Discussion:
If SU would be defeated in 1941, US would collapse in 1943?
(too old to reply)
Gail wisher
2004-10-05 16:56:57 UTC
Permalink
What an excellent question!
I believe that if the landing on Normandy had taken place with
out an increase of attacks along the Russian front and the
psychological support of the Russians, the Normandy invasion would
have been driven back into the sea.
Churchill effectively argues this point over and over again with
the Allies, remembering the lessons of Dunkirk. Churchill prefers the
soft under belly of Balkans and the road to the oil fields not the
rocky coasts of Normandy.
As the Ardennes Offensive illustrates the weakness of the 8 week
draftees sent to the front with very little training. The reserve
general in charge of the Ardennes sent out very few scouting
patrols prior to the months leading up to the battle.
Hec in the Ardennes Offensive, Good men were taken off the boats put
into tanks with 10 hours of training or less done in the field
prior being sent into a tank battle against a vastly superior tank and
German fighter.
Atchison has this excellent study on the battles of North
Africa where he explains when the Germans counter attacked the
Americas ran for their lives. Not 2 or 3 but thousands of draftees
could not stop the fierce 88's from tearing them to pieces. . For a
while every one thought the America soldiers had no heart to fight but
as we know that was not true. For all the non combat experts, their is
nothing wrong in running if you can live to fight another day. The
Germans were experts in the organize retreats in North Africa.
It would be interesting to see how North Africa would have
been successful if Russians had been subdued by a two front war of the
Japanese and Germans meeting in the heartland of Russia,
I wonder why the lessons learned from the battles of North Africa
have to be relearned again in the battlefields of the France where
good men died while the Generals argued for position and power. I.e.
Patton fought and had has his way and stopped the delivery a heavier
and strong tank to the front during the Normandy invasion. Again Good
Men died because the lessons of North Africa were forgotten.
The Russians were begging for a second front to help them
against the tremendous victories in the German advance. Besides the
trucks and material sent via the North Sea all the Russian got were
cases and cases of Spam. It was a big joke among the Russians that the
Allied second front was Spam.
One has to look at Churchill's visit to Stalin during the
Ardennes Offensive. Stalin was asked to counter attack all across the
Russian front. What did West agree to give Stalin beside Spam for the
effort? Berlin? Stalin counter attacks as requested by Churchill.
In order to defend the thesis that that America would have a
difficult time if Germans only had a single front war it would take
pages and tons of documentation that most of us do not have the time
to produce.
However if you look at the Battles from North Africa, The Ardennes
Offensive, The loss of the German 6th Army and battles from the South
Pacific like Okinawa where the American losses were so very high one
can envision a different scenario .
Japan was hoping to wear out the US public opinion with so many
dead bodies that the US would settle for peace with an intact Japanese
government.
The week after the bomb is dropped in Japan there is this huge
internal fight among the Generals and staff against those elements in
Japan that did not want to surrender but would rather die by
frightening inch by inch on Japanese soil.
As you look at the last days of the War and every one knows that
it is the end yet the Germans are still frightening with intensity. I
wonder too.
It is clear for any historian who can remove the rose color
glasses of propaganda from their eyes that the contribution from the
Russian people was significant.
One fact that is interesting fact to use to gauge the Russian
achievement in World War 2 is that the Russian industrial production
at the time the country was overrun by the Germans surpassed the
German industrial production at its pre war time peak. It shows the
every section of Russia was working to support defending the father
land or the KGB would get you.
Again in closing there seems to be something intrinsically wrong
with the German planning for the battles against Russia as the Germans
were 50 miles from Moscow instead of sending warm coats or tanks or
ammunition to the front. The Germans were sending 50 tons of granite
by train to build a monument to honor their victory over Moscow
On balance the war would have been very difficult for the USA with
out the strong support of men and woman fighters of our Allies
especially England and Russia
Regards
Gail
.
--
David Thornley
2004-10-07 22:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gail wisher
What an excellent question!
I believe that if the landing on Normandy had taken place with
out an increase of attacks along the Russian front and the
psychological support of the Russians, the Normandy invasion would
have been driven back into the sea.
The Soviets were occupying the majority of the German army at that
time. It doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch to think that,
if they were not in the war, no landing would have succeeded.

Churchill effectively argues this point over and over again with
Post by Gail wisher
the Allies, remembering the lessons of Dunkirk. Churchill prefers the
soft under belly of Balkans and the road to the oil fields not the
rocky coasts of Normandy.
Um, the Balkans are a whole lot more rocky than Normandy. Once the
Allies were off the beaches, they didn't have to fight through
mountains (at least until the attackers from the South hit the
Vosges). A landing in the Balkans would have gone nowhere. It
could not possibly have fought through the mountains before the
Red Army advanced, leaving the allies in the rear areas.
Post by Gail wisher
As the Ardennes Offensive illustrates the weakness of the 8 week
draftees sent to the front with very little training.
That is true of all armies, and was reasonably common in the German
Army in late 1944 and 1945.

The reserve
Post by Gail wisher
general in charge of the Ardennes
Who would that be?

sent out very few scouting
Post by Gail wisher
patrols prior to the months leading up to the battle.
That is true of the 106th Division (I forget the name of the commander).
It was not true of all of the divisions in the Ardennes. The 106th
was a bad division.
Post by Gail wisher
Hec in the Ardennes Offensive, Good men were taken off the boats put
into tanks with 10 hours of training or less done in the field
prior being sent into a tank battle against a vastly superior tank and
German fighter.
Documentation? Nor did the Germans necessarily have superior tanks.
Many German tanks were Pz IVs, which were certainly not superior to
a Sherman.
Post by Gail wisher
Atchison has this excellent study on the battles of North
Africa where he explains when the Germans counter attacked the
Americas ran for their lives.
This is referring to one incident in Kasserine Pass, and was not the
normal US practice in North Africa.

Not 2 or 3 but thousands of draftees
Post by Gail wisher
could not stop the fierce 88's from tearing them to pieces.
88s were not normally used in counterattacks. They were pretty much
a defensive weapon.

. For a
Post by Gail wisher
while every one thought the America soldiers had no heart to fight
Wrong. Rommel recognized their good qualities quite early, for
example, commenting on how good they were in their second battle.
Post by Gail wisher
It would be interesting to see how North Africa would have
been successful if Russians had been subdued by a two front war of the
Japanese and Germans meeting in the heartland of Russia,
A Japanese attack would have taken Vladivostok and a few resource
areas, and then there's hundreds of kilometers of bad terrain with
lousy transportation before the Irkutsk area, the next one of
consequence. Meanwhile, with all the Japanese forces committed there,
they run out of oil. The Japanese did not have a credible threat
against the Soviet Union.
Post by Gail wisher
I wonder why the lessons learned from the battles of North Africa
have to be relearned again in the battlefields of the France where
good men died while the Generals argued for position and power.
Partly because the training had not incorporated the right lessons.
US divisions that arrived later in the year appeared to be a lot better
trained to begin with.

I.e.
Post by Gail wisher
Patton fought and had has his way and stopped the delivery a heavier
and strong tank to the front during the Normandy invasion.
Got any documentation? I've never read that in a reputable biography
of Patton, discussion of US tanks, or general history. Nor do I know
what tank that would have been, since the T26 almost certainly could
not have been made ready for Normandy.

Again Good
Post by Gail wisher
Men died because the lessons of North Africa were forgotten.
More good men died because the lessons were remembered. After
Africa, the US made some bad decisions. The regimental cannon
companies lost their self-propelled howitzers and got towed howitzers.
Many of the AT battalions became towed rather than self-propelled.
The replacement pool was very short of riflemen.
Post by Gail wisher
One has to look at Churchill's visit to Stalin during the
Ardennes Offensive. Stalin was asked to counter attack all across the
Russian front. What did West agree to give Stalin beside Spam for the
effort? Berlin? Stalin counter attacks as requested by Churchill.
The Soviets were not promised anything as a quid pro quo, although it
put the West in a worse negotiating position. Britain, the US, and
the Soviet Union were all trying to beat the Germans, and they practiced
some sort of coordination. The Soviets had a vested interest in helping
the Western armies kill Germans so they wouldn't have to.
Post by Gail wisher
In order to defend the thesis that that America would have a
difficult time if Germans only had a single front war it would take
pages and tons of documentation that most of us do not have the time
to produce.
The US would not have gotten involved in that war if not for
Britain. Without the Soviet Union, there would have been no
invasion of France in 1944. The West would have had a very
difficult time.
Post by Gail wisher
Japan was hoping to wear out the US public opinion with so many
dead bodies that the US would settle for peace with an intact Japanese
government.
Right. The unfortunate part of this, from everybody's point of view,
is that that strategy remained appealing even when the US had
destroyed the Japanese Navy and was preparing to invade. This
meant that there were at least slightly plausible reasons to continue
the war.
Post by Gail wisher
The week after the bomb is dropped in Japan there is this huge
internal fight among the Generals and staff against those elements in
Japan that did not want to surrender but would rather die by
frightening inch by inch on Japanese soil.
The best book on the overall situation I have found is Downfall, by
Frank. Japan's Longest Day is another excellent book.
Post by Gail wisher
As you look at the last days of the War and every one knows that
it is the end yet the Germans are still frightening with intensity. I
wonder too.
Didn't matter; it was not necessary to launch an amphibious invasion
to invade Germany. The Allies just kept going until they met, and
accepted the surrender of what was left.
Post by Gail wisher
It is clear for any historian who can remove the rose color
glasses of propaganda from their eyes that the contribution from the
Russian people was significant.
Very, very significant.
Post by Gail wisher
One fact that is interesting fact to use to gauge the Russian
achievement in World War 2 is that the Russian industrial production
at the time the country was overrun by the Germans surpassed the
German industrial production at its pre war time peak.
Where do you get those figures?
Post by Gail wisher
Again in closing there seems to be something intrinsically wrong
with the German planning for the battles against Russia as the Germans
were 50 miles from Moscow instead of sending warm coats or tanks or
ammunition to the front. The Germans were sending 50 tons of granite
by train to build a monument to honor their victory over Moscow
I've never read that in any history; are you sure? Have you a
cite?

The Germans were sending ammo to try to win the battle, and that
didn't work.
Post by Gail wisher
On balance the war would have been very difficult for the USA with
out the strong support of men and woman fighters of our Allies
especially England and Russia
More like impossible.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
***@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Geoffrey Sinclair
2004-10-08 15:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Gail wisher wrote in message ...
Post by Gail wisher
I believe that if the landing on Normandy had taken place with
out an increase of attacks along the Russian front and the
psychological support of the Russians, the Normandy invasion would
have been driven back into the sea.
The threat of the Red Army meant the Germans had to keep
most of their army in the east. Even the Red Army doing nothing
would be enough, as it turned out summer offensives of both
sides helped the other.

Unless the invader loses control of the air and sea around an
invasion it is actually hard to drive the invaders into the sea,
take a look at Anzio and Salerno for example. What is possible
is to bottle it up in a shallow beach head.
Post by Gail wisher
Churchill effectively argues this point over and over again with
the Allies, remembering the lessons of Dunkirk. Churchill prefers the
soft under belly of Balkans and the road to the oil fields not the
rocky coasts of Normandy.
The Balkans are very rugged terrain, how do you think the partisans
in the area were able to survive?

Churchill preferred the Mediterranean for a number of reasons, like
knocking out Italy, distracting German resources and stopping
Stalin ending up in charge. Churchill was also concerned about
the invasion of Normandy, not surprising given the possible casualties
and the blame he had worn over Gallipoli. Then add the amount of
resources tied into the invasion, good if it succeeds, bad if it fails.
Post by Gail wisher
As the Ardennes Offensive illustrates the weakness of the 8 week
draftees sent to the front with very little training.
The US formations were a mixture of new units, which were green
but had been in uniform for longer than 8 weeks, and divisions
absorbing new recruits. All armies had the problem of ensuring
the troops were fully trained. The US infantry training system was
17 weeks in the US before sending the men to a theatre. To speed
things up the training was cut to 15 weeks in early 1945.

The 8 week draftees is presumably all about those who had received
basic training but were then retrained as infantry.

In late December the standard refresher course is cut from 3 to 1 week,
the 6 to 8 week infantry to rifleman conversion course is cut to 2 weeks,
the 12 week course for other arms cut to 6 weeks.

I presume this is what is being referred to. The European theatre had
been running retraining courses since before D day, increasing and
decreasing their size according to perceived demand and likely
replacements from the US.
Post by Gail wisher
The reserve
general in charge of the Ardennes sent out very few scouting
patrols prior to the months leading up to the battle.
Could you please explain who the reserve general was, and since
the US armies arrived in the area in September I presume you mean
no patrols since that date?
Post by Gail wisher
Hec in the Ardennes Offensive, Good men were taken off the boats put
into tanks with 10 hours of training or less done in the field
prior being sent into a tank battle against a vastly superior tank and
German fighter.
See the training and equipment of the Volksgrenadier divisions
for an idea of what parts of the German army were like at that
stage.

Also as of 15 December 1944 the German army in the west had
123 Tigers, 471 Panthers and 503 Panzer IV, given the number
needing repair it appears the Panzer IV was around half the
total number of working tanks. The Panzer IV was about as good
as the Sherman.
Post by Gail wisher
Atchison has this excellent study on the battles of North
Africa where he explains when the Germans counter attacked the
Americas ran for their lives.
Some Americans ran for their lives when hit by a superior force
while being badly deployed. This is normal.
Post by Gail wisher
Not 2 or 3 but thousands of draftees
could not stop the fierce 88's from tearing them to pieces.
Once again we have the "every German gun was an 88" idea,
the tearing to pieces, when it happened, was standard armour
and infantry attacks supported by artillery, with the 88s playing
a minor role.
Post by Gail wisher
For a
while every one thought the America soldiers had no heart to fight but
as we know that was not true.
This was proved partially by the fact they did hold after the first
shock and then with improved performance in their next battle.
Post by Gail wisher
For all the non combat experts, their is
nothing wrong in running if you can live to fight another day. The
Germans were experts in the organize retreats in North Africa.
For the claimed "combat expert" running is not what you do if you
want to survive, you engage in a planned withdrawal, not a sprint
to the rear, exposing yourself and probably losing the equipment
you are going to need real soon, even if it is just the mess kit. It
is also hard to out run a tank.
Post by Gail wisher
It would be interesting to see how North Africa would have
been successful if Russians had been subdued by a two front war of the
Japanese and Germans meeting in the heartland of Russia,
The Japanese had a real problem in attacking Siberia, it was
so under developed. It did not help joint planning when Hitler
chose not to tell the Japanese what he was going to do.

Also when is the USSR supposed to be defeated, since it takes
time to redeploy the troops to North Africa. Also the Italian
Merchant marine losing 1/3 of its ships trapped outside the
Mediterranean when Mussolini declared war first and asked
where the ships were second did not help. Then add the steady
attrition during the war.

Tunisia and Sicily were great theatres for the western allies, playing
to their strengths in air and sea power. The German supply lines
were worse than the allies. In the end the Germans discovered
sending more aircraft simply upped the loss rates rather than helping
the situation for them.
Post by Gail wisher
I wonder why the lessons learned from the battles of North Africa
have to be relearned again in the battlefields of the France where
good men died while the Generals argued for position and power.
The lessons of North Africa were learnt, the army/air planning for
example. Lessons on the tactical level were learnt, including
how to run an invasion. The trouble was telling people who had never
been in combat what it was really like.

Note there was not much tank warfare in Tunisia, so the theories of
armour usage were not put to a big test, and the experience in the
desert was not very applicable to the close terrain of Normandy.
Post by Gail wisher
I.e.
Patton fought and had has his way and stopped the delivery a heavier
and strong tank to the front during the Normandy invasion.
Please provide the documentation that shows Patton doing this, as
the claim appears to be very wrong.
Post by Gail wisher
Again Good
Men died because the lessons of North Africa were forgotten.
Rather the lessons were learnt, in some cases there was not enough
evidence to throw out bad ideas, in others the green units simply
did not know how to absorb the lessons. After all how many people
understand you feel heavy artillery as much as hear it firing, given the
low frequency sound it makes?
Post by Gail wisher
The Russians were begging for a second front to help them
against the tremendous victories in the German advance. Besides the
trucks and material sent via the North Sea all the Russian got were
cases and cases of Spam. It was a big joke among the Russians that the
Allied second front was Spam.
Where to start here. The North Sea does not connect to the USSR
except via the Baltic or Arctic, why were the allies shipping goods
so near to German airfields when then did not have to?

Secondly the supplies came in via the North, South and East and
finally the Black Sea.

Thirdly the allies supplied a very important amount of explosives
since the USSR's chemical industry had been heavily hit.

Fourthly the food was important in a country that had lost much of
its best farmland and the food was packaged, making it easy to
move and use.
Post by Gail wisher
One has to look at Churchill's visit to Stalin during the
Ardennes Offensive.
Churchill was in Moscow in October 1944 and at Yalta in
February 1945. Where did he meet Stalin in December 1944?
He did appeal to Stalin for an attack.
Post by Gail wisher
Stalin was asked to counter attack all across the
Russian front. What did West agree to give Stalin beside Spam for the
effort? Berlin? Stalin counter attacks as requested by Churchill.
Stalin brought forward the Red Army winter offensive by about a
week in January 1945 to help the western allies. The reality is
also the Ardennes offensive committed much of the German
reserves to the west and played a big part in where the armies
ended up in May 1945.
Post by Gail wisher
In order to defend the thesis that that America would have a
difficult time if Germans only had a single front war it would take
pages and tons of documentation that most of us do not have the time
to produce.
It does not take much to note the size of the Commonwealth armies
and air forces, nor the size of the Red Army and Air Force to work
out the USA alone versus the axis powers is going to be a tougher
fight for the USA alone than with the historical allies.
Post by Gail wisher
However if you look at the Battles from North Africa, The Ardennes
Offensive, The loss of the German 6th Army and battles from the South
Pacific like Okinawa where the American losses were so very high one
can envision a different scenario.
The US had little to do with the two destructions of the German
6th Army.
Post by Gail wisher
Japan was hoping to wear out the US public opinion with so many
dead bodies that the US would settle for peace with an intact Japanese
government.
Which is why the kept fighting well after they should have, and this
ignores the fact the US casualties in the Pacific had been small
overall for over 3 years of warfare. Some fights had been tough
but the Japanese had not been able to stop the allies in the Pacific.
Post by Gail wisher
The week after the bomb is dropped in Japan there is this huge
internal fight among the Generals and staff against those elements in
Japan that did not want to surrender but would rather die by
frightening inch by inch on Japanese soil.
And the trouble for the last ditch defenders is the allies could have
delivered a Japan without much left standing without actually invading.
The B-29s in July 1944 delivered 43,091 tons of bombs, the period
June 1944 to end March 1945, 10 months, had seen them deliver
49,269 tons, with nearly 1/3 of that in March. The food situation was
becoming bad in August 1945 as well.
Post by Gail wisher
As you look at the last days of the War and every one knows that
it is the end yet the Germans are still frightening with intensity. I
wonder too.
The conventional answer is propaganda about what the allies would
do and the punishments for not fighting. Add also the human ability
to normalise things, in April 1945 world war was normal.
Post by Gail wisher
It is clear for any historian who can remove the rose color
glasses of propaganda from their eyes that the contribution from the
Russian people was significant.
Most of us receive a short hand history at school heavily concentrated
on what our group did and usually the good things they did. Historians
are quite well aware of the Soviet contribution to the defeat of Hitler.
Post by Gail wisher
One fact that is interesting fact to use to gauge the Russian
achievement in World War 2 is that the Russian industrial production
at the time the country was overrun by the Germans surpassed the
German industrial production at its pre war time peak. It shows the
every section of Russia was working to support defending the father
land or the KGB would get you.
So in June 1941 the Soviet economy was larger than the pre war
German one, including Austria and Czechoslovakia?

Is this a GDP or GNP figure or using a subset like say tank or
aircraft production?
Post by Gail wisher
Again in closing there seems to be something intrinsically wrong
with the German planning for the battles against Russia as the Germans
were 50 miles from Moscow instead of sending warm coats or tanks or
ammunition to the front. The Germans were sending 50 tons of granite
by train to build a monument to honor their victory over Moscow
The planning was to take the city, plenty of shelter and warm
clothing there.

The Germans remembered WWI and the fact in August 1914
they nearly took Paris and could have ended the war then, at
least how the story goes. Hence the great effort to take
Moscow in 1941 to knock the USSR out of the war.

The alternative was to pull back a distance to good supply lines
and refit and prepare for the next offensive.
Post by Gail wisher
On balance the war would have been very difficult for the USA with
out the strong support of men and woman fighters of our Allies
especially England and Russia
Agreed.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

--
D. Tomato
2004-10-11 16:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Unless the invader loses control of the air and sea around an
invasion it is actually hard to drive the invaders into the sea,
take a look at Anzio and Salerno for example. What is possible
is to bottle it up in a shallow beach head.
Except that there weren't a half-dozen panzer divisions within a
week's march of Anzio and Salerno. Despite air and naval superiority,
an amphibious assault in the presence of enemy mechanized forces is a
risky proposition. It's quite plausible for at least some of the
Allied bridgeheads to have been overrun.
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Churchill preferred the Mediterranean for a number of reasons, like
knocking out Italy, distracting German resources and stopping
Stalin ending up in charge. Churchill was also concerned about
the invasion of Normandy, not surprising given the possible casualties
and the blame he had worn over Gallipoli. Then add the amount of
resources tied into the invasion, good if it succeeds, bad if it fails.
The "soft underbelly" concept isn't totally stupid if you assume that
a) someone else will tie down your opponent's main forces
b) you have plenty of time for an indirect strategy.

Unfortunately, Churchill was fighting Hitler and the Wehrmacht, not
Napoleon and La Grande Armee.
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
All armies had the problem of ensuring
the troops were fully trained. The US infantry training system was
17 weeks in the US before sending the men to a theatre. To speed
things up the training was cut to 15 weeks in early 1945.
It's worth noting that green U.S. troops performed quite well compared
to the German Volksgrenadier formations, who had even less training.
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Some Americans ran for their lives when hit by a superior force
while being badly deployed. This is normal.
Rommel was surprised at how quickly the Americans ran - and how
quickly they recovered.
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The lessons of North Africa were learnt, the army/air planning for
example. Lessons on the tactical level were learnt, including
how to run an invasion. The trouble was telling people who had never
been in combat what it was really like.
Not all lessons were learned. For example, Tigers were encountered in
Tunisia. Wasn't the 6-pounder deemed adequate to deal with them? It
also seems that air-ground cooperation had to be relearned in
Northwest Europe.
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Post by Gail wisher
Patton fought and had has his way and stopped the delivery a heavier
and strong tank to the front during the Normandy invasion.
Please provide the documentation that shows Patton doing this, as
the claim appears to be very wrong.
As I recall, Patton felt the 76-mm Sherman would be adequate. But to
be fair, the heavier Pershing would have been harder to ship. In the
attritional slugfest of Normandy, where mines and hedgerows were
everywhere, having more Shemans might have been a better choice.
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Which is why the kept fighting well after they should have, and this
ignores the fact the US casualties in the Pacific had been small
overall for over 3 years of warfare. Some fights had been tough
but the Japanese had not been able to stop the allies in the Pacific.
I think Okinawa changed the equation. Japan couldn't stop the
invasion, but if Okinawa had been a foretaste of invading Japan....
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
And the trouble for the last ditch defenders is the allies could have
delivered a Japan without much left standing without actually invading.
The B-29s in July 1944 delivered 43,091 tons of bombs, the period
June 1944 to end March 1945, 10 months, had seen them deliver
49,269 tons, with nearly 1/3 of that in March. The food situation was
becoming bad in August 1945 as well.
Personally, I don't believe bombing and blockade alone would have
induced Japan to surrender anytime soon. The militarists were too
well entrenched, and those who defied them risked assassination. There
had to be a shock to the system, such as dropping an atomic bomb.

DT





--

gazzafield
2004-10-08 16:16:56 UTC
Permalink
It would be interesting to see how North Africa would >>> have been
successful if Russians had been subdued by a >>> two front war of the
Japanese and Germans meeting in >>> the heartland of Russia,


Japan wasn't interested in Russia, it was to busy fighting it's old enemy
China and had it's own plan for a Pacific empire. this also didn't
include the USA in it's immediate plans, it just happened to know that the
USA would not take kindly to Japan overunning it's sphere of influence and
decided to take the fight to them from the start.
As you look at the last days of the War and every one >>> knows that
it is the end yet the Germans are still >>> frightening with intensity. I
wonder too.

If you listen to Germans who lived through the times it was simply because
they had nothing to lose. Goebbels had promised "total war" and total war
is what they got. They also found it better to fight and be killed than
be captured by the Soviets.
It is clear for any historian who can remove the rose >>> color
glasses of propaganda from their eyes that the >>> contribution from the
Russian people was significant.

The Soviets would have won anyway given time. The allies desperately
setup the Western front to try and stop the whole of Germany disappearing
into the Soviet Bloc. Churchill saw wxactly what was going to happen to
Europe after the war and actually wanted to continue the war against the
Soviet Union when Germany was beaten but was talked out of it as everyone
was war weary.
On balance the war would have been very difficult for >>> the USA with
out the strong support of men and woman >>> fighters of our Allies
especially England and Russia


England? Not Britain? I'm sure there are tens of thousands of dead
Scots, Irish and Welsh soldiers who'll thank you for that comment. As well
as Australian, New Zealander, Indian, Canadian..................

And fighting a war on your own is very difficult as Britain will tell you.
It stood alone, OK with it's empire, for a year. No Russians, and
definitely no Americans came rushing to her aid until the had to fight.
Michael Emrys
2004-10-10 01:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by gazzafield
The Soviets would have won anyway given time.
That's highly speculative. In my own opinion, a more likely scenario would
be after years of desperate fighting, the Soviets finally manage to evict
Axis armies from their soil. By that time, manpower shortages force them to
come to terms with the Axis.
Post by gazzafield
The allies desperately setup the Western front to try and stop the whole of
Germany disappearing into the Soviet Bloc.
It was not at all certain in the West that the USSR would last out the war.
It was, in fact, not certain that it would last out 1941. Therefore, they
provided as much material aid to the USSR as they could afford in order to
keep it in the war, and also prepared to do battle wherever they could in
order to ensure the defeat of Nazism/Facism.

Churchill and others in the West may indeed have had a thought of averting
an expansion of Soviet influence‹to say nothing of domination‹into Europe,
but that came after the Axis was well on the run. IIRC, I place that date
sometime after Kursk and Sicily.

Michael
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...