Why America won the second world war

[Smurf]

Well what he said was true. The Battle of the Kursk was Germany's last attempt to stop the Soviet advance, they struggled to get together all the forces they could in that area and still came up slightly lower than the Soviet's. They were completely smashed by Zhukov's forces. It was their last stand in the east, and quite probably the whole war.

 

[Daminc]

You're right, I've got more studying to do. I mean, I've done little more than read Marshal Zhukov's memoirs on the subject. Since you're obviously an expert, could you please reference some study materials, or just plain point out where and how I'm wrong?

I'm nowhere near to being an expert. It's my understanding though that it took the combined might of the allied forces to beat Germany. Russian alone would not have beaten them, nor would Britain or America. Britain (along with it's commonwealth brethrin) did serious damage to Germany's Air support as well as battles at sea. Our bombing strikes and land battles and all the rest combined resulted in a depleated force attacking Russia. Our radar and code breaking skills played a necessary part. America provided support and supplies which were also essential. Without this the Russians would have been defeated. Without the Russians, Europe would have defeated.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

[Daminc]

Didn't I read somewhere that the weather also had something to do with the Russians defeated the Germans?

 

[Smurf]

Didn't I read somewhere that the weather also had something to do with the Russians defeated the Germans?

You mean that the winter after Hitler first invaded was paticularly bad? Yes, that's true. It's inaccurate to credit that to 'The Weather' though as there's never once been a year when Russia hasn't had a bad winter, the only change was that this one was slightly worse.

It does speak about Germany's (or Hitler's, if you prefer) incompetence in planning this invasion. Hitler had planned to be in Moscow and have negotiated a Russian surrender by the time Winter came around. This not happening is often attributed to the German's having to help the Italians out in Yugoslavia and Greece, which was not planned. This resulted in Operation Barbarossa being delayed a few months and, consequently, less time before Winter (which is when the Russians finally managed to get up a feasible defence and counter attack).

Almost all German tanks were diesel fuelled engines at the time (as were most tanks anywhere). If you've ever tried starting a diesel engine car in winter imagine how much worse it would be in a chasis weighing several tons. Remember too, that this was back when Tanks were still radical, new and (most importantly) inefficient vehicles. The Russians often left their tanks running during winter.

Also, realize that because Hitler didn't expect the war to last into winter he did not equip his troops with Winter gear. The impact this had on the troops brought their efficiency far below that of the Russian winter divisions (some of which used horses when their trucks wouldn't start). Some believe Moscow would not have held out if it weren't for the Winter's affect on German troops. And the Russians did manage to take large amounts of land around Moscow during the winter... Which the Germans never took back.

 

[Smurf]

I'm nowhere near to being an expert. It's my understanding though that it took the combined might of the allied forces to beat Germany. Russian alone would not have beaten them, nor would Britain or America.

Nah, either Britain of the USSR could've taken them on their own.

Britain (along with it's commonwealth brethrin) did serious damage to Germany's Air support as well as battles at sea. Our bombing strikes and land battles and all the rest combined resulted in a depleated force attacking Russia.

The only depleting of forces Britain did for most of the war was in Africa, and Hitler didn't prioritize it too high.

Our radar and code breaking skills played a necessary part.

There was actually very little sharing of codes between the Russians and the British, neither of them seemed to trust each other enough for anything.

America provided support and supplies which were also essential. Without this the Russians would have been defeated. Without the Russians, Europe would have defeated.

If you look at the actual tonage in the lend lease program you'll see that it was really very little (by comparison) until after D-Day, and by then the Russians were already winning.

Just so you know, this is the first thing I typed, then I realized I was way off topic and so I wrote the bit up top:

I believe that Britain or the USSR could have taken Germany single handedly given favorable (but not unlikely) circumstances in pretty much any scenario. Germany's power was perceived to be a lot larger than it really was. For starters: Germany's industrial capability was far below that of both the UK and the USSR. Their technology wasn't spectacular either, everyone seems to believe that German tanks were top notch, why? The only people who they had better tank designs than were the Americans, who insisted on pumping out insane numbers of that silly Sherman. Mind you, the English tanks weren't that much better than the yanks, but at least they were comparable.

He also gave contracts to stronger Nazi supporters, instead of whoever came out with the better designs. For example, producing many more of the bf 109, and bf 110 instead of the superior He 112 and delaying the production of the Fw 190. It seems that a lot of the time Hitler was more concerned with "How many" instead of "How good". This would've been (and was) fine for the States, England and Soviets, but Germany didn't have huge amounts of manpower like they did, and that's who they were going up against.

To quote Sun Tzu "You can secure yourself against defeat, but the opportunity for defeating the enemy is provided by himself"

(ok that was more of a paraphrase but w/e)

disclaimer: everything in this post (and the last) is from memory - so there may be historical inaccuracies

 

[Daminc]

My mate is a more well versed in the actual military numbers and specific details than I but he's not around at the moment. I'll see if I can distract him tomorrow for a while

 

[TRCSF]

Good point. Perhaps you should read a more unbiased source that wasn't as subject to the soviet war time propaganda.

If I were entirely relying on Zhukov's memoirs you'd have a point. Since my comments match the general consensus of real historians all over the world, you haven't got one.

 

[TRCSF]

I'm not sure if you just don't know who Zhukov is or if you're alluding to something else, but Zhukov was considered Stalin's natural successor during the war he was so powerful and popular. Why would he have dillusions from soviet propoganda? He WAS soviet propoganda.

Yes, Zhukov was considered Stalin's natural successor, which is why Zhukov farmed him out to some backwater post and effectively ended Zhukov's political career. It certainly wasn't propaganda that defeated the Germans at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin. In fact, it was Soviet propaganda that nearly erased Zhukov from history.

 

[russ_watters]

You mean that the winter after Hitler first invaded was paticularly bad? Yes, that's true. It's inaccurate to credit that to 'The Weather' though as there's never once been a year when Russia hasn't had a bad winter, the only change was that this one was slightly worse.

It was my understanding that it wasn't the fact that the Soviet winter existed, the fact that he choose to do so much fighting during it.

In any case, Germany was fighting a 3 front war (though he took western Europe relatively easily, it still needed troops to defend it) - had Hitler chosen to move east only, he may well have been able to defeat Stalin. It really isn't justifiable to claim that Russia could have won the war alone.

 

[Smurf]

It was my understanding that it wasn't the fact that the Soviet winter existed, the fact that he choose to do so much fighting during it.

Yes, I think I addressed that when I mentioned the invasion was delayed in Yuogslavia.

In any case, Germany was fighting a 3 front war (though he took western Europe relatively easily, it still needed troops to defend it) - had Hitler chosen to move east only, he may well have been able to defeat Stalin. It really isn't justifiable to claim that Russia could have won the war alone.

I think it is perfectly justifiable. Germany was not capable of prolonged warfare, especially not against an enemy as powerfull and big as Russia. I'm not saying Russia would have no matter what, but that it could have.

In respect to the Atlantic wall, Germany had been pulling forces out of western europe to help in the east since the first signs of serious resistance in '41. However, they did probably still have enough forces to prevent a successfull allied landing had their orders not been so divided. The problem was that Rommel and his strategy were given some support, and Rundstedt given some too. If either one of them had gotten full support they could've had an effective defence but the conflict created too inefficient a fighting machine, and in the end the Allies took Normandy anyways.

 

[loseyourname]

Smurf, are you forgetting there was a war in the Pacific? The Soviet Union, Britain, and France were definitely not going to beat the Japanese without American help.

 

[ray b]

I'm nowhere near to being an expert. It's my understanding though that it took the combined might of the allied forces to beat Germany. Russian alone would not have beaten them, nor would Britain or America. Britain (along with it's commonwealth brethrin) did serious damage to Germany's Air support as well as battles at sea. Our bombing strikes and land battles and all the rest combined resulted in a depleated force attacking Russia. Our radar and code breaking skills played a necessary part. America provided support and supplies which were also essential. Without this the Russians would have been defeated. Without the Russians, Europe would have defeated.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Germans were stopped and throwen back in dec 1941 in front of Moscow
thats way before much lend-lease western equipment was sent let alone
arived in the USSR
sure later our stuff helped but the direction of the war was set in 1941
biggest part of our aid was TRUCKs not really fighting vechicals but important in tranport and supply, sherman tanks were not very good fighting the germans tanks , nicknamed ronsons they light up the first hit every time
only the fact the the USA produced 10 times the numbers of them allowed us to win in the west
the T-34 was also mass produced and a much better tank that helped
russia win the land war on their own, taking Berlin ALONE without any allied help

russian spys were more effective then the limited sharing of the code breaking by the english, that info was mostly used againts the U-boats

other misinformation in this thread
ALL GERMAN TANKS USED GAS not diesel fuel, that was a problem for them
as a glass bottle with gas in it would lite them up [molitov cocktail]
most russian tanks inc the T-34 did use diesel

 

[TRCSF]

russian spys were more effective then the limited sharing of the code breaking by the english, that info was mostly used againts the U-boats

Spies and more importantly prisoner interrogation. I don't think Enigma code-breaking played much of a role at all in the Eastern front before 1943.

 

[ray b]

Smurf, are you forgetting there was a war in the Pacific? The Soviet Union, Britain, and France were definitely not going to beat the Japanese without American help.

earlyer in this thread I said the russians beat germany with limited allied help
witnessed by 10,000,000 troops killed or captured vs less then a million western troops total lost

USA beat japan with minor allied help. but once russia beat germany had we avoided being attacked by japan and stayed out of WW2 england and russia would have an eazy time beating japan with the help of the british empire and common wealth plus china
japan lacked any armored tanks, heavy guns, 4 motor bombers, armored deck aircraft carriers and industial base to build a really modern army or enuff oil suppy
to suport their war efforts
study pre and late war battles againts the russians by japan they got beat souldly and quickly mostly do to their lack of tanks and heavy support guns
banzai charges simply fail againts tanks and heavy guns

 

[Art]

earlyer in this thread I said the russians beat germany with limited allied help
witnessed by 10,000,000 troops killed or captured vs less then a million western troops total lost

USA beat japan with minor allied help. but once russia beat germany had we avoided being attacked by japan and stayed out of WW2 england and russia would have an eazy time beating japan with the help of the british empire and common wealth plus china
japan lacked any armored tanks, heavy guns, 4 motor bombers, armored deck aircraft carriers and industial base to build a really modern army or enuff oil suppy
to suport their war efforts
study pre and late war battles againts the russians by japan they got beat souldly and quickly mostly do to their lack of tanks and heavy support guns
banzai charges simply fail againts tanks and heavy guns

I agree, in fact in July 1938 Russia beat the Japanese in a major battle near Lake Hassan on the border of Manchukuo. The major difference to the outcome without US military involvement is probably that after the war Russia would have controlled pretty much all of europe.

 

[loseyourname]

but once russia beat germany had we avoided being attacked by japan and stayed out of WW2 england and russia would have an eazy time beating japan with the help of the british empire and common wealth plus china

You really think so? I'm not all that knowledgeable concerning this particular war, but I was under the impression that Japan was pretty well protected, given that their homeland and foreign strongholds were mostly on fortified islands. Could Russia and Britain really have unseated Japanese naval power? Did they even have Pacific fleets? Taking back China is one thing, but what about the rest of the Japanese holdings and the Japanese islands themselves?

 

[Smurf]

other misinformation in this thread
ALL GERMAN TANKS USED GAS not diesel fuel, that was a problem for them
as a glass bottle with gas in it would lite them up [molitov cocktail]
most russian tanks inc the T-34 did use diesel

My mistake. Good thing I had that disclaimer

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, are you forgetting there was a war in the Pacific? The Soviet Union, Britain, and France were definitely not going to beat the Japanese without American help.

It's an interesting idea. In truth the Americans caused the Pacific war as they entered it. It is possible that it may not have happened at all if the Americans (and British) had continued peacefull relations with Japan. As I stated in one of my first posts Britain believed it's self capable of effectively fighting in Either Europe or the Far East, but not both simultaneously. If Japan was not provoked by the USA they would not have gone to war with Britain so soon, and so Britain would have:
1. More resources to use against Germany - Possibly ending the war much earlier than with American intervention.
2. After the European war, could have pursued either peacefull relations with Japan or moved larger portions of their navy to the pacific fleet which would still be intact at Singapore in order to fight Japan on the seas.

I don't doubt that if Britain really wanted to they could have defeated both Japan and Germany single handedly. Just not both at the same time... or perferably just one over-all. (in which case it wouldn't have been a world war )

The USSR was also capable of defending it's self from the Japanese if not at war with Germany at the same time, or at all (which is obviously less likely). Or, at the least the USSR was capable of defending it's continental territory.

 

[Smurf]

I agree, in fact in July 1938 Russia beat the Japanese in a major battle near Lake Hassan on the border of Manchukuo.

Well the soviets are credited with the Victory, but in truth they suffered heavily in that battle from Japanese air superiority.

The major difference to the outcome without US military involvement is probably that after the war Russia would have controlled pretty much all of europe.

That's probably true, except Britain may have launched their own D-Day on their own if they had all the resources of the Empire backing the war in Europe. They could have, and probably would have liberated France and the Low lands, possibly more. But this is all speculation now as nothing even close to this happened historically. All we can say is that Britain would have had the capability, we can't predict what they would have done.

 

[Smurf]

You really think so? I'm not all that knowledgeable concerning this particular war, but I was under the impression that Japan was pretty well protected, given that their homeland and foreign strongholds were mostly on fortified islands. Could Russia and Britain really have unseated Japanese naval power?

They could have, at the least, starved the Japanese islands into surrender like Germany tried to do with England, but with much bigger, surface, fleets

Did they even have Pacific fleets?

Yes, sort of, it wasn't called that I don't think. The British fleet was based in Singapore though. The Russian navy however wasn't a whole lot to be reckoned with, pacific or otherwise, it's mainly Britain in this scenario.

 

[Smurf]

sherman tanks were not very good fighting the germans tanks , nicknamed ronsons they light up the first hit every time
only the fact the the USA produced 10 times the numbers of them allowed us to win in the west.

Yes, that was the German nickname for the Sherman, however it was somewhat unwarranted. Other tanks often blew up on their first hit too, namely because the ammunition was not secured properly and ignited when it got hit. The Sherman received it's nickname before this was known, when the problem was thought to be part of the engine or fuel tanks (can't remember exactly) that caused ignition when aggrevated.

 

[Art]

Well the soviets are credited with the Victory, but in truth they suffered heavily in that battle from Japanese air superiority.

It was a severe enough blow to the Japanese (having suffered 17,000 casualities from 30,000 troops engaged in the battle) to persuade them to sue for peace and to change their policy to seek new resources to the south instead of the north. It's long term effect was a huge reluctance by the Japanese to attack the USSR in support of Germany during WW2.

 

[ray b]

You really think so? I'm not all that knowledgeable concerning this particular war, but I was under the impression that Japan was pretty well protected, given that their homeland and foreign strongholds were mostly on fortified islands. Could Russia and Britain really have unseated Japanese naval power? Did they even have Pacific fleets? Taking back China is one thing, but what about the rest of the Japanese holdings and the Japanese islands themselves?

on land japan had a lite army with no heavy or even medium tanks their light tank was little more than other armys scoutcar
they used mortors instead of artilery even moved troops by bicycle
this was very succesfull early in the war againts understrenght colonial troops
and in china
but once we and the brits were moderized and supplyed and went on the attack with heavy equipment
we NEVER LOST A BATTLE againts japan by 1943

navy aircraft they had were good and long ranged but poor or no armor and lite consturction led to many losses of their better pilots and they never were able to train effective replacements and they didnot upgrade the aircraft intill very late in the war
japans aircraft carriers were fast BUT UNARMORED so a few hits distroyed them
all british aircraft carriers were armored on the decks and able to survive far more bomb hits as were their aircraft with armored fuel tanks that selfsealed
and armor protection for the pilot
submarine warfare japan allmost never attacked convoys or ever lone supply ships
but only saw honnor in attacking warships this led to heavy losses of their subs and free flow of our supplys
while we attacked their oil tankers and supply ships leading to japan being very short of fuel and food in later part of the war

we island hopped and left many of the stronger islands to starve without needing to take everyone

 

[Anttech]

That strategy was strongly considered for most of the war. The unconditional surrender policy only took effect after the Africa campaign (i think). No, I don't think it would have really been stupid. A country doesn't regain full capacity to fight war in a few years <- THAT is stupid.

I don't understand, are you being ironic? becuase it certainly is a stupid statement! (and you are usually so clever smurf ;-) )Considering the Fact that WW1 and WW2 were started by the Germans... ?

I think it is perfectly justifiable. Germany was not capable of prolonged warfare, especially not against an enemy as powerfull and big as Russia. I'm not saying Russia would have no matter what, but that it could have.

Considering Finland kick the Russians ass, the Nazi's (at the beginning of the war) would have ahad no problems at all

 

[Pengwuino]

How did this get resurected?

 

[Anttech]

How did this get resurected?

I was sent here by smurf from this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=784335#post784335

 

[Manchot]

It took Germany less than 20 years to recover from WWI, in which they were completely eviscerated. It probably would've taken them less time if not for the worldwide depression in that time span. You see, the thing about fascist countries is that though they are terrible places to live, they tend to have excellent economies. At the same time, they manage to stir up feelings of nationalism to get peoples' spirits up. Therefore, they can rebound from war relatively quickly. Obviously, there's also a chance that they wouldn't have rebounded quickly, but why take the risk? What compelling reason would we have to give the aggressors of a war the benefit of the doubt? Should we also throw convicted murderers back on the street without any prison time, simply because they might not kill again?

Actually, this is related to another huge problem with not finishing the war: the justice issue. Do you not think that the people responsible for the Holocaust should have been held responsible for their actions? What about the rape of Nanking? Or the murder of 2500 people through the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor? Should Hitler himself have gone scot-free? (By the way, that would've happened if we had just stopped attacking Germany.)

 

[Smurf]

After world war two Russia was easily the most powerfull state on the continent, and dominated Europe. It would never have let Germany get back to a power strong enough to rival it. Provided the USA follows the same course it did historically, neither would they.

So, in conclusion, even if the Germans had negotiated a peacefull end tot eh war and even kept their original borders they would still be caught between the cold war, a few years earlier.

Also, keep in mind that nearing the end the Nazi party was losing confidence in Hitler. If Hitler had negotiated peace he could very well have been forced out of office (and probably executed), not making democracy impossible in Germany.

 

[Smurf]

It took Germany less than 20 years to recover from WWI, in which they were completely eviscerated. It probably would've taken them less time if not for the worldwide depression in that time span.

1. Actually if not for the depression I would argue it never would have happened at all. The weimer republic was the german people's first experience with democracy. When their economy fell to shambles they blamed it on democracy, allowing someone like Hitler to take control in the first place. Hitler was the one that brought Germany to the state of strength and aggression it was in for WW2.

2. Germany was never actually invaded in WW1. They never had any of their territory bombed or occupied. German civilians, while many died of Famine, did not know the horrors of their new weapons. It was fought entirely on, above and off the coast of foreign land.

In World War Two, I need only say one word: Dresden, and you know it wasn't the same. But even more significant is the deaths. The deaths from WW1, while huge, pale compared to WW2. In World War one, Germany lost 1,800,000 soldiers, about 500,000 civilians. In WW2: 4,000,000 military, 2,350,000 civilian. If you're wondering about the ratio, that's 81 people per 1000.

Also remember their industry was being flattened by British bombers continuously.

So really, there is no comparison to World War One.

 

[Smurf]

Actually, this is related to another huge problem with not finishing the war: the justice issue. Do you not think that the people responsible for the Holocaust should have been held responsible for their actions? What about the rape of Nanking? Or the murder of 2500 people through the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor? Should Hitler himself have gone scot-free? (By the way, that would've happened if we had just stopped attacking Germany.)

Frankly I consider the entire war crimes thing for the Holocaust one big publicity stunt and I don't see the world being worse off if it hadn't happened.

Here's an article discussing certain effects of the unconditional surrender policy:

http://www.ihr.org/books/hoggan/10.html

Also, look to earlier parts of this thread. If America had not entered the war at all (unconditional surrender was roosevelt's idea) it could very possibly have prevented a lot of bloodshed.

 

[Astronuc]

A correction on the American fleet losses at Pearl Harbor - five ships were permanently lost.

These were the battleships Arizona, Oklahoma, the old battleship Utah (then used as a target ship), and the destroyers Cassin and Downes; nevertheless, much usable material was salvaged from them, including the two aft main turrets from Arizona. Heavy casualties resulted due to Arizona's magazine exploding and the Oklahoma capsizing. Four ships sunk during the attack were later raised and returned to duty, including the battleships California, West Virginia and Nevada. California and West Virginia had an effective torpedo-defense system which held up remarkably well, despite the weight of fire they had to endure, enabling most of their crews to be saved. Many of the surviving battleships were heavily refitted, allowing them to better cope with Japanese threats.

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

Down the road, a major turning point in the conflict between Japan and US was the Battle of Midway, where the Japanese Navy lost 4 fleet carriers - Soryu, Hiryu, Akagi and Kaga.

The loss of four fleet carriers—leaving only Zuikaku and Shokaku—stopped the expansion of the Japanese Empire in the Pacific, and put Japan on the defensive. What made it a turning point for the Japanese Navy was that they lost their dominating force of large numbers of carriers with well-trained pilots, and from this, the Japanese would never recover.

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

It would have been difficult for the US to stay on the sidelines during the war as many or most of its principal trading partners were being attacked.

Another factor in the Pacific Theatre was the US submarine force, which IIRC sank more than 4 million tons (or its 54% of this number) of Japanese shipping - both naval and merchant. There is a book, PIG BOATS, by Theodore Roscoe originally re-published by Bantam in 1967, which chronicles a lot of the US submarine warfare in WWII.

See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_of_World_War_Two
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy

And don't forget the impact of the Battle of Britain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

And an interesting read by a guy named Gene Whitt - http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.38Learning%20More%20from%20History.htm
http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.37Learning%20fromHistory.htm#Learning%20from%20History
http://www.whittsflying.com/index.htm

 

[Smurf]

And an interesting read by a guy named Gene Whitt - http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.38Learning%20More%20from%20History.htm
http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.37Learning%20fromHistory.htm#Learning%20from%20History
http://www.whittsflying.com/index.htm

Awsome stuff, thanks a load.