The New Eastern Front

[Jenisch]

".... And please, don't tell me the Russians had tecnological parity with the Germans, because this is simply not truth."

In the cold freeze up of December, 1941, with the spires of Moscow in sight -- technical superiority did SFA for the Nazis. Guns froze, vehicles had to run constantly, airpower was ineffective, steel became brittle, and the list goes on and on ....

Hitler thought he could win because he was a gambler -- and he overestimated the Germanic 'geist' and underestimated his enemies - racially and politically.

This was historically, and I'm considerating a stalemate possibility in this scenario as well.

You go ahead and sing the praises of slave labour all you want -- but I pity the poor soldier or pilot that had to use the stuff. (I wouldn't even want to use equipment made in France after the Occupation ).

I wouldn't. With a single front war, the German production would be much better, because there would be no bombing. Also, it would be more easy to monitorate the slave production. The Soviet production was by no means an example of quality (together with the inferior equipment), and the sabotages were the main problem. This monitoring capability the Germans would have, together with the more powerful German industry I also already mentioned, change the things significantly. Without the blockade, it's better even not go further,

 

[Milosh]

The German industry matched the Soviet in tank and armored vehicle production in 1944.

Soviet:
Light tanks - 7,155
Medium tanks - 16,242
Heavy tanks - 4,762

Total - 28,159

German:
Tanks - 18,956

Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes a difference of almost 10,000 vehicles is a match, be sure.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Man - I couldn't understand why you are so stuck on 'slavery' Jenisch, until I googled slavery in Brazil. I guess I can understand why it's just an everyday occurrence in your mind:

" ... In 1995, 288 farmworkers were freed from what was officially described as slavery, a total which rose to 583 in 2000. In 2001, however, the Brazilian government freed more than 1,400 slave laborers. Some believe that most cases probably go undetected. A national survey conducted in 2000 by the Pastoral Land Commission, a Roman Catholic church group, estimated that there were more than 25,000 forced workers and slaves in Brazil. In 2004, the Brazilian government acknowledged to the United Nations that 25,000-40,000 Brazilians work under work conditions "analogous to slavery." The top anti-slavery official in Brasília, nation's capital, estimates the number of modern slaves at 50,000. More than 1,000 slave laborers were freed from a sugar cane plantation in 2007 by the Brazilian government, in the largest anti-slavery raid in modern times in Brazil. In 2008, the Brazilian government freed 4,634 slaves in 133 separate criminal cases at 255 different locations. Freed slaves received a total compensation of £2.4 million (equal to $4.8 million)." [Source Wikipedia]

V-1 and V-2 rockets, Panther tanks, artillery shells and MG ammunition isn't "sugar cane" -- no matter how many 'inspectors' you care to add to the line - and regardless of whether or not there's 'bombing'.

If you want to make a case for slave labour .... your self-proclaimed political nemesis, the USSR, arguably did slavery better than the Nazis.

I repeat my suggestion, Jenisch .... "give your head a shake" ... it's 2012.

MM

 

[Jenisch]

Soviet:
Light tanks - 7,155
Medium tanks - 16,242
Heavy tanks - 4,762

Total - 28,159

German:
Tanks - 18,956

Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes a difference of almost 10,000 vehicles is a match, be sure.

Richard Overy states 6,000 of difference. Anyway, you cannot refute my arguments in overall. The margin is still too much fat for Germany not outproduce the Soviet. Again, not to mention quality.

I like the Soviet equipment, it was excellent for the HISTORICAL conditions and probably saved them. The problem is there's a big difference between historical conditions and a reality were Germany is alone against the Soviets with all the consequences this implies.

 

[imalko]

The German industry matched the Soviet in tank and armored vehicle production in 1944. Only if you want to be blind you won't see it, check in any source. Without all the factors from the war in the West, again only someone who wants to be blind will not see it.

I'm afraid you are the one who is blinded here my friend.

With the Germans focused in the East since the starting, their losses would be certainly different...

They were focused on the East since the start in 1941.

Again, you don't considerate Chaos Theory factor.

Please enlighten us. I'm curious.

Unfornately, if doesn't fit to your taste, I must be careful with it isn't?

And because it's up to your taste we should consider it the word of God?

 

[Jenisch]

I repeat my suggestion, Jenisch .... "give your head a shake" ... it's 2012.

MM

Give you a head shake. You don't want to understand me, fine, just don't discuss with me anymore.

 

[Jenisch]

And because it's up to your taste we should consider it the word of God?

No, we have different views here, I respect the views from others. But you and nobody here is able to refute my arguments saying that the Russians would CERTAINLY or likely previal in this scenario.

I want to see someone refute my formula:

Naval blockade of Germany + submarine production + Lend-Lease for the Soviets + bombing (and most Luftwaffe fighter forced deployed in the West, together with other Axis troops used elsewhere).

ONLY the Lend-Lease is already subject to heated debates.

Let's take a respectable historian, Hubert van Tuyll, pioneer in the Lend-Lease publications with Feeding the Bear, what he has to say:

"In the first 1.5 years the Soviet Union was fighting for survival and would have won without lend lease, but further victories and movement to Europe would be questionable," he reported.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts

I'm having this discussion more in the informal way, not with much attention to critical details. But anyone here can see that I have presented just a SINGLE factor to think how complex the things were, and how hard is to imagine how they were. The consequences of the Lend-Lease involved food for workers, Soviet capability of focus in specific itens, which in turn meant better logistics, more weapons, more supression fire, victories, etc. Now, cut the naval blockade of Germany, cut the need for produce submarines like historically, cut the Lend-Lease, cut the bombing and put all the German armed forces in the East, and tell me with a clear conscience that it would make no difference at all.

Some people here want to paint me as the idiot who thinks against the majority and it's wrong, but I'm certainly not this type. As I already posted; one thing is the historical Soviet equipment and it's performance, together with it's industry and number of soldiers serving in the armed forces, and other is the Soviet Union defeating Germany alone. The point is made, this is extremely complex and nobody with common sense will say that that just by looking a few historical industrial numbers from armaments we can arive in a verdict.

 

[tyrodtom]

Anyone who thinks the allies would would turn a blind eye to the known crimes of the Nazi regime, and then fight beside them, is a idiot, or Himmler, or both.
A lot of Germans late in the war had the hope that the Allies would turn against the Russians, but these were Germans with little knowledge of the true extremes of the Holocaust. The ones with that full knowledge knew there would be no break in the alliance, because Germany had went too far.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... Some people here want to paint me as the idiot who thinks against the majority and it's wrong, but I'm certainly not this type. "

".... Anyone who thinks the allies would would turn a blind eye to the known crimes of the Nazi regime, and then fight beside them, is a idiot, or Himmler, or both."

MM

 

[imalko]

... cut the naval blockade of Germany, cut the need for produce submarines like historically, cut the Lend-Lease, cut the bombing and put all the German armed forces in the East, and tell me with a clear conscience that it would make no difference at all.

Of course it would make a difference. No one is denying that. What we are unable to agree upon is your conclusion about final outcome. In this scenario more lives would be lost and more time it would take to finish the war, but once Barbarossa failed Germans in the long term had no chance in defeating the Soviets. Especially not by 1944. As for eventual Western help to the Nazis in that time, Tyrodtom's comment few posts back is spot on.

 

[Jenisch]

".... Some people here want to paint me as the idiot who thinks against the majority and it's wrong, but I'm certainly not this type. "

".... Anyone who thinks the allies would would turn a blind eye to the known crimes of the Nazi regime, and then fight beside them, is a idiot, or Himmler, or both."

MM

Tell this to the creator of the topic.

 

[Jenisch]

Of course it would make a difference. No one is denying that. What we are unable to agree upon is your conclusion about final outcome. In this scenario more lives would be lost and more time it would take to finish the war, but once Barbarossa failed Germans in the long term had no chance in defeating the Soviets. Especially not by 1944. As for eventual Western help to the Nazis in that time, Tyrodtom's comment few posts back is spot on.

They could have not defeated, but they also could have not been defeated. This is good for those who think the Soviet Union was an invencible war machine.

 

[Gixxerman]

I don't think you are an idiot Jensch and I'm not trying to make you look like one either.
We're supposed to play nice here aren't we?
I do think you have some odd ideas, but that's ok, maybe you feel the same about me.

I just find some of your underlying claims totally conflict with what I have read.

You talk about the superiority of German designs.
OK, in theory yes, that is true of some.
But I have only ever read stories of poor quality German equipment as the war neared its close (which brings us back to the 1944 date originally suggested).
From pieces deliberately sabotaged to the German war-time quest to substitute materials, the stories are not all about how German arms were precision manufactured examples of engineering at it's very best.
Some may have started out that way and some may have been so vital that they never got anything but the best manufacturing processes Germany could give them but that is absolutely not the whole story - as anyone not blinded by their musings could easily see, hmmm?

The thing is that the only way this scenario might work at all - might - is if the western powers and Hitlers Germany are allied before the attack on Russia.
But that was not what was originally posed.
The original idea was that the western allies Germany ally in 1944.
So Germany has already been bleeding white for 3 years in Russia and is already losing decisively and has already lost vast amounts of men material treasure.

But the idea of the western allies actually manning the German war in Russia - after what had gone on before from 1939 - 1944 - is so ludicrous that I don't think it's worth pursuing.

So you still end up stuck with a Germany in dreadful shape, with at best the block on her gathering resources where she could lifted.....oh and by the way, what is Germany going to be using for money to pay for these huge new shipments?
Germany is broke (and was broke in 1939, one of the gamblers reasons for going to war then and not 1942 - 1944 as originally tentatively planned).

As for the book, I said if I can track down a copy at a decent price I'll give it a look.
But it didn't take much looking on-line to see that the author has his (severe) critics.
Is that not reasonable to mention?
I gave examples of what the critics were saying too, it wasn't just baseless general.
At the end of the day he is one in a minority, I'm not discounting everything he says, of course not that would be silly, but equally his view has to be weighed against that of the others researchers historians and I think you'll find the overwhelming consensus is that Germany lost the war comprehensively and first and foremost in the east.

My own view is that Germany could not defeat Russia whether Moscow falls or not (it didn't do Napoleon the slightest bit of good).
The territory is just too vast to hold control they have got themselves into a position where the local populace is implacably opposed to them (and for very obvious reasons).
Not only that but they are being constantly harried in the rear areas which are not really 'conquered' in the sense of being under full control.
Huge numbers of uncaptured red army personnel various others in partisan groups are making life a dangerous misery for the ordinary German so very very far from home.

But that's just my opinion......but a German recovery in 1944?
Sorry I just can't see it, not a chance in hell.

 

[tyrodtom]

The V1 and V2 both used slave labor in their production. Look at both these weapon's systems failure rates, how many were declared unfit for launch, how many launch failures and early flight failures. Is it just a coincident that they had high failure rates after being produced using slave labor ?
Sabotage could be so simple and hard to detect on a complicated weapon, you end up having to use so many guards and inspectors to prevent it, you end up using more skilled people than the slave labor is saving.

 

[andy2012]

I started this thread because I thought it was an interesting topic, I had NOT even considered slaves, or the such. I was more wondering what some of the aviation aspect would be. I think we could all agree it would've never happened, and if it did we would have wasted many, American, British, German, and Russian lives.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... Embraer quality! =D

I hope the USN and the USAF buy our Super Tucano as well, together with our KC-390. I'm also in hope our air force buy the F/A-18E for your FX program." [Jenish post]

Does Embraer use slave labour, Jenisch?

MM

 

[Siegfried]

The V1 and V2 both used slave labor in their production. Look at both these weapon's systems failure rates, how many were declared unfit for launch, how many launch failures and early flight failures. Is it just a coincident that they had high failure rates after being produced using slave labor ?
Sabotage could be so simple and hard to detect on a complicated weapon, you end up having to use so many guards and inspectors to prevent it, you end up using more skilled people than the slave labor is saving.

The V2 weapons system was only in use for a matter of months yet it approached 100% reliabillity towards the end of its use similary for the V1 which matured to a reliable system able to achieve sea level speeds of 515mph in the final months of the war. von Braun and Dornberger and his team were proud of the statistical failure analysis they did which identified the source of the faults. Only a fraction of German aviation industry used impressed labour; much of it was indentured (the workers often having little othe choice to earn an income. Robert Lusser (designer of the Bf 109, Fi 104 (ie V1) and He 219) moved to NASA and wrote the book in failure analysis in aviation.

As far as Sabotage goes I'm sure the Germans avoided putting the most likely suspects in front of assembly of a weapons sytem in which they could easily sabotage something and disguise it. I also doubt the would be sabateurs really would chance it. This is surely pure Hollwood hype. Impressed labour was quite productive; the Germans were quite a sucess at making use of it. I also doubt the brutality was all that widespread, such methods simply take too much energy.

I suspect shortages, subsitute materials and components, lack of time for training and development, damage to or lack of jigs and tools were really the cause of reliabillity problems. Ukranian females are a hardy lot and kick ass as workers. I also suspect a certain "Bridge on the Rover Kwai" syndrom ie pride.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... I also doubt the brutality was all that widespread".

Auschwitz was - first and foremost - and INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. "Work will set you free". When you were too weak, sick or disabled to work anymore, you were exterminated. Brutal? Productive? Perhaps you should try this philosophy of labour management and incentives in your home country, Australia, Siegfried ......

MM

In contrast, the British use of "forced" labour during WW2: [h/t fastmongrel]

"... My mother remembers after VE day her Uncle who was a farmer had 2 german POWs working on his farm the Germans used to bring there POW food rations to the farm in exchange for great Aunty cooking them sunday dinner. The Germans also swapped butter for beer in the pub, my mother didn't eat butter from 1939 till 1945. Not saying the POWs shouldn't have had butter but just saying when even POWs who got army rations got better food than British civilians.."

 

[Milosh]

the V1 which matured to a reliable system able to achieve sea level speeds of 515mph in the final months of the war.

How was this ~25% increase in speed obtained?

 

[tyrodtom]

The V2 weapons system was only in use for a matter of months yet it approached 100% reliabillity towards the end of its use similary for the V1 which matured to a reliable system able to achieve sea level speeds of 515mph in the final months of the war. von Braun and Dornberger and his team were proud of the statistical failure analysis they did which identified the source of the faults. Only a fraction of German aviation industry used impressed labour; much of it was indentured (the workers often having little othe choice to earn an income. Robert Lusser (designer of the Bf 109, Fi 104 (ie V1) and He 219) moved to NASA and wrote the book in failure analysis in aviation.

As far as Sabotage goes I'm sure the Germans avoided putting the most likely suspects in front of assembly of a weapons sytem in which they could easily sabotage something and disguise it. I also doubt the would be sabateurs really would chance it. This is surely pure Hollwood hype. Impressed labour was quite productive; the Germans were quite a sucess at making use of it. I also doubt the brutality was all that widespread, such methods simply take too much energy.

I suspect shortages, subsitute materials and components, lack of time for training and development, damage to or lack of jigs and tools were really the cause of reliabillity problems. Ukranian females are a hardy lot and kick ass as workers. I also suspect a certain "Bridge on the Rover Kwai" syndrom ie pride.

You talk about Hollywood hype, and then have the nerve to mention the movie " The Bridge over the River Kwai" Which anyone with the most minimum knowledge of history knows had no historical accuracy.

The concentration camp Mittelbau-Dora was used as the labor pool for the V2, the workers were handled by the usual concentration camp standards, Worked very long hours, on not enough food, literally worked to death, until useless, then killed and replaced.