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’ve always thought the axis would have won the war IF they had not bit off more than they could chew. First it was a mistake to invade the Soviet Union while still fighting a powerful enemy in the west (U.K.). Secondly it was disastrous to up and declare war on another great power when it was unnecessary (US).
Germany's declaration of war on the United States after Pearl Harbor is often considered a mistake. It wasn't; it was irrelevant. At that point, declared war between the United States and Germany was imminent and everyone knew it. In the time between the attack and the German declaration of war, FDR and his aids discussed requesting a declaration of war on Germany. However, it was believed that Hitler would declare war regardless, and they felt it politically advantageous to go ahead and let Germany move first. For his part, Hitler assumed that the U.S. declaration was a foregone conclusion as well, and wanted to beat Roosevelt to the punch. Before the declarations on December 11, intercepted and decoded messages revealed Hitler's intent. I've also read many American newspaper editorials published between December 8 and December 10, and the notion that the United States is now (ie, then) at war - and specifying that that means in Europe as well as the Pacific, with the expectation that formal declarations of war between the United States and Germany were imminent - was repeated over and over. It is also worth noting that a Gallup poll conducted 12/12-17, 1941, showed the public stating that Germany was a greater threat to the United States than Japan by a 64%-15% margin.
In short, Germany's declaration of war was little more than a formality at that point. It changed nothing substantively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72
Had Germany and Japan both worked together to defeat the USSR they would likely have won. Once the US was provoked from its isolationist slumber and the great might of US manufacturing abilities was brought to bare against the AXIS powers their days were numbered.
By the time Germany was ready (at least, so far as Hitler was concerned) to turn its attention to invading the USSR, Japan did not have the time to attack the Soviets. It needed raw materials (oil, rubber, etc.) and the Soviet Far East didn't have it. Basically, the Empire of Japan had to choose between curtailing its military adventurism and resuming normal trade with the Western powers, or seizing what it needed by moving into Southeast Asia, and that inevitably meant war with the United States. The Soviet oil fields were thousands of miles to the west, with one easily-sundered rail link connecting them to the Far East. The Japanese war machine would grind to a halt for lack of resources without oil from the Dutch East Indies. Back to polling again, as 1941 progressed it showed the American public by overwhelming margins that the U.S. should prevent Japan from becoming more powerful even if it means war.
I know that the notion of a solidly isolationist United States pre-December 7th 1941 is one of those truisms that everyone knows, but it really isn't borne out by the facts. Congress was isolationist (though becoming less and less so by the month) but the people were expecting war and weren't particularly averse to it in light of the alternatives.
The Soviets didn't bomb Germany because they didn't have a heavy bomber to do it with. The only four engine bomber they had was the Petlyakov Pe-8, of which a total of 93 were built, less than one week's worth of production of B-24 Liberators at Ford's Willow Run plant.
According to Russian historian Boris Sokolov, Lend-Lease provided a "critical" role in the Soviet war effort. He writes of a KGB recording of Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying in 1963
In sheer numbers, the United States sent the Soviets 470,000 tons of explosives, 1.4 billion rounds of small arms ammo, 21 million rounds of 37mm and larger shells, 270,000 tons of rolled armor plate (enough to build about 15,000 T-34s), over 50% of their aluminum, and over 80% of their copper.
Soviet aviation gasoline was poor quality, Sokolov states
Most Soviet artillery and almost all Katyusha rocket launchers were moved by Studebaker trucks, and thousands of machine tools were sent to help Soviet industry. 1,966 locomotives were sent, along with 11,000 freight cars, and 3,600 miles of rail. Sokolov notes:
He finally sums it up this way:
No. It's estimated that about 75% of all German 88mm dual purpose anti-aircraft/anti-tank guns were used to defend against American and British bombers. Had they not been needed in that role, their presence very likely would have been felt in the 1942 summer offensive in the east, and likely at Kursk in 1943. If all the men and equipment that were tied up in North Africa and Italy could have been used in the east instead, it would have been an even bigger bloodbath than it was.
Yeah, those were real beauties. I had this nice cheerful view outside my window while working on Sakhalin Island in the Russian Far East. Note the faded hammer and sickle on the building to the right.
they did not produce what you mentioned because it was PROVIDED by allies, very good, otherwise Soviets would have manufactured all that by themselves...even if they would pay heavier human life and suffering price, I have no doubt.
Churchill hated Reds but on June 22 1941 he realized that it was existential event for UK too.
Sokolov is not the most popular historian in Russia but i would not totally discount his opinion.
History in Russia is very dark subject.
Allied supplies delivered through Arkhangelsk and Murmansk were what ultimately saved Lenningrad (St. Petersburg) from it's 2½ year siege, and it was American tanks and bombers delivered through Iran via the lend-lease program which saved the Caucauses front from being completely overrun down to Baku and Tblisi. Logistics has a tendency to win wars.
However, I do not doubt the tenacity and bravery of the average Russian soldier. They were poorly equipped by their own government and served under poor leadership through the first 2/3rds of the war yet still managed to stave off and eventually repel the world's best equipped and well-trained and most coordinated military at the time (none of the Allies really "learned" how to conduct modern warfare until around 1942/43 or so, and the Russians last of all).
Only the Fuhrer's bungling and countermanding of his own generals at the absolutely most critical moments of any campaign kept the Russians from losing, and it happened on every front, at Lenningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, the Caucauses. Had Model and Rundstadt, Von Kleist, Hoth, Guderien and all the rest just been able to conduct battle based on their own experience and conviction I believe the Germans would've won all of Europe.
they did not produce what you mentioned because it was PROVIDED by allies, very good, otherwise Soviets would have manufactured all that by themselves...even if they would pay heavier human life and suffering price, I have no doubt.
Churchill hated Reds but on June 22 1941 he realized that it was existential event for UK too.
Sokolov is not the most popular historian in Russia but i would not totally discount his opinion.
History in Russia is very dark subject.
As countries go, Russia is a very nationalistic country. Although, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Nikita Khruschev had the integrity to give credit to the USA where credit was due.
I have noticed a reluctance on the part of Russians to give credit to other countries when that credit is due. The reality is that while Germany could not have beaten the USSR it probably could have created a situation where the war would have been resolved by a peace treaty rather than the Russians being able to march to Berlin.
I wish the allied powers would give more credit to the other countries they fought with in terms of winning World War II. If Britain had not stood up to the nazis from 1939-1941, the war might have ended very differently. If the USSR had not absorbed huge losses fighting the bulk of the German Wehrmacht, the war might not have ended so favorably to the allies. Finally, if the USA had not undertaken the enormous Lend Lease effort and provided huge forces in North Africa, Sicily, and Normandy the war could have gone in a much different direction.
World War II was an enormous joint effort by all of the allies. All contributed. All deserve credit.
As countries go, Russia is a very nationalistic country. Although, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Nikita Khruschev had the integrity to give credit to the USA where credit was due.
I have noticed a reluctance on the part of Russians to give credit to other countries when that credit is due. The reality is that while Germany could not have beaten the USSR it probably could have created a situation where the war would have been resolved by a peace treaty rather than the Russians being able to march to Berlin.
I wish the allied powers would give more credit to the other countries they fought with in terms of winning World War II. If Britain had not stood up to the nazis from 1939-1941, the war might have ended very differently. If the USSR had not absorbed huge losses fighting the bulk of the German Wehrmacht, the war might not have ended so favorably to the allies. Finally, if the USA had not undertaken the enormous Lend Lease effort and provided huge forces in North Africa, Sicily, and Normandy the war could have gone in a much different direction.
World War II was an enormous joint effort by all of the allies. All contributed. All deserve credit.
as you know Russian history was a part of indoctrination in the USSR. What I see, it is basically the same in Russia. Then there was a period that history was perverted (mostly 80-90's) by the deep state that drove the USSR to the end. Even figures like Solzhenitsyn declared KGB/CIA creations (maybe true). There are some very honest and knowledgeable (as far as it possible mining huge secret mountain) but history is not algebra...
History is written by the winners.
The Soviets didn't bomb Germany because they didn't have a heavy bomber to do it with. The only four engine bomber they had was the Petlyakov Pe-8, of which a total of 93 were built, less than one week's worth of production of B-24 Liberators at Ford's Willow Run plant.
According to Russian historian Boris Sokolov, Lend-Lease provided a "critical" role in the Soviet war effort. He writes of a KGB recording of Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying in 1963
In sheer numbers, the United States sent the Soviets 470,000 tons of explosives, 1.4 billion rounds of small arms ammo, 21 million rounds of 37mm and larger shells, 270,000 tons of rolled armor plate (enough to build about 15,000 T-34s), over 50% of their aluminum, and over 80% of their copper.
Soviet aviation gasoline was poor quality, Sokolov states
Most Soviet artillery and almost all Katyusha rocket launchers were moved by Studebaker trucks, and thousands of machine tools were sent to help Soviet industry. 1,966 locomotives were sent, along with 11,000 freight cars, and 3,600 miles of rail. Sokolov notes:
He finally sums it up this way:
No. It's estimated that about 75% of all German 88mm dual purpose anti-aircraft/anti-tank guns were used to defend against American and British bombers. Had they not been needed in that role, their presence very likely would have been felt in the 1942 summer offensive in the east, and likely at Kursk in 1943. If all the men and equipment that were tied up in North Africa and Italy could have been used in the east instead, it would have been an even bigger bloodbath than it was.
Yeah, those were real beauties. I had this nice cheerful view outside my window while working on Sakhalin Island in the Russian Far East. Note the faded hammer and sickle on the building to the right.
Germany was defeated on the Eastern front. Nothing elsewhere in the European theater or North Africa was close in scale.The end
I'm talking about the military/food etc deliveries whilst the USSR was battling the Nazis during Barbarossa. Would they have eventually righted the ship on their own and driven the Germans from their territory and ended up in Berlin or would they have succumbed?
Russia got creamed in WWI, when Germany was fighting Britain and France (and Italy), and when Germany and its allies controlled only portions of Europe.
Surely things would have been even less balanced, and harder for the USSR, in WWII, when Germany and its allies controlled most of Europe, and France was out of the picture and Italy was on Germany's side.
Maybe Germany could have conquered the European portion of the USSR but not been able to conquer the rest, so it could have been an eventual stalemate, but I don't see how the USSR could have beaten Germany.
Russia got creamed in WWI, when Germany was fighting Britain and France (and Italy), and when Germany and its allies controlled only portions of Europe.
Surely things would have been even less balanced, and harder for the USSR, in WWII, when Germany and its allies controlled most of Europe, and France was out of the picture and Italy was on Germany's side.
Maybe Germany could have conquered the European portion of the USSR but not been able to conquer the rest, so it could have been an eventual stalemate, but I don't see how the USSR could have beaten Germany.
imo, Hitler was basically done by January of 1942. For example, by that day land lease provided a bit over 2% of total war shipments to the USSR, since that time it was liberation of Europe and the USSR.
Well Russia has plenty of fire wood, and fresh water despite US aid since Russia is filled with rivers, and snow in the winter. I imagine food be harder to purview as the growing season is short. The long winters probably makes difficult to mine for raw materials.
But even before the war, the Sovs made great strides in industrialization. They had two towns Magnitogorsk, and Omsk set up behind the Urals strictly for industry that the Germans cannot reach.
By 1932 Sovs already have more tanks than Germany, and UK combined.
In 1932, Germany was still abiding by the Versailles restriction than banned it from manufacturing/deploying armor. The UK was/is primarily a naval power.
So one would certainly expect that the USSR - far larger than both Germany and the UK combined - would have more tanks than they.
In 1932, Germany was still abiding by the Versailles restriction than banned it from manufacturing/deploying armor. The UK was/is primarily a naval power.
So one would certainly expect that the USSR - far larger than both Germany and the UK combined - would have more tanks than they.
Germany was never really abiding by the treaty restrictions and the U.S.S.R. was desperately poor. If not for Buchanan's, err, FDR's fascination with Stalin and Russia, we couild have let them fight each other to the death. No two people more richly deserved each other than Stalin and Hitler; and FDR for that matter.
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.
