was realized that US production of Sherman tanks would be more than sufficient for Allied needs" {Tanks of the World 1915-1945 - C.Ellis Galahad books}

It seems hard for some people to realize just how much manpower material was used to defend the reich from aerial bombing, that and about 20% of the entire Wehrmacht was by 44 fighting the Western Allies. Just another 20% more manpower in the east and a million more men at home to help supply the troops and Stalingrad would've fallen quickly.

Soren, the 1 million men defending Germany in 1942 were defending Germany against BRITISH bombers, not American. Remember that the German high command was shocked at the destruction of the 1,000 bomber raid which destroyed most of Cologne in May 1942. This was a BRITISH operation. The US air force did not begin operations over Germany until Aug 1942, and they only had 24 aircrews. The US effort did not make a big impact until 1943.

On 4 July 1942, Independence Day, six American crews from the 15th Bombardment Group (Light) together with six RAF crews were despatched from RAF Swanton Morley, Norfolk, on a daylight sweep against four German airfields in the Netherlands. It was the first time American airmen had flown in American-built bombers against a German target, but although it was important historically, the raid was not an unqualified success.

In August 1942, the 92nd and 301st Bomb Groups arrived to join Brigadier General Ira C. Eaker's rapidly increasing air force.

It took time to get the new groups ready for combat and training was lacking in many areas. Colonel Frank A. Armstrong, had mid-August 24 crews ready for combat. Meanwhile, as arguments went on behind the scenes about whether bombing in daylight was possible over heavily defended targets in Europe or even that the B-17 Flying Fortress and B-24 Liberators' bomb-carrying capacity and their armament would be enough, the first Fortresses strike of the war was scheduled for August 17, 1942.

One thing to ponder on about the US contribution to the war in Europe..... it wasn't untill summer of 1943 that there were enough troops and amphib ships for the US and Brits to be a factor in Italy.

The Germans essentially lost the war in Russia at Stalingrad long before the US's power was felt.

Exactly my point Syscom

After having read so many books and articles about the eastern front, i find it amazing to realize there are countless historians which see "Barbarossa" doomed virtually from its inception. I am bewildered.

You are correct, there are many that say "Barbarossa" was a big blunder by Hitler, but I don't agree. Hitler had to attack the USSR, or they would have built up and attacked Germany. The Germans had a good chance to win, but only until 1942, after that it is too late.

With all mistakes and unwise decisions made they were still so damn close to beat the Soviets i can not believe there are people who truly believe things could not have happened differently if some pieces on the chessboard would have been placed correctly.

Agreed, I think Hitler's biggest mistake was delaying for 3 months in the Balkans. I think he would have been better off sending only 8 - 12 divisions to help the Italians, and launching Barbarossa in April. He would have had 12 - 20 less divisions, but the Russians would have been even less prepared. Hitler could probably have taken an extra 10 - 15 divisions from France, he vastly over-estimated the danger from a British invasion of France in 1941

Acknowledged is the fact Germany had already scattered its forces throughout Europe prior to June 22, 1941. The day Barbarossa was launched the Heer had ~50 divisions still stationed in the West.

*** It is relevant to notice that by such time, the USA was not still in the war though.***

Yes indeed. So the fact that the US was not in the war would not have helped. Actually 58 German divisions if you count the Balkans, 39 in Western Europe, 12 in Norway, 7 in the Balkans.

But, let´s move to a period of time when the USA was now a combatant: 1943; by this year the contribution of the USA to the allied war effort had become more than significant. Torch had already taken place, and the allied presence in the West/Mediterranean seemed more threatening than ever. Throughout the entire 1943, the Heer maintained an average of ~50 divisions stationed in the West only...think of any % of such divisions sent to the East, say, for Kursk.

As Syscom had pointed out, the US troop strength in Europe was not a factor in 1942, so it does not affect the strength of German troopss in the West. Assume that in 1943 with only the UK in the war, US neutral, suppose the Germans could take 15 dvisions from France and send to Russia, for Kursk (leaving say 10 in Norway, 7 in the Balkans and 25 in France, Benelux, Denmark facing about 25 - 30 British divisions in the UK) {Remember also that some of these divisions in the west are needed to defend against partisans.}

Of those 15 divisions sent to Russia, only perhaps 2 or 3 would be armoured, and with Panzer III IV. The problem at Kursk was that the Russian anti-tank Guns were too powerful too many. The Panzer IV's wereheavily hit at Kursk, The Tigers could stand up better to the Russian guns, but there were not enough of them and they could not neutralize the Russian strongpoints to allow the German infantry to follow. I don't think the Germans could succeed at Kursk, even with an extra 3 panzer divisions a half dozen inf infantry div. (remember some of your "extra" infantry div's would be needed in other parts of the Russian front) Look how fast the front collapsed after Kursk, not just there but also Kharkov, Orel, Smolensk, and pushing back to Crimea the Dnieper

The dimension of the Reich´s air defence system was astounding, and as i put it, that was mainly courtesy of the massive 8th, 9th and 15th Air Forces; without such fleets involved the size and effort invested in such venture would of been way less significant, releasing a huge number of men and material that goes to the east.

No, because in 1942 the US did not play a big role. Even without the USA the Germans would STILL have to have almost all of those (Flak Air defence) troops in the west because of the increasingly devastating British bombing. (ever heard of the Lancaster?)

The Nazi's had to do the maximum to defend against the British bombing, for psychological political reasons. After Hamburg was hit by Bomber Command, Adolf Galland remarked
"In every large town people said - {What happened at Hamburg yesterday could happen to us tomorrow} Berlin was evacuated with signs of panic The Terror of Hamburg spread to ever town of the Reich"