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.
NO, it does NOT; read some real, correct history. "Millions"???? Do you have an agenda, or are you interested in real facts?
What does it matter though? What happened is what counts, not how you call it. I don't have any agenda, I just tell it like it is.
And yes, overall probably a million deaths could be traced to those two bombings directly or indirectly. Many people developed related diseases years later.
Soviets had one enemy, one theater, one front. They needed to maximize land forces and tactical air. No investment in naval or maritime or outposting or strategic bombing or extra-theater activities. No R&D besides what was needed to further the ground war. The Soviets could raise huge armies because they had Allies to do the remainder.
USA had two enemies, multiple theaters, multiple fronts. Needed to maximize naval, maritime transport, strategic bombing, outposting, logistics, air supremacy campaigns, and R&D. US did not have to build the early war considered 213 divisions. They had the Soviets to do that.
UK had three enemies, multiple theatres, mulitple fronts. Needed to maximize naval, maritime transport, strategic bombing, outposting, intelligence and some R&D. UK did not have to build a massive army. The Soviets did that.
Germans had mulitple enemies, multiple theatres, multiple fronts. Needed to maximize land forces, air defense, outposting, internal intelligence, R&D and some naval aspects.-Every category to counteract the combined Allies and was unable to do so. Allied heavy bomber campaign meant the Luftwaffe could never focus on what it was intended to do and that is provide tactical air power. Consider what the Luftwaffe would have done to those Soviet armored spearheads combined with additional anti-tank weapons as opposed to heavy flak weapons. Same with the forces tied up in North Africa, Italy and Western Europe.
Or what the USA/UK would have had to experience if German troops would not have been tied down in the East.
Then there is Japan but we really are considering whether the Soviets should take the mantle of Who was responsible for the victory.
All good points, but I'll refer you back to my post #29 detailing bombing tonnages, German industrial production and casualties by year.
Everyone accepts that the Eastern Front hinged on three major battles: Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. All three of those battles happened before all of these "other" contributing factors and fronts started to have any major impact on the German war effort. We can dicker over would an extra division here or there have mattered, but I think the macro point, backed up with numbers stands.
That point doesn't diminish the role the US or Britain played, it merely acknowledges the immense effort and sacrifice of the Soviets in fighting the Germans.
Most modern historians when looking back on the course of the war continually come to the same the conclusion. The western Allied efforts significantly shortened the war and brought it to a quicker conclusion, but they were not the decisive element in determing the outcome of the war in Europe, that was the efforts of the Soviet in 1941-1943 largely unaided by any western Allied supplies or combat operations.
It's July 1943...
460k American and British troops and 600 tanks land in Sicily opposed by 60k Germans and 230k Italians that are fielding 260 tanks. The largely conscript Italian force surrenders rapidly, leaving the 60k Germans in a fighting withdrawal across the island.
In Britain, the USAAF has just increased its deployment to a total of ~300 heavy bombers, a mere fraction of the force it would field by mid-1944. Within a couple months, the US would halt unescorted bomber missions over German territory do to high loss rates from German fighters, until the P51 came online in 1944, this greatly hampered the long range Allied bombing campaign over Germany.
In Russia, outside the city of Kursk about 280 miles south of Moscow, the largest armor battle in world history and the costliest aeiral battle as well took place. 780k German troops, 3k tanks, 10k guns and 2k aircraft squared off against 1.9 million Russian soldiers, 5k tanks, 25k guns and 2.7k aircraft. When the battle was over the Russians had broken the back of the German Army which would be in constant retreat from that moment forward.
^^I hear you and recall from Ellis that the head of German manpower utilization reported to the OKW at the beginning of 1942 that it was not possible to replenish the previous years losses with the forecast intakes.
I posit that fighting outnumbered was normal condition for the German army in the East and not a precondition for defeat.
I think the German defensive victories of 1942 and 1943 show that the ability to pinch off the head of a penetration is what determined the outcome of these battles once communication between the leading Soviet units and the rear guard were tenuous. So I think the war in the East was determined by armored and mobile units not foot infantry. Breakthoughs by infantry were assured but the walking pace vs. the abilty of a truck or track or rail to bring reinforcements to the area would contain a breakthough. I do not believe the location of German infantry in the West to be important only the armor and mechanized infantry as that is what was needed in the East.
Well, we have to deal with Kursk which could have been a German defensive victory instead of a Soviet victory. I presume the time of year and troop positioning and future weather would force Soviets to attack if the Germans cancelled Citadel.
But considering Citadel as continuing as it did with the losses and retreats then the stituation afterwards enters that phase of hypothetical. I believe ground forces were pulled away to be sent to Sicily/Italy to deal with the landings and Italian surrender. I think also of the medium bombers and fighters which were allocated to the region due to Allied actions.
I recall reading how some Soviet elements where infantry needy by 1945 although armor heavy. I also note how well the Germans responded to mobilization and production in 1944. I could see the war continuing longer than 1945 if there was no need to deploy in Italy and the commitments in the NW Europe. But again it is the fast responders that would interest me in terms of how many were not located in the East. I note how well tactical air operated in the dry season over open terrain.
I love revisionist history that tries to discount the importance of the US in WWII. It's a fad I have seen a lot lately.
It's not revisionist to take an actual academic study of the war and see the US's role within it. "Revisionist" history would be the one we put in high school textbooks which tend to cover WW2 like this...
Pearl Harbor...Midway...Normandy...Atomic Bombs
I'm an American, I love the country, my family has proudly served for generations, including both grandfathers in WW2. The role of the US is in no way diminished by acknowledging the facts of the war and the TRUE impact that the US had. If anything, Americans have been the ones doing the disservice to the Russians all these years treating the Eastern Front as a mere footnote compared to Normandy...Those Ruskies are darn lucky they held on long enough so we could get over there and save their butts from Hitler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleSchoolFool
Russians would def win eventually, with guerrilla tactics and everything even without help. If we take Russians out of the equation, Americans would still beat Germans. The battle would probably be at home though so American cities would be devastated and 20 times more American people would be killed, but Americans are resilient too so there is no way Germans would take over. Plus that nuke thing would stop the Germans later on unless of course the Germans advanced fast and took over the nuclear program when they invaded the U.S.
That part I don't think would have been a reality. The Germans couldn't muster the ability to invade Britain across the Channel, they weren't coming to America anytime soon.
I would say the Soviet Union. They almost single-handedly defeated the Germans on their own and had virtually won the war against Germany by the Battle of Kursk in 1943, long before large elements of American and British forces were engaged against the Germans.
The issue there then becomes what about the Pacific? The US easily bore the largest role in defeating the Japanese, but that was almost a foregone conclusion. The war hinged on defeating Germany and once that was done it was a matter or arithmetic for Japan to eventually lose. As it was the US committed a very small percentage of its total military effort to the Pacific and still had Japan virtually defeated before the Germans fell.
So, WW2 was decided in Europe and no Allied nation played a greater role in defeating the Germans then the Soviets.
Since there really is no single nation that did so, the Soviets are as good a choice as any given their contribution and losses.
Ever seen a listing of all the stuff that the US armed them with though? All those convoys across the pacific were going north and not just to England.
I have no doubts that without US material aid, the Russians would have lost.
-2000 locamotives, 19,000 rail cars...almost the entirety of Russian rail production
-20% of Russian aircraft.
-70% of Russian trucks (Over 200,000)
and much much more.
This allowed the Russian manufacturing base to focus on making tanks and other specific items and not having to make trains, a lot of trucks and so forth. It's truly staggering in scope.
I can tell you the total tonnage dropped by the US 8th and 15th air forces in Europe and also by Britians Bomber Comand.
US Total tonnage - 967,591
US total sorties - 499841
UK total tonnage - 883,328
UK - total sorties - 299726
Thats the tonnage and sorties by the strategic air forces in Britian and Europe. That does not count the 9'th and 12'th US air forces which were also in Europe but they were mostly tatical air forces.
I would say the bomber campaign did alot of damage to Germany. In April 1945 the US had over 14,000 combat aircraft in Europe and between the Navy , Army and Marines had 21,000 combat aircraft in the Pacific.
Also the reason the UK dropped alot of bombs for the number of sorties was that thier bombers carried bigger bomb loads then the American B-17's and B-24's. The B-29 carried a bigger bomb load then any bomber of the war but of course they were not in Europe. Ron
I don't think I ever discounted what the Ruskies did--as long as everyone remembers they did it with a lot of help from America. They drove Ford 4WD/6WD trucks, they wore American made clothing, they ate American rations and fired American made ammo. All the while we had to gear up for our role in the war.
I think we did pretty good and without America in the war the Russians would have collapsed. American however would NOT have collapsed without the Russians.
The Germans were never a match for America. Our airforce would have picked off their tiger tanks like fish in a barrel and they would have had no supply lines.
I'm talking about after Japan was defeated and we brought our full power to bear on them.
People seem to forget that America just hit it's peak by 1945 in war production and training. Before the war we were an isolationist country with a small military compared to other countries. We came on pretty strong in a few years.
It's not revisionist to take an actual academic study of the war and see the US's role within it. "Revisionist" history would be the one we put in high school textbooks which tend to cover WW2 like this...
Pearl Harbor...Midway...Normandy...Atomic Bombs
I'm an American, I love the country, my family has proudly served for generations, including both grandfathers in WW2. The role of the US is in no way diminished by acknowledging the facts of the war and the TRUE impact that the US had. If anything, Americans have been the ones doing the disservice to the Russians all these years treating the Eastern Front as a mere footnote compared to Normandy...Those Ruskies are darn lucky they held on long enough so we could get over there and save their butts from Hitler.
That part I don't think would have been a reality. The Germans couldn't muster the ability to invade Britain across the Channel, they weren't coming to America anytime soon.
Agreed.
A REALLY interesting discussion would be how long England could have held out if the US had just stayed out of the war.
Yes, for sure. When the war started, Red Army was way underequippped, but they started producing tanks and ammo like crazy so caught up eventually.
Hate to continue picking on you but you as someone whose grandfather served in the war should be a bit more informed. At the start of the war, the Red Army had more tanks and aircraft than at any other point in time during the war. There were about 25,000 tanks. For example, the battle of Dubno-Brody in western Ukraine was the largest tank battle in history until Kursk and it took place in the first week of the war.There was enough ammo as well.
The problem wasn't how many tanks the Red Army had but how they were used.
If anyone is interested in reading a really good book on the eastern front, read "Five Years, Four Fronts" It's a memoir by Georg Grossjohan who served in the Wehrmacht for 5 years and survived Russian prison.
He attributes the Ford truck and American assistance with the Russian victory.
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.
