Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know it was an allied effort, but which nation is really responsible for the victory?
My understanding is that the Russians took the brunt of the war. Although they probably would have lost if the US hadn't intervened. I'm no expert though, that is just to my knowledge.
The Russians in Air battles destroyed 1,000 German Aircraft during the invasion. (1942-1943)
Great Britain destroyed about 2,000 German Aircraft during the Battle of Britain (5 months)
and during the beginning of 1943 up to 60% of the German Air force was defending against bombings by the Allies
The Reason why the strategic bombing only ramped up in 1944 is because they had to effectively cripple the Luftwaffe before they could do large scale bombings.
Listen, we need to put this all into perspective as we continue with the conversation. A few points if I may:
1. My argument is predicated on proving that the decisive period for the war, meaning when the outcome was decided, occurred on the Eastern Front between 1941 (Barbarossa) and 1943 (Kursk). After Kursk, the offensive ability of the German military was shattered and it was simply a matter of time until Germany collapsed under the weight of the Soviet advance. This time period is important to highlight because it occurs BEFORE; Lend Lease had a major impact, the strategic bombing campaign began to have an impact on Germany and before western Allied armies were engaged in any major offensive fronts tieing down large numbers of German units. Hence, since virtually every historian considers Kursk THE DECISIVE battle of determining the outcome of WW2 in Europe and western allied involvement was minimal to that point, it is obvious that the Soviets were the decisive power in winning the war in Europe and defeating Nazi Germany.
2. The records for Luftwaffe losses are incomplete and the best anyone can offer are guesses as to loss rates and when those losses occcurred. I will follow up these statements with some sources that I have found detailing loss rates on the Eastern Front vs. all other fronts.
3. The air war went through several different phases and looked different on each front. The invasions of Poland and France saw the Luftwaffe engaged in ground support and air dominance in an offensive capacity. The Battle of Britain saw the Luftwaffe conducting offensive bombing campaings and interdicting enemy bombers. Once Barbarossa was launched, there is a split. In the west the German effort revolved entirely around air dominance with fighters and defending Germany, France, etc. In the east it was back to ground support and air dominance. That split remained until the end of the war when virtually any remaining aircraft were concentrated in the east for the defense of Berlin.
What this means is that the western air war post Battle of Britain was a "fighter war" with German fighters attempting to maintain air superiority over Germany. In the east, it was still an offensive air war for the most part featuring bombers launching attacks and fighter interdicting enemy attacks, etc. The Eastern Front did not see large scale strategic bombing, it was a tactical air war.
4. Following this will be as good of a table of losses as I can find. This table reports total enemy aircraft shot down and total German FIGHTER losses. The fighters are the key because they are responsible for air dominance. Bombers post Battle of Britain played almost no role in the west. If bombers were added, they would inflate Eastern Front losses, but that would deprive us of a legit comparison given the different flavors of the war. One final note, the losses includes total estimated losses of aircraft from all sources, air-to-air, flak, ground losses, etc. The numbers are taken from "More Luftwaffe Aircraft in Profile" published in 2002:
So, in total, there was a 3+:1 loss ratio of fighters west:east. It is obvious that the ability of the Luftwaffe to maintain air dominance was shattered in the western air campaign. However, 73% of those losses occurred in 1944/45. If we added bombers, the loss rates on the Eastern Front in 1941-1943 become much higher then they are for just fighter losses. Again though, I am not adding them because the western air war was not about Luftwaffe bombers.
From 1940-1942 the Luftwaffe easily maintained air dominance over Germany with a minimal effort related to the overall war. In 1943, we see the first appearance of the USAAF's heavy bombers engaged in daylight raids. While these had minimal impact in terms of production, by mid-1943 (post-Kursk) the Germans decided they needed to allocate the bulk of their fighter force to the Defence of the Reich. What followed was a period from Oct. 1943 - Feb. 1944 where the Germans regained air superiority over western Europe and forced the US and Britain to suspend daylight raids do to staggering losses. What changed in Feb. 1944 was the addition of the P51 Mustang to the Allied arsenal. By then they finally had enough of them available to escort the bombers on their missions and the Mustang was a superior air-to-air fighter versus anything the Germans had at the time. That is when the air war in the west happened, that is when the back of the Luftwaffe was broken. My only point being, by the time that happened, the Soviets had already defeated Germany at Kursk and were preparing to put the final nails in the coffin with the launching of Operation Bagration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArchitect
I expected when I opened this thread to see many people eager to both overestimate Americas importance in the war or greatly underestimate it. The former likely driven by an overly American centric worldview and the later by a misguided anti-Americanism that is currently fashionable in certain quarters and lead some to want to downplay of diminish any American contribution.
Both the British & Russians showed resolve and sacrificed far more than most Americans can easily understand. These two nations should certainly be recognized as the leading players in WW2.
The fact is however that Britian and Russia would have eventually fallen had the US stayed completely out of the war and neither commited resources nor engaged the Japanese in the pacific region.
The Russians did more than anyone else on the ground this is without question but without US financial support they would have eventually fallen. Especially if Britian was taken, which it would have eventually been without American financial and material assistance.
The Japanese would have continued to walk through the pacific region. The ease and rapidity with which they would have continued to do so would have left them in a good position to eventually attack Russia from the east.
So while it could be said that Americas role was mostly that of a support player and financier, it was a role that was essential.
Britian and Russia eventually fall to the Axis nations if the US remains neutral.......unless............the Russians manage to hold out long enough to develop a workable atomic bomb. But its virtual impossibility they hang on until 1949 (the year they successfully tested their first nuclear device), or considerably speed up the development of that program by years(highly unlikely).
Just a few of points.
1. I don't consider taking a rational and objective view of WW2 in terms of US contributions as being anti-American. There's a reason high school history books discuss WW2 like this: Pearl Harbor - Midway - Normandy - Bulge - Phillipines/Okinawa/Iwo - VE Day - Atomic Bombs - VJ Day. There's a big gap of time from Pearl to Midway when the bloodiest battles of the war were being fought and the course of the war in Europe decided, all on the Eastern Front. The US was easily most responsible for the defeat of Japan, but the US's role in Europe was far more nuanced and was mainly in shortening the duration, not in deciding the outcome.
2. Both Britain and Russia engaged Japan in WW2. Britain both directly and with Commonwealth forces fought Japan from 1941-1945. The Russians engaged in 1945 with a devastating invasion of Manchuria. When one studies the complex political decisions that led Japan to surrender, the Russian invasion weighed more heavily on some Japanese hardliners then the atomic bombings did. To say that neither were "engaged or committed resources" is patently false.
3. There was never a realistic chance for Britain to be taken by invasion. The Germans lacked the naval assets to do it regardless of whether or not they achieved air dominance. It took the US and Britain 3 years to build up the resources necessary to launch Overlord and they enjoyed mastery of the seas, something the Germans never had. Could Britain if left entirely alone (no US, no Soviets) have eventually decided to negotiate peace, probably. However, as long as the Soviets were in the war, Britain would continue fighting however they could.
4. There is no scenario where Japan does what it did that doesn't trigger US involvement. A European war without the US is hypothetically feasible, a Pacific War without the US simply wouldn't have happened. Even then, the situation the Japanese were in by mid-1942 was essentially the extent of their ability to sieze territory. In some hypothetical world without the US in the Pacific War, Japan would have not "steamrolled" anything more then it did.
5. US matieral and financial assistance was immensely critical to...Britain. Without US aid the British would have been very hard pressed to field the divisions they did. US aid to the Soviets was far less critical in supporting the Soviet war effort as has been exhaustively detailed in previous posts in this thread.
6. The idea that Britain and Russia would fall without the US is a stretch. The war hinged on the Eastern Front starting in 1941. The Russians not only stopped the German advance, they pushed it back and destroyed the German ability to wage offensive warfare by 1943. All before western involvement had any real impact on the course of the war. The war in Europe was DECIDED on the Eastern Front between the Germans and Russians from 1941-1943. The western Allied impact was to shorten the duration of the war greatly from that point forward and there is nothing wrong or ignoble about that fact.
NJgoat: what's your take on the idea that Hitler was developing nuclear capability and planned to nuke russia, just before the US diverted the effort? Also, didn't the Germans kill more Russians prior to US involvement? In my understanding Russia absorbed massive casualties, the most of any nation. I guess you can call that a "win?"
Listen, we need to put this all into perspective as we continue with the conversation. A few points if I may:
1. My argument is predicated on proving that the decisive period for the war, meaning when the outcome was decided, occurred on the Eastern Front between 1941 (Barbarossa) and 1943 (Kursk). After Kursk, the offensive ability of the German military was shattered and it was simply a matter of time until Germany collapsed under the weight of the Soviet advance. This time period is important to highlight because it occurs BEFORE; Lend Lease had a major impact, the strategic bombing campaign began to have an impact on Germany and before western Allied armies were engaged in any major offensive fronts tieing down large numbers of German units. Hence, since virtually every historian considers Kursk THE DECISIVE battle of determining the outcome of WW2 in Europe and western allied involvement was minimal to that point, it is obvious that the Soviets were the decisive power in winning the war in Europe and defeating Nazi Germany.
2. The records for Luftwaffe losses are incomplete and the best anyone can offer are guesses as to loss rates and when those losses occcurred. I will follow up these statements with some sources that I have found detailing loss rates on the Eastern Front vs. all other fronts.
3. The air war went through several different phases and looked different on each front. The invasions of Poland and France saw the Luftwaffe engaged in ground support and air dominance in an offensive capacity. The Battle of Britain saw the Luftwaffe conducting offensive bombing campaings and interdicting enemy bombers. Once Barbarossa was launched, there is a split. In the west the German effort revolved entirely around air dominance with fighters and defending Germany, France, etc. In the east it was back to ground support and air dominance. That split remained until the end of the war when virtually any remaining aircraft were concentrated in the east for the defense of Berlin.
What this means is that the western air war post Battle of Britain was a "fighter war" with German fighters attempting to maintain air superiority over Germany. In the east, it was still an offensive air war for the most part featuring bombers launching attacks and fighter interdicting enemy attacks, etc. The Eastern Front did not see large scale strategic bombing, it was a tactical air war.
4. Following this will be as good of a table of losses as I can find. This table reports total enemy aircraft shot down and total German FIGHTER losses. The fighters are the key because they are responsible for air dominance. Bombers post Battle of Britain played almost no role in the west. If bombers were added, they would inflate Eastern Front losses, but that would deprive us of a legit comparison given the different flavors of the war. One final note, the losses includes total estimated losses of aircraft from all sources, air-to-air, flak, ground losses, etc. The numbers are taken from "More Luftwaffe Aircraft in Profile" published in 2002:
So, in total, there was a 3+:1 loss ratio of fighters west:east. It is obvious that the ability of the Luftwaffe to maintain air dominance was shattered in the western air campaign. However, 73% of those losses occurred in 1944/45. If we added bombers, the loss rates on the Eastern Front in 1941-1943 become much higher then they are for just fighter losses. Again though, I am not adding them because the western air war was not about Luftwaffe bombers.
From 1940-1942 the Luftwaffe easily maintained air dominance over Germany with a minimal effort related to the overall war. In 1943, we see the first appearance of the USAAF's heavy bombers engaged in daylight raids. While these had minimal impact in terms of production, by mid-1943 (post-Kursk) the Germans decided they needed to allocate the bulk of their fighter force to the Defence of the Reich. What followed was a period from Oct. 1943 - Feb. 1944 where the Germans regained air superiority over western Europe and forced the US and Britain to suspend daylight raids do to staggering losses. What changed in Feb. 1944 was the addition of the P51 Mustang to the Allied arsenal. By then they finally had enough of them available to escort the bombers on their missions and the Mustang was a superior air-to-air fighter versus anything the Germans had at the time. That is when the air war in the west happened, that is when the back of the Luftwaffe was broken. My only point being, by the time that happened, the Soviets had already defeated Germany at Kursk and were preparing to put the final nails in the coffin with the launching of Operation Bagration.
Just a few of points.
1. I don't consider taking a rational and objective view of WW2 in terms of US contributions as being anti-American. There's a reason high school history books discuss WW2 like this: Pearl Harbor - Midway - Normandy - Bulge - Phillipines/Okinawa/Iwo - VE Day - Atomic Bombs - VJ Day. There's a big gap of time from Pearl to Midway when the bloodiest battles of the war were being fought and the course of the war in Europe decided, all on the Eastern Front. The US was easily most responsible for the defeat of Japan, but the US's role in Europe was far more nuanced and was mainly in shortening the duration, not in deciding the outcome.
2. Both Britain and Russia engaged Japan in WW2. Britain both directly and with Commonwealth forces fought Japan from 1941-1945. The Russians engaged in 1945 with a devastating invasion of Manchuria. When one studies the complex political decisions that led Japan to surrender, the Russian invasion weighed more heavily on some Japanese hardliners then the atomic bombings did. To say that neither were "engaged or committed resources" is patently false.
3. There was never a realistic chance for Britain to be taken by invasion. The Germans lacked the naval assets to do it regardless of whether or not they achieved air dominance. It took the US and Britain 3 years to build up the resources necessary to launch Overlord and they enjoyed mastery of the seas, something the Germans never had. Could Britain if left entirely alone (no US, no Soviets) have eventually decided to negotiate peace, probably. However, as long as the Soviets were in the war, Britain would continue fighting however they could.
4. There is no scenario where Japan does what it did that doesn't trigger US involvement. A European war without the US is hypothetically feasible, a Pacific War without the US simply wouldn't have happened. Even then, the situation the Japanese were in by mid-1942 was essentially the extent of their ability to sieze territory. In some hypothetical world without the US in the Pacific War, Japan would have not "steamrolled" anything more then it did.
5. US matieral and financial assistance was immensely critical to...Britain. Without US aid the British would have been very hard pressed to field the divisions they did. US aid to the Soviets was far less critical in supporting the Soviet war effort as has been exhaustively detailed in previous posts in this thread.
6. The idea that Britain and Russia would fall without the US is a stretch. The war hinged on the Eastern Front starting in 1941. The Russians not only stopped the German advance, they pushed it back and destroyed the German ability to wage offensive warfare by 1943. All before western involvement had any real impact on the course of the war. The war in Europe was DECIDED on the Eastern Front between the Germans and Russians from 1941-1943. The western Allied impact was to shorten the duration of the war greatly from that point forward and there is nothing wrong or ignoble about that fact.
Axis=/= Germany.
Against Germany (and puppet states)
1) USSR
2) US
3) UK
Italy
1) UK
2) US
USSR non-existant
Japan
1) US
2) UK
3) Russia
in Gerneral the Ranking of the importance to each county in the Axis is
1) Germany
2) Japan
3) Italy
So using that measure its really hard to say who played the most importance in an allied victory.
Then add co-belligerants (Finland, Iraq, Thailand ect.) then it further complicates things.
Listen, we need to put this all into perspective as we continue with the conversation. A few points if I may:
1. My argument is predicated on proving that the decisive period for the war, meaning when the outcome was decided, occurred on the Eastern Front between 1941 (Barbarossa) and 1943 (Kursk). After Kursk, the offensive ability of the German military was shattered and it was simply a matter of time until Germany collapsed under the weight of the Soviet advance. This time period is important to highlight because it occurs BEFORE; Lend Lease had a major impact, the strategic bombing campaign began to have an impact on Germany and before western Allied armies were engaged in any major offensive fronts tieing down large numbers of German units. Hence, since virtually every historian considers Kursk THE DECISIVE battle of determining the outcome of WW2 in Europe and western allied involvement was minimal to that point, it is obvious that the Soviets were the decisive power in winning the war in Europe and defeating Nazi Germany.
2. The records for Luftwaffe losses are incomplete and the best anyone can offer are guesses as to loss rates and when those losses occcurred. I will follow up these statements with some sources that I have found detailing loss rates on the Eastern Front vs. all other fronts.
3. The air war went through several different phases and looked different on each front. The invasions of Poland and France saw the Luftwaffe engaged in ground support and air dominance in an offensive capacity. The Battle of Britain saw the Luftwaffe conducting offensive bombing campaings and interdicting enemy bombers. Once Barbarossa was launched, there is a split. In the west the German effort revolved entirely around air dominance with fighters and defending Germany, France, etc. In the east it was back to ground support and air dominance. That split remained until the end of the war when virtually any remaining aircraft were concentrated in the east for the defense of Berlin.
What this means is that the western air war post Battle of Britain was a "fighter war" with German fighters attempting to maintain air superiority over Germany. In the east, it was still an offensive air war for the most part featuring bombers launching attacks and fighter interdicting enemy attacks, etc. The Eastern Front did not see large scale strategic bombing, it was a tactical air war.
4. Following this will be as good of a table of losses as I can find. This table reports total enemy aircraft shot down and total German FIGHTER losses. The fighters are the key because they are responsible for air dominance. Bombers post Battle of Britain played almost no role in the west. If bombers were added, they would inflate Eastern Front losses, but that would deprive us of a legit comparison given the different flavors of the war. One final note, the losses includes total estimated losses of aircraft from all sources, air-to-air, flak, ground losses, etc. The numbers are taken from "More Luftwaffe Aircraft in Profile" published in 2002:
So, in total, there was a 3+:1 loss ratio of fighters west:east. It is obvious that the ability of the Luftwaffe to maintain air dominance was shattered in the western air campaign. However, 73% of those losses occurred in 1944/45. If we added bombers, the loss rates on the Eastern Front in 1941-1943 become much higher then they are for just fighter losses. Again though, I am not adding them because the western air war was not about Luftwaffe bombers.
From 1940-1942 the Luftwaffe easily maintained air dominance over Germany with a minimal effort related to the overall war. In 1943, we see the first appearance of the USAAF's heavy bombers engaged in daylight raids. While these had minimal impact in terms of production, by mid-1943 (post-Kursk) the Germans decided they needed to allocate the bulk of their fighter force to the Defence of the Reich. What followed was a period from Oct. 1943 - Feb. 1944 where the Germans regained air superiority over western Europe and forced the US and Britain to suspend daylight raids do to staggering losses. What changed in Feb. 1944 was the addition of the P51 Mustang to the Allied arsenal. By then they finally had enough of them available to escort the bombers on their missions and the Mustang was a superior air-to-air fighter versus anything the Germans had at the time. That is when the air war in the west happened, that is when the back of the Luftwaffe was broken. My only point being, by the time that happened, the Soviets had already defeated Germany at Kursk and were preparing to put the final nails in the coffin with the launching of Operation Bagration.
Just a few of points.
1. I don't consider taking a rational and objective view of WW2 in terms of US contributions as being anti-American. There's a reason high school history books discuss WW2 like this: Pearl Harbor - Midway - Normandy - Bulge - Phillipines/Okinawa/Iwo - VE Day - Atomic Bombs - VJ Day. There's a big gap of time from Pearl to Midway when the bloodiest battles of the war were being fought and the course of the war in Europe decided, all on the Eastern Front. The US was easily most responsible for the defeat of Japan, but the US's role in Europe was far more nuanced and was mainly in shortening the duration, not in deciding the outcome.
2. Both Britain and Russia engaged Japan in WW2. Britain both directly and with Commonwealth forces fought Japan from 1941-1945. The Russians engaged in 1945 with a devastating invasion of Manchuria. When one studies the complex political decisions that led Japan to surrender, the Russian invasion weighed more heavily on some Japanese hardliners then the atomic bombings did. To say that neither were "engaged or committed resources" is patently false.
3. There was never a realistic chance for Britain to be taken by invasion. The Germans lacked the naval assets to do it regardless of whether or not they achieved air dominance. It took the US and Britain 3 years to build up the resources necessary to launch Overlord and they enjoyed mastery of the seas, something the Germans never had. Could Britain if left entirely alone (no US, no Soviets) have eventually decided to negotiate peace, probably. However, as long as the Soviets were in the war, Britain would continue fighting however they could.
4. There is no scenario where Japan does what it did that doesn't trigger US involvement. A European war without the US is hypothetically feasible, a Pacific War without the US simply wouldn't have happened. Even then, the situation the Japanese were in by mid-1942 was essentially the extent of their ability to sieze territory. In some hypothetical world without the US in the Pacific War, Japan would have not "steamrolled" anything more then it did.
5. US matieral and financial assistance was immensely critical to...Britain. Without US aid the British would have been very hard pressed to field the divisions they did. US aid to the Soviets was far less critical in supporting the Soviet war effort as has been exhaustively detailed in previous posts in this thread.
6. The idea that Britain and Russia would fall without the US is a stretch. The war hinged on the Eastern Front starting in 1941. The Russians not only stopped the German advance, they pushed it back and destroyed the German ability to wage offensive warfare by 1943. All before western involvement had any real impact on the course of the war. The war in Europe was DECIDED on the Eastern Front between the Germans and Russians from 1941-1943. The western Allied impact was to shorten the duration of the war greatly from that point forward and there is nothing wrong or ignoble about that fact.
NJgoat: what's your take on the idea that Hitler was developing nuclear capability and planned to nuke russia, just before the US diverted the effort? Also, didn't the Germans kill more Russians prior to US involvement? In my understanding Russia absorbed massive casualties, the most of any nation. I guess you can call that a "win?"
Russia was targeted more than any other nation ( may be except for Poland) for extermination of population, just in case you've missed it. Taking that in consideration it explains the massive losses and yes, it was a win.
Axis=/= Germany.
Against Germany (and puppet states)
1) USSR
2) US
3) UK
Italy
1) UK
2) US
USSR non-existant
Japan
1) US
2) UK
3) Russia
in Gerneral the Ranking of the importance to each county in the Axis is
1) Germany
2) Japan
3) Italy
So using that measure its really hard to say who played the most importance in an allied victory.
Then add co-belligerants (Finland, Iraq, Thailand ect.) then it further complicates things.
That's right, throw Thailand in there and the picture becomes so much more clear who has really won the war.
Russia was targeted more than any other nation ( may be except for Poland) for extermination of population, just in case you've missed it. Taking that in consideration it explains the massive losses and yes, it was a win.
I guess you missed the part where my question was directed toward NJGoat. Unless this is your other account? If US doesn't intervene, then Russia loses the war. That's how bad it was. Ratio was around 3:1 in favor of Germany.
I guess you missed the part where my question was directed toward NJGoat.
No, it's you who missed the part that you are posting on public forum.
Quote:
If US doesn't intervene, then Russia loses the war. That's how bad it was. Ratio was around 3:1 in favor of Germany
Yes, so I've heard...
PS. That I wouldn't be wasting valuable pixels here in vain, here is few more interesting episodes that I've recently found. They show even further how much Russia *was desperate* for American help.
Indeed Americans landed in Europe for a different reason, and with Soviet Union of its might and size by the end of the war, it was very wise of them. Very wise.
The USSR did fight the majority of the fiht against the Germans, BUT they also invaded poland with the Nazis.
The Soviet- German Co-Offensive split the Polish army in 2, making it very difficult to mount any sort of long- Term defense.
if it has been Nazis VS Polish then the invasión of Poland would have tajen much longer to the the Polish militarys ability to organize in the eastern/ Southern part of the country. That would have given time for the Allies in the West ( France/ UK/ Belguim) to mobilize before the Poles surrendered putting Germany in a 2 front war quickly.
To not hold The USSR to this pibotal event that put in place the Basic componants that made it a World war in the First place is ignorant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
