American views of the British effort in D-Day and WW2 in general.

[Masada]

Then, Stalingrad happened.

Gotta love securing that flank

 

[Bobbtjoe]

Well, most people don't think that at all. You probably don't have anought info. Consider a poll.

 

[Bobbtjoe]

But the Russians, well, they just had crappy weather.

 

[Warman17]

I have no idea how this myth started, but it is the naive view of many Americans that we singlehandedly won the war. It was actually the Soviet Union who contributed the most if you want to go by the only metric that really makes much sense: The number of military personnel who died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Canada: 45,300
China: 3,800,000
Poland: 240,000
Soviet Union: 10,700,000
UK: 382,700
US: 416,800
Yugoslavia: 446,000

But D-Day is a bad example:

Omaha: 4,500
Utah: 200
Gold: 400
Juno: 340
Sword: 630

Even though you could argue that Omaha Beach was botched and that so many should have never died.

The amount of dead isn't a good indicator of who contributed the most towards victory. After all you don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other poor bastard die for his. If you had a stat that measured kills by each nation, that would count much more.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Stalin even said the war would of been lost without U.S production.

Yea, dictators don't lie.

 

[cardgame]

Yea, dictators don't lie.

Damn straight!

 

[MobBoss]

How about the fact that the massive Russian oilfields remained out of German reach?

Thats simply a red herring to the arguement at hand. It has nothing to do with German production.

But without the Allies exerting pressure on the western front, Moscow gets overrun and the Russian Gov finds itself in Siberia. I really dont think Russia could have won without the rest of the allies putting pressure on Germany as well.

But the problem is not production, but fuel, so the point's kinda moot. 1000 more tanks wouldn't help without fuel.

Again, we didnt bomb the tank factories....but rather the oil fields, fuel refineries and ball bearing plants, and the rail from those. No need to bomb all of the production if you can concentrate on the one part that makes it all work.

 

[Masada]

Thats simply a red herring to the arguement at hand. It has nothing to do with German production.

Yeah it does... what use are tanks without fuel to drive them?

But without the Allies exerting pressure on the western front, Moscow gets overrun and the Russian Gov finds itself in Siberia. I really dont think Russia could have won without the rest of the allies putting pressure on Germany as well.

... in 41'? What were the other "allies" (really ally) doing...

 

[cardgame]

Actually, the Western Front didn't matter that much, it was the supplies that the Allies, specifically the United States, shipped to the USSR that let it live. Without American supplies all would have been lost.

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah it does... what use are tanks without fuel to drive them?

Dude. The germans had captured the oil fields at Ploesti for production and other South Eastern European oil fields. The WOULD have had the oil the needed, if the USA hadnt eventually bombed their production of it.

What the Germans didnt have, didnt matter. Again, without the allies in the West putting pressure on them as well, Russia gets overrun instead of the Germans running out of steam at the edge of Moscow...

... in 41'? What were the other "allies" (really ally) doing...

Lend-Lease. How much German air power was wasted in the Battle of Britain? Do you think that could have made a huge difference against Russia? Of course it could have. How many divisions had to be stationed in Western Europe and Africa during this period that could have been used in Russia?

 

[negZero]

What the Germans didnt have, didnt matter. Again, without the allies in the West putting pressure on them as well, Russia gets overrun instead of the Germans running out of steam at the edge of Moscow...

The Battle of Moscow was over couple weeks after Pearl Harbor, so the only help Russians got from west was in resources(non-Ameircan lend-lease) and not men or firepower.

Lend-Lease. How much German air power was wasted in the Battle of Britain?

Of course the Canadian Lend-Lease had major affect on the Battle of Britain... O wait your talking about the American one, yeah that didn't exist to March '41 and the battle was finished 5 months before that anyways.

Do you think that could have made a huge difference against Russia?

To bad airpower is useless in bad weather and thats when they started losing the battles

How many divisions had to be stationed in Western Europe and Africa during this period that could have been used in Russia?

Again all those fights started before invasion of Russia and America joining the war effort. Am pretty sure they counted on those men not being able to take part in the Russia attack.

 

[Masada]

Dude. The germans had captured the oil fields at Ploesti for production and other South Eastern European oil fields. The WOULD have had the oil the needed, if the USA hadnt eventually bombed their production of it.

Not till 43' and that required the Invasion of Italy. Moscow was only seriously threatened in 41'. The center of gravity for the war afterwards shifted to the South.

Lend-Lease. How much German air power was wasted in the Battle of Britain? Do you think that could have made a huge difference against Russia? Of course it could have. How many divisions had to be stationed in Western Europe and Africa during this period that could have been used in Russia?

The first I'll grant was important (negZero makes a good point). The second didn't really matter the Germans had complete air-superiority in Russia till late 43' (they destroyed the Soviet Air-force on the ground). In any case the Luftwaffe was only of marginal help considering it was short of supplies, was stuck in the rear and could correspondingly only provide minimal air-cover because of the vast distances and the relative paucity of Soviet infrastructure.

The third doesn't really matter in 41' they had to keep troops stationed in Western Europe in any case (and they didn't keep much more than garrisons in Western Europe till 43') and Africa as ever was a sideshow which if Italy hadn't stuffed up didn't need to happen.

 

[MobBoss]

The Battle of Moscow was over couple weeks after Pearl Harbor, so the only help Russians got from west was in resources and not men or firepower.

What you leave out is also the military forces being used to hold down western europe and the significant amount of air power that had been used in the Battle of Britain.

 

[Masada]

What you leave out is also the military forces being used to hold down western europe and the significant amount of air power that had been used in the Battle of Britain.

Manpower was not the issue during Barbarossa. Sure the Germans could have done with some more but that was later. As it was it was hard to keep the troops they had on the Ost Front feed, warm and watered. Again the air-power is immaterial the Luftwaffe was more than up to the task of destroying the Red Army and was not up to the task of keeping up with the army.

 

[Sofista]

The third doesn't really matter in 41' they had to keep troops stationed in Western Europe in any case (and they didn't keep much more than garrisons in Western Europe till 43') and Africa as ever was a sideshow which if Italy hadn't stuffed up didn't need to happen.

I've retrieved a post of yours from a few pages ago:

There is no such thing.

Nevertheless Mussolini's ambitions did pull Germany into theaters it would not otherwise have been involved in:

• Greece and Crete (pro-German elements in government - neutral);
• Yugoslavia (neutral - then allied to Germany - effectively renounced the alliance 2 days later - then invaded with Italy's actions in Greece on the mind);
• Albania (an actual success which paved the way to Greece and Yugoslavia); and
• North Africa (which diverted significant Axis military power to a peripheral front.)

I don't care to count the number of Axis troops who were left on occupation duties, anti-partisan duties or in North Africa but a million doesn't seem unreasonable and is probably to low.

Greece: I'll give you this one.
Yugoslavia: had Hitler been content with their neutrality, he'd had avoided a thorn in his side.
Albania: occupied by Italy well before WWII.
North Africa: ditto. And I'm sure in Berlin they had updated maps, so they knew what they were in for. Besides, had the African theater been so useless, I'm sure Winston C. would have pulled out of it without looking back.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

What is so great about Moscow? Doesn't confer any strategic advantage and would be another bleed on German forces trying to secure it.

The war would be won or lost in the South. Stalingrad might very well have fallen, but supply lines would continue to be stretched and stretched, regardless of the Nazi's ability to field more troops.

Plus, how do we know whether Hitler would have used this advantage reasonably? Knowing Hitler, he would have basically used the same plan as in our history, with a bigger punch towards Moscow.

People seem to forget how massive the Soviet Union truly is. The amount of man power it can field and its industrial capacity. If it still has its Azerbaijani oil, it cannot be defeated.

Again, Stalingrad could have fallen, but that isn't a guarantee that Nazi's could secure the Caucasus and cut off Soviet oil.

 

[negZero]

What you leave out is also the military forces being used to hold down western europe and the significant amount of air power that had been used in the Battle of Britain.

THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN WAS OVER by that time. They knew beforehand about North Africa and Western Front was almost none-existed and they still had enough air power to get within mile or 2 of Moscow, but it was pointless because army won't equipped with sufficient winter gear. Even still the Russians were willing to fight modern day sieges in there cities.

 

[Masada]

Greece: I'll give you this one.
Yugoslavia: had Hitler been content with their neutrality, he'd had avoided a thorn in his side.
Albania: occupied by Italy well before WWII.
North Africa: ditto. And I'm sure in Berlin they had updated maps, so they knew what they were in for. Besides, had the African theater been so useless, I'm sure Winston C. would have pulled out of it without looking back.

Short answer: Mussolini was a hindrance not a help.

THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN WAS OVER by that time. They knew beforehand about North Africa and Western Front was almost none-existed and they still had enough air power to get within mile or 2 of Moscow, but it was pointless because army won't equipped with sufficient winter gear. Even still the Russians were willing to fight modern day sieges in there cities.

Quoted for truth.

What is so great about Moscow? Doesn't confer any strategic advantage and would be another bleed on German forces trying to secure it.

It was the major link in the railways. That's why it was so important. If the Germans could have taken that the ability of Russia to redeploy troops the length of the front would have ended.

The war would be won or lost in the South. Stalingrad might very well have fallen, but supply lines would continue to be stretched and stretched, regardless of the Nazi's ability to field more troops.

They never would have gone South if Moscow had fallen. Stalingrad only anchored the flank of the German army AFTER they reorientated their offensives South only AFTER they had failed to push through the center.

Plus, how do we know whether Hitler would have used this advantage reasonably? Knowing Hitler, he would have basically used the same plan as in our history, with a bigger punch towards Moscow.

The fall of Moscow would have been an unmitigated disaster.

People seem to forget how massive the Soviet Union truly is. The amount of man power it can field and its industrial capacity. If it still has its Azerbaijani oil, it cannot be defeated.

Wrong. It had already almost all of its existent field armies with there equipment which existed prior to Barbarossa. Man-power at that stage wasn't the issue equipping and feeding such a large body of men after having lost the most productive areas of your state was the difficulty.

Again, Stalingrad could have fallen, but that isn't a guarantee that Nazi's could secure the Caucasus and cut off Soviet oil.

... Stalingrad didn't matter. It was merely a means of securing the flank. It could have been circumvented.

 

[red_elk]

What is so great about Moscow? Doesn't confer any strategic advantage and would be another bleed on German forces trying to secure it.

The war would be won or lost in the South. Stalingrad might very well have fallen, but supply lines would continue to be stretched and stretched, regardless of the Nazi's ability to field more troops.

Plus, how do we know whether Hitler would have used this advantage reasonably? Knowing Hitler, he would have basically used the same plan as in our history, with a bigger punch towards Moscow.

People seem to forget how massive the Soviet Union truly is. The amount of man power it can field and its industrial capacity. If it still has its Azerbaijani oil, it cannot be defeated.

Again, Stalingrad could have fallen, but that isn't a guarantee that Nazi's could secure the Caucasus and cut off Soviet oil.

You are right in general, but not in details. Moscow is a huge transport hub, industrious and population center, not to mention its ideological value. Look at the map, Russia is very Moscow-centered country. Losing Moscow would be serious problem, though it still wouldn't mean defeat of the USSR.

Stalingrad also had big value for its industry and, more important, Germans could cut off Volga supply line if the city would be captured. All this could make stopping German South offensive much more difficult task.

 

[MobBoss]

THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN WAS OVER by that time.

It still resulted in a huge loss of men and material for the Germans didnt it?

Yes. It did.

If the germans hadnt wasted all that time and effort...dont you think it could have influenced the war in Russia?

Of course it would have.