How big was USA's role in defeating Germany in WW2?

[ParkCungHee]

the fact that Germany's fortunes of war shifted completely after Stalingrad, a trend reinforced after the battle at Kursk.

But these are just points you've picked out because they make good climaxes. As I've pointed out in this very thread, Tunis was just as notable as Stalingrad, and by Kursk, the Americans and British had already knocked the first Axis nation out of the war.

The Soviets were the largest contributor in defeating Nazi-Germany.

I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the notion that America's contributions were comparatively small.

You can take almost full credit with defeating the Empire of Japan if that's an alluring proposition.

I'm sorry, I don't look at historical truth as something that can be haggled over, like a rug.

 

[RedRalph]

If anyone is so inclined, feel free to actually look up and compare the Campaign of Tunisia with the Battle of Stalingrad. Read up on the losses, what happened, how the entire strategic situation was affected by both and then make up your own minds about how they compare.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If anyone is so inclined, feel free to actually look up and compare the Campaign of Tunisia with the Battle of Stalingrad. How the entire strategic situation was affected by both and then make up your own minds about how they compare.

In Strategic implications, there really is no comparison. Stalingrad meant a particular salient was cut back, not strategically important to the Germans (which is why it was a stupid idea in the first place).
Tunisia meant that Germany has surrendered any fight in the Mediterranean ocean completely, and now had to commit troops to all of Italy, Sardinia and Greece, and would soon see every portion of their nation in bomber range.
You know, before you complained that I'm usually better then this, but you're usually better then this. You haven't really given me any counterarguments other then that mine are ridiculous, for reasons you haven't cared to elaborate on.

 

[RedRalph]

Oh my Christ... sorry, I cannot go on. Someone else feel free to take over, or not.

 

[Silurian]

Oh, I realize the reasons why entirely. That doesn't change the fact of the role they played in the defeat of Germany. If the Americans had shot them all once they got them in POW camps, would it have made a difference in how much they contributed to the war? Any way you slice it 7.6 million is an absolutely mind-numbing amount of troops removed from the field, and that alone means American contribution to the war can't be written off as "relatively small."

In the west far a far higher percentage of POWs captured by US troops died compared to those captured by the British.

From Wiki

Niall Ferguson tabulated the total death rate for POWs in World War II as follows:[89]

Percentage of
POWs that Died
Russian POWs held by Germans 57.5%
German POWs held by Russians 35.8%
American POWs held by Japanese 33.0%
German POWs held by Eastern Europeans 32.9%
British POWs held by Japanese 24.8%
British POWs held by Germans 3.5%
German POWs held by French 2.58%
German POWs held by Americans 0.15%
German POWs held by British 0.03%

 

[metatron]

[...]

 

[RedRalph]

I would also be interested to hear how Stalingrad was 'not strategically important'. This should be good.

 

[Verbose]

Erm...
The Axis had a little short of 1 million in losses during Torch and Tunisia. Most of those were PoWs though. And of course most of them were Vichy French and Italian.

Not disputing your general points in any way, but still feeling compelled to point out that Vichy resistance, and casualties, to the Allied landings were token. They also led to no POWs, as the Vichy then joined the Allies. These troops however then took quite a beating fighting the Germans in Tunisia, using their obsolete gear of 1940 vintage.

 

[metatron]

Not disputing your general points in any way, but still feeling compelled to point out that Vichy resistance, and casualties, to the Allied landings were token. They also led to no POWs, as the Vichy then joined the Allies. These troops however then took quite a beating fighting the Germans in Tunisia, using their obsolete gear of 1940 vintage.

My suspicion here was that at the moment of their defeat they could be - technically - considered PoWs and that may have contributed to some of the hugely inflated numbers of casualties the Axis supposedly suffered during Torch and Tunisia drifting around wikipedia.
My point is that 900,000 something figure being completely ridiculous. Without counting Vichy troops in some way it's practically impossible to arrive at any such number. I should have qualified with "allegedly" or something instead of trying to convey a mocking tone via emphasizing The Axis the way i did.

 

[LightSpectra]

I would also be interested to hear how Stalingrad was 'not strategically important'. This should be good.

It wasn't. It was a gigantic sewage drainer for Axis men and supplies, but Stalingrad's fall would not have drastically affected the front like Tunisia did.

PCH is right in this case: the Soviets contributed more to the defeat of the Axis in WWII, but by no means was American contribution to the Afro-Eurasian front negligible.

 

[RedRalph]

It wasn't. It was a gigantic sewage drainer for Axis men and supplies, but Stalingrad's fall would not have drastically affected the front like Tunisia did.

PCH is right in this case: the Soviets contributed more to the defeat of the Axis in WWII, but by no means was American contribution to the Afro-Eurasian front negligible.

My God... please have a look at a map of the Caucasus and present-day Volgograd and get back to me.

If you do not know why Stalingrad was extremely strategically valuble, you have no business discussing this topic. This is really, really basic stuff. And in case you haven't noticed, no-one is calling the contribution negligible.

 

[aronnax]

I would also be interested to hear how Stalingrad was 'not strategically important'. This should be good.

The only important thing about Stalingrad was that capturing it would allow Hitler to better reach the oil fields of the Caucasus. It would not have mattered in the long-run whether or not Nazi Germany captured Stalingrad.

1) They still had to fight the several million Russians that would just pull back and fight in another city along the way. At that time, Stalingrad wasn't the center of Russian Political power like Moscow or the nationalistic prestige of Saint Petersburg. If captured, it would just be another large industrial city that was captured during the Nazi advance. It's loss would not have been anything big. At worst, Hitler captured the city of Stalin-like propaganda.

2) Even if the Nazis captured Stalingrad and pushed straight into the precious oil fields Hitler wanted so badly(probably at a incredibly high loss), it wouldn't have matter because
A) No amount of oil is going to fix the rusting wreck that is the Nazi-wartime economy.
B) No amount of oil is going to make their military situation of over-extension any better
C) No amount of oil is going to appease the Russian Winter.
D) No amount of oil is going to let them win in Moscow and St Petersburg. Staying in Stalingrad and the Caucasus means letting Nazi soldiers be trapped into a little corridor of South Western Russia when the Soviets start to push out of Moscow and cut off their movements and supplies at Ukraine.

Stalingrad wasn't a great strategic location that must be defended or suffer the terrible consequences like losing Egypt, the English Channel or Myanmar would have been.

 

[RedRalph]

So just to be clear, you are actually saying that denying the USSR the oil that came from the Caucasus would not have been strategically important? Are you actually saying that?

 

[red_elk]

The thing is not about Hitler getting more oil.
They would have cut Soviet oil supply, which would cripple Soviet ability to fight.

Siberian oil fields were not worked on by that time.
Baku was one of three Soviet cities which had dedicated air defense corps, protecting it. The other two were Moscow and Leningrad.
Caucasus industrial region was considered by Soviet command as extremely important region to protect.

 

[aronnax]

So just to be clear, you are actually saying that denying the USSR the oil that came from the Caucasus would not have been strategically important? Are you actually saying that?

I'm not saying that denying USSR the oil would be beneficial to the USSR, but it still wouldn't help Germany's war position.

The thing is not about Hitler getting more oil.
They would have cut Soviet oil supply, which would cripple Soviet ability to fight.

Siberian oil fields were not worked on by that time.
Baku was one of three Soviet cities which had dedicated air defense corps, protecting it. The other two were Moscow and Leningrad.
Caucasus industrial region was considered by Soviet command as extremely important region to protect.

If Germany had that hard of a time trying to get past Stalingrad, I'm quite sure no amount of fighting will get them across the Mountains to Baku. Even if they won Stalingrad, they would still have to slog through the entirety of the Caucasus. Even before Stalingrad started, the German War machine was already bogged down in the mud of the U.S.S.R. General Winter ended what was left of a folly of a dream.

I honestly can't find any statistics on Soviet oil field and production so I'll be very happy if you can show them to me. That said, the U.S.S.R must have a couple months worth of oil supply to last them even if the last drop of Caucasus oil went dry. And America would had supplied them the oil as well, like they did with Britain.

 

[RedRalph]

I'm not saying that denying USSR the oil would be beneficial to the USSR, but it still wouldn't help Germany's war position.

for the love of ***ing Christ... you think the Soviets having almost no oil "wouldn't help Germany's war position"? are you drunk or something? What do you think tanks, planes, supply trucks, trains etc etc need to work?

 

[aronnax]

As I later posted to red_elk.

1) I find it almost impossible for them to actually make it to Baku

2) Even if they did, the Soviets should have at least several months worth of oil reserves, so it's not like they are going to go flat immediately.

3) And even then, if the Americans can deliver trucks, food, arms, supplies and what not to the USSR via Siberia, they can deliver the oil as well. Apparently America produced an incredible amount of oil. Of course, I can't find statistics on how much oil the Caucasus region produced and thus see if America is capable of replenishing that. I'm quite sure they did though if they can supply Britain and still have their oil capacity increase immensely every year.

4)Be less rude. No need to get personal and call people drunks.

 

[red_elk]

If Germany had that hard of a time trying to get past Stalingrad, I'm quite sure no amount of fighting will get them across the Mountains to Baku. Even if they won Stalingrad, they would still have to slog through the entirety of the Caucasus. Even before Stalingrad started, the German War machine was already bogged down in the mud of the U.S.S.R. General Winter ended what was left of a folly of a dream.

They didn't even need to capture Caucasus. One of the major purposes of Stalingrad battle was to cut Soviet oil supply through Volga river. The other one - to secure flank of German armies advancing to Caucasus. If you think that both Germans and Soviets would fight half-year battle, suffering about million casualties on both sides over something not-so-important for them - well, think again.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You've got to be kidding me...

Less than a month after D-Day, Operation Bagration completely annihilated Army Group Center. Don't forget that the last big German offensive in the East happened a full year before (Kursk, April 1943). They were playing a losing game long before the Western Allies made any serious incursions into Fortress Europe, it was simply a matter of how long they could keep it up, and if they could force an end to the war while there was still the possibility of conditional surrender.

Almost as many!

Germans, perhaps, but not German soldiers.

I'm not saying that denying USSR the oil would be beneficial to the USSR, but it still wouldn't help Germany's war position.

What hurts one helps the other...

If Germany had that hard of a time trying to get past Stalingrad, I'm quite sure no amount of fighting will get them across the Mountains to Baku.

Stalingrad is a lot closer to Moscow and the rest of the USSR than Baku is. Taking Stalingrad would effectively cut Baku off from the rest of the USSR.

 

[aronnax]

They didn't even need to capture Caucasus. One of the major purposes of Stalingrad battle was to cut Soviet oil supply through Volga river. The other one - to secure flank of German armies advancing to Caucasus. If you think that both Germans and Soviets would fight half-year battle, suffering about million casualties on both sides over something not-so-important for them - well, think again.

Wouldn't had matter much since they would be trapped by armies coming from Central European Russia. Wouldn't a military movement like Operation Uranus cut the Germans off dangerously when it reached the Don River?

Didn't Germany withdraw from Stalingrad also because they didn't want their armies to be cut off.