PDA

View Full Version : If Russia failed to get to Berlin and....



Rochard
08-05-2011, 12:05 AM
If Russia failed to get to Berlin and the US had a few extra nukes laying around.

Would the US have dropped nuclear bombs on Berlin?

Rising Sun*
08-05-2011, 08:28 AM
If Russia failed to get to Berlin and the US had a few extra nukes laying around.

Would the US have dropped nuclear bombs on Berlin?

Assuming there wasn't any prospect of a quick conventional victory, probably.

The bomb was developed for use against Germany.

If it had been ready in time it probably would have been used.

steben
08-05-2011, 09:40 AM
I would suggest not actually.

Dropping a bomb on an island in a situation where you suffer from mental breakdown every inch you conquer

is different than

Dropping a bomb on a European city (where lots of refugees to US came from) within a small range of your own well advancing troops with an enemy already suffering from desertion and low moral.


Or do you suggest accidentaly dropping it a bit to far on Russians?

pdf27
08-05-2011, 11:09 AM
I would suggest not actually.

Dropping a bomb on an island in a situation where you suffer from mental breakdown every inch you conquer

is different than

Dropping a bomb on a European city (where lots of refugees to US came from) within a small range of your own well advancing troops with an enemy already suffering from desertion and low moral.


Or do you suggest accidentaly dropping it a bit to far on Russians?
Except all the evidence is that the weapons were originally intended for use on Germany, and there was no evidence of German collapse a the time. When Germany did come close to collapse, they were shifted to Japan.

tankgeezer
08-05-2011, 12:40 PM
******

Rochard
08-05-2011, 02:03 PM
Assuming there wasn't any prospect of a quick conventional victory, probably.

The bomb was developed for use against Germany.

If it had been ready in time it probably would have been used.

Wow. I never knew that.


Starting in November 1943, the Army Air Forces Materiel Command at Wright Field, Ohio, began Silverplate, the codename modification of B-29s to carry the bombs. Test drops were carried out at Muroc Army Air Field, California, and the Naval Ordnance Test Station at Inyokern, California. Groves met with the Chief of United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), General Henry H. Arnold, in March 1944 to discuss the delivery of the finished bombs to their targets. The only Allied aircraft capable of carrying the 17-foot (5.2 m) long Thin Man or the 59-inch (150 cm) wide Fat Man was the British Avro Lancaster, but using a British aircraft would have caused difficulties with maintenance. Groves hoped that the American Boeing B-29 Superfortress could be modified to carry Thin Man by joining its two bomb bays together. Arnold promised that no effort would be spared to modify B-29s to do the job, and designated Major General Oliver P. Echols as the USAAF liaison to the Manhattan Project. President Roosevelt instructed Groves that if the atomic bombs were ready before the war with Germany ended, he should be ready to drop them on Germany.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project)

leccy
08-05-2011, 02:38 PM
I would suggest not actually.

Dropping a bomb on an island in a situation where you suffer from mental breakdown every inch you conquer

is different than

Dropping a bomb on a European city (where lots of refugees to US came from) within a small range of your own well advancing troops with an enemy already suffering from desertion and low moral.


Or do you suggest accidentaly dropping it a bit to far on Russians?


When they started developing the A Bombs for use originally, Germany was still occupying large amounts of Europe. They did not know what the effects would be of the bombs, there were plenty of scientists who even doubted they would work. By the time it was developed into a workable weapon it was too late to use on Germany.

The weapons development carried on because it had the potential of being a very powerful and destructive weapon.

As for dropping an A Bomb near their own troops, Berlin may have been the probable target, I don't know but the Western Allies never got too close to it. German refugees (who may or may not have wished to go to the US after the war) would also have had little bearing on a decision.

Nickdfresh
08-05-2011, 04:11 PM
Of course, even if the Soviet Red Army wasn't close to Berlin, the British and the Americans would be. I think I've read speculations that if Monty kept driving his forces as fast as he could have towards Berlin, Russians likely would have fired artillery near their positions as a shot-across-the-bow so to speak...

Chevan
08-08-2011, 06:13 AM
The bomb was developed for use against Germany.

.

as i wrote in past, the germans were damn .... lucky, the red army has broke the Berlin defence in april.If STalin delayed the Berlin offencive at least to ..august.The Atomic Bombing committee might easy to sentence germans to terrible sufferings.

Rising Sun*
08-08-2011, 09:00 AM
as i wrote in past, the germans were damn .... lucky, the red army has broke the Berlin defence in april.If STalin delayed the Berlin offencive at least to ..august.The Atomic Bombing committee might easy to sentence germans to terrible sufferings.

It was as much a consequence of the other Allies attacking from the west as the pressure from both sides forced the surrender.

If the attacks from the east and west had stalled and if in August 1945 there was no prospect of a quick conventional victory then it is most likely that Germany would have been the first victim of an atomic weapon.

It's interesting to reflect upon the likely current attitude if that had happened and if what happened in Germany afterwards had been much the same as happened after the actual defeat of Germany in May 1945.

I think that, given Germany's acceptance of its 'war guilt' and renunciation of Nazism, we in the West would feel much worse about unleashing atomic weapons on Germany than we do about unleashing them upon Japan which, at best, has been equivocal about or just downright denied its own 'war guilt', which is probably reinforced for Western Allies by the brutal and cruel treatment routinely handed out to their forces by the Japanese compared with the routinely much better treatment handed out to them by the Germans, both on the battlefield and especially in captivity.

There is also the underlying racial attitude that Germans are more like us, from the viewpoint of the English-speaking Allies, than Japanese, which makes the suffering of the Japanese less bad than if we inflicted it upon our own kind.

steben
08-08-2011, 09:34 AM
Still, ...

It was accepted - even then - that Germany was collapsing already.
I'm convinced The West was far more concerned with the speed and impact of the Russian invasion than Berlin's capitulation. Given the facts, the Soviet Union realized quite an effort, far more away from the western campaign. At the end, the West lost the race to Berlin.

Rising Sun*
08-08-2011, 09:43 AM
Still, ...

It was accepted - even then - that Germany was collapsing already.

Japan was collapsing, to the extent that it was isolated by air and sea and on the way to a degree of starvation for the whole population and unable to replenish its war supplies, before the atomic bombs were dropped on it. But the bombs were dropped just the same, because it hadn't surrendered.

There is no reason to believe that the same approach wouldn't have been taken to Germany which, unlike Japan, was resisting Allied forces on its home ground while refusing to surrender. The main home islands on Japan hadn't even been invaded when the atomic bombs were dropped.


I'm convinced The West was far more concerned with the speed and impact of the Russian invasion than Berlin's capitulation.

Berlin's capitulation was irrelevant.

It was about Germany surrendering.


Given the facts, the Soviet Union realized quite an effort, far more away from the western campaign. At the end, the West lost the race to Berlin.

How does this bear on whether or not the Americans, who had the atomic bomb, would have dropped it on Germany if Germany was still fighting when the bomb was available in August 1945?

steben
08-08-2011, 01:35 PM
Berlin's capitulation was irrelevant.
It was about Germany surrendering.

that was synonym to me




How does this bear on whether or not the Americans, who had the atomic bomb, would have dropped it on Germany if Germany was still fighting when the bomb was available in August 1945?

It's your believe they would have dropped it and it's mine they would have been reluctant.
since 1943 the cold war was growing already. It was not about Germany's capitulation. it was about slicing the pot in as few parts as possible. And the Soviet slice was big.
In Japan there were no Russians (yet).

tankgeezer
08-08-2011, 04:40 PM
This is just my point of view, but since Germany had a development program for Nuclear weapons of which the Allies had knowledge, it would not be such a struggle to decide to use, or not to use. Germany, had it not surrendered could (even if only in my estimation) still possibly have the ability to deploy some manner of nuclear weapon against an allied force, or nation. Add to that the " Germany first " prosecution of the war. As others have pointed out, the original plan for use of the A-bomb was Germany. Circumstances of timing might give one the impression that muscling out the soviets was the intent, but had the bomb been available,I'm thinking it would have been used before Barbarossa. (which is complete speculation on my part.)

Nickdfresh
08-08-2011, 05:03 PM
Still, ...
. At the end, the West lost the race to Berlin.

Actually, the Western Allies largely halted and allowed the Red Army its prize of Berlin. It's been a while since I've read about it in Beevor's Downfall book, but I believe a Allied pincer movement of Patton and Monty could have been into the suburbs, at least, before the Soviets were close IIRC. Ike decided it wasn't worth the cost in blood and treasure, and a possible confrontation with the Soviets...

Chevan
08-08-2011, 11:44 PM
Actually, the Western Allies largely halted and allowed the Red Army its prize of Berlin. It's been a while since I've read about it in Beevor's Downfall book, but I believe a Allied pincer movement of Patton and Monty could have been into the suburbs, at least, before the Soviets were close IIRC. Ike decided it wasn't worth the cost in blood and treasure, and a possible confrontation with the Soviets...
If to believe to Beevor, the germans has almost stopped the resistense in the west since the march. They surrendered by the entire divisions. Except the few SS units which still resist fanatically- wermach was in hury to surrender to western allies as soon as possible.Just one interesting fact- when Hitler was demanding the 12 army of Venk to leave the western front and "come and save the Berlin" - Venk nowhere move. He prefered to surrender to the allies:)

Chevan
08-08-2011, 11:59 PM
I think that, given Germany's acceptance of its 'war guilt' and renunciation of Nazism, we in the West would feel much worse about unleashing atomic weapons on Germany than we do about unleashing them upon Japan which, at best, has been equivocal about or just downright denied its own 'war guilt', which is probably reinforced for Western Allies by the brutal and cruel treatment routinely handed out to their forces by the Japanese compared with the routinely much better treatment handed out to them by the Germans, both on the battlefield and especially in captivity.

There is also the underlying racial attitude that Germans are more like us, from the viewpoint of the English-speaking Allies, than Japanese, which makes the suffering of the Japanese less bad than if we inflicted it upon our own kind.
how this hypotetic "race brothershood" might be in agenda, considering the facts above ( see the Rochard's post), when Rosewelt argued the Gover that the bomb shold have been drop on ..germany?
While the Japane , from point of day, should look like much more danger (and dastard) enemy.

steben
08-09-2011, 03:03 AM
Actually, the Western Allies largely halted and allowed the Red Army its prize of Berlin. It's been a while since I've read about it in Beevor's Downfall book, but I believe a Allied pincer movement of Patton and Monty could have been into the suburbs, at least, before the Soviets were close IIRC. Ike decided it wasn't worth the cost in blood and treasure, and a possible confrontation with the Soviets...

Sad :( if true
realy sad.
It completely ruins all what's left of the "benevolent saviour" character of Anglo-Saxon war effort.

flamethrowerguy
08-09-2011, 07:02 AM
Just one interesting fact- when Hitler was demanding the 12 army of Venk to leave the western front and "come and save the Berlin" - Venk nowhere move. He prefered to surrender to the allies:)

That's not entirely correct. Walther Wenck's 12th Army consisted mainly of 17 and 18-year-old unexperienced recruits. He refused to sacrifice them for a senseless attempt to reach Berlin against superior Soviet forces. He instead tried and managed to unite with the 9th Army to establish a bridgehead on river Elbe's eastern bank and lead as many troops and civilians to the west.

Rising Sun*
08-09-2011, 07:52 AM
how this hypotetic "race brothershood" might be in agenda, considering the facts above ( see the Rochard's post), when Rosewelt argued the Gover that the bomb shold have been drop on ..germany?
While the Japane , from point of day, should look like much more danger (and dastard) enemy.

It comes back to the 'Germany first' policy.

All Allied resources were to be devoted primarily to the defeat of Germany, which included development of the atomic bomb.

Japan didn't figure much in that view. At most only about 15% of America's war effort was devoted to fighting Japan. While it was a vicious war for those fighting it, from a larger strategic viewpoint it wasn't as important as defeating Germany.

Germany was probably just lucky that it surrendered before the atomic bomb was available for use.

If atomic bombs had been available in late 1944 when the western advance of the Allies stalled, I expect they would have been used against Germany. As they probably would have if they were available earlier in the war.

Rising Sun*
08-09-2011, 08:02 AM
It completely ruins all what's left of the "benevolent saviour" character of Anglo-Saxon war effort.

Where was there any element of a 'benevolent saviour' in the Anglo-Saxon, or English speaking, war effort?

It was certainly absent in the bombing of Hamburg, Dresden etc and the assaults in Italy and Normandy and subsequent advances, not to mention even more vicious land battles in repelling the Japanese from mid-1942 to the end of the Pacific War.

Who presented the Anglo-Saxon Allies as 'benevolent saviours' when they were engaged in total war against ruthless enemies?

The British were engaged in a fight for survival against Germany, not some sort of philanthropic exercise to liberate Europe from the Nazi yoke by gently encouraging the naughty Germans to go home by showering them with benevolence. It was a boots and all fight against an enemy which started a boots and all war.

The same against Japan.

Chevan
08-09-2011, 08:12 AM
That's not entirely correct. Walther Wenck's 12th Army consisted mainly of 17 and 18-year-old unexperienced recruits..
Which age was do you think was the average for Red Army soldier in april 1945?20 and it was very optimistic..
I have to add, nevertheless 12 army have been complected with Panzer Division Clausewitz - last complected german panzer unit.( 10 Panthers,5 jagdpanzers and up to 5 Tigers). Not to mention 2700 of Pnazerfausts , by which the 12 army was armed.Enough force to make a nightmare to any tank's army in berlin.

flamethrowerguy
08-09-2011, 08:52 AM
Which age was do you think was the average for Red Army soldier in april 1945?20 and it was very optimistic..

It's a fact that the just-deployed 12th Army was the -by average- youngest German outfit with of the youngest commander ever to command an army in WW2 (Wenck was born in 1900).



I have to add, nevertheless 12 army have been complected with Panzer Division Clausewitz - last complected german panzer unit.( 10 Panthers,5 jagdpanzers and up to 5 Tigers). Not to mention 2700 of Pnazerfausts , by which the 12 army was armed.Enough force to make a nightmare to any tank's army in berlin.

:D
In the hands of an experienced soldier a Panzerfaust might've been an effective AT weapon. However I doubt that 2700 one-shot AT weapons (mostly in the hands of absolute greenhorns) and up to 20 tanks/tank destroyers make a serious opponent to Lelyushenko's 4th Guards Tank Army.
After all 12th Army did comparatively well, e.g. in the fierce battles around Ferch.

steben
08-09-2011, 08:53 AM
Where was there any element of a 'benevolent saviour' in the Anglo-Saxon, or English speaking, war effort?
....
Who presented the Anglo-Saxon Allies as 'benevolent saviours' when they were engaged in total war against ruthless enemies?

....

Paradigm of "Democracy, Peace and Freedom"?
Liberation of Western Europe etc... coupled with long term policy and halt of the communist spread.
European partnership and certainly Post war US-German peace would 've been seriously scratched if a bomb would have been dropped.

We all know the fighting between nazi and soviet empire was welcomed in the West, since it weakened all anglo-saxon opponents.
The prolonged effect of Western hesitation only brought nuclear options closer.... brrrr
Forgive my deliberatly used "anglo-saxon" vocabulary but it's clear as hell it exists. There never was since WWII a difference in policy, the middle east makes it obvious.

Wrapped all up it's terribly frightening ... almost making me glad all things went the way it went.

Rising Sun*
08-09-2011, 10:17 AM
Paradigm of "Democracy, Peace and Freedom"?
Liberation of Western Europe etc... coupled with long term policy and halt of the communist spread.

Allies in WWII included the major contribution by the Soviets, which had nothing to do with limiting communist spread and everything to do with enabling it towards Germany, ably assisted by the Western Allies.


European partnership and certainly Post war US-German peace would 've been seriously scratched if a bomb would have been dropped.

Or maybe it would have just driven post-war German attitudes further into the ground and made the Occupation and eradication of Nazism easier.


We all know the fighting between nazi and soviet empire was welcomed in the West,

Of course it was. It brought a major power into the conflict with Germany and hugely reduced Germany's ability to fight the Western powers.


since it weakened all anglo-saxon opponents.

I can't see that.

To the contrary, by diverting German forces and resources to the Soviets, it reduced the German forces available against the Western forces at the time, being only Britain and its Commonwealth.


The prolonged effect of Western hesitation only brought nuclear options closer.... brrrr

Western hesitation?

What do you mean?

Why focus only on 'Western hesitation' rather than 'Nazi aggression'?

This sounds like a European version of the Japanese 'we were victims of the nuclear weapon and deserve to be treated sympathetically for the suffering this imposed upon us' attitude rather than the objectively correct 'we started the war and were remorseless and brutal in prosecuting it and have no grounds for complaining about the way our enemies chose to end that war with the nuclear weapons we would have used against them in starting or prosecuting our war if we had had them'.


Forgive my deliberatly used "anglo-saxon" vocabulary but it's clear as hell it exists.

If you're referring to the English-speaking peoples who fought in WWII, they certainly did exist. And they also certainly defeated the evil philosophies and actions of the Nazis and Japanese militarists, without which the world today would make the Soviet Union at its worst look like a holiday camp.


almost making me glad all things went the way it went.

You should be ****ing grateful that it's the way things went. Otherwise, for a start, you'd be answering to some little Himmler for every keystroke you make on this forum.

steben
08-09-2011, 10:58 AM
Allies in WWII included the major contribution by the Soviets, which had nothing to do with limiting communist spread and everything to do with enabling it towards Germany, ably assisted by the Western Allies.

not true (or at least for all I know)
...but I understand why you look at it that way :lol:
Soviets were advancing very well even before invasion of Normandy.
And the amount of forces put on land in 1944 were also already available earlier.



Of course it was. It brought a major power into the conflict with Germany and hugely reduced Germany's ability to fight the Western powers.


To the contrary, by diverting German forces and resources to the Soviets, it reduced the German forces available against the Western forces at the time, being only Britain and its Commonwealth.


True, yet the USA, the major ally, which pumped in production and resources for all allies, came into conflict at the end of 1941.
From the moment in the defense, still 80% of German forces fought in the East. Simply because the major pressure came from there.
Complete rubish, if one looks at the military power of the West. There was hesitation in bringing troops in, siply because they wanted as much gain os possible with as little effort. Nothing like heroic battledrift in western politics, only on the field.


Western hesitation?

What do you mean?

You ignore many aspects in the views of European citizens.
We got rid of Nazi suppresion, but the efforts made to counter communism were ... let's say ... sitting in the backseat and jumping in front at the very last. Which resulted in mass crash of the nazi regime and the creation of a eastern monster.



Or maybe it would have just driven post-war German attitudes further into the ground and made the Occupation and eradication of Nazism easier.

eradication of Nazism ... hmmm ... you mean the "German Nazi state" yes.

On the other hand you ignore the power of Germany in the european recovery build up post-war and in todays geopolitics.


I can't see that.

again you ignore the fact the Allies were fighting for their own future, not the liberated citizens. Cold war started within WWII, not afterwards. The Soviets were not expected to achive such a military succes in 1944.



Why focus only on 'Western hesitation' rather than 'Nazi aggression'?

I don't. Nazi aggression has been discussed for over 70 years now. It's a fact.



This sounds like a European version of the Japanese 'we were victims of the nuclear weapon and deserve to be treated sympathetically for the suffering this imposed upon us' attitude rather than the objectively correct 'we started the war and were remorseless and brutal in prosecuting it and have no grounds for complaining about the way our enemies chose to end that war with the nuclear weapons we would have used against them in starting or prosecuting our war if we had had them'.

Huh?
no no not at all.


If you're referring to the English-speaking peoples who fought in WWII, they certainly did exist.

There is a geopolitical axis USA - UK. No denial. Americans think so. Perhaps UK and minors don't because they don't want to feel a small Ally.


And they also certainly defeated the evil philosophies and actions of the Nazis and Japanese militarists, without which the world today would make the Soviet Union at its worst look like a holiday camp.

Your thinking of the SU is completely a falacy. One barbaric regime does not clean the other. And there is absolutely no difference in blind bombing vietnam and Iraq to kill some terrorists and set fire to a Russian town, because of partizans.
It's not because you call yourself democratic, you are, and even so, even democracies can vote for barbarist actions.
Some say these comparisons set nazis free, I say it condemns all.


You should be ****ing grateful that it's the way things went. Otherwise, for a start, you'd be answering to some little Himmler for every keystroke you make on this forum.

hahaha, like we're not answering to someone else right now. :lol:
Again we got rid of the nazi state. yes. But that doesn't mean it's all christmas and fun in the world. Many did not get rid of it, by the way, it simply was called differently.

Don't you think the Nazis said the same in those days? " you should be grateful. Otherwise, for a start, you'd be answering uncle Stalin."

tankgeezer
08-09-2011, 11:52 AM
******

steben
08-09-2011, 01:09 PM
******

ok, USSR was a holiday camp then and the USA never ever did things for itself, nor did the eurocountries ever tribute oil reserves to Washington last years ... :neutral:

let's talk armour and pc games again :mrgreen:

tankgeezer
08-09-2011, 02:05 PM
Re read the topic, and the O.P. question, then stop trying to drag the thread all over the map.

Nickdfresh
08-09-2011, 06:15 PM
not true (or at least for all I know)
...
Soviets were advancing very well even before invasion of Normandy.

....

Um, the Soviet advance of the Red Army was only possible with the vast fleets of trucks and vehicles sent from (mainly) the United States. T-34's and Sturmovicks are nice, but:

Logistics. Logistics. Logistics....


And the amount of forces put on land in 1944 were also already available earlier.

No. No they weren't. Nor were the landing craft needed to put them ashore...

leccy
08-09-2011, 07:26 PM
Originally Posted by steben
And the amount of forces put on land in 1944 were also already available earlier.

Not true

Units of the 79th Armoured Div were still receiving some of their vehicles the day before they set sail, crews had limited time on them before they embarked.

The US still had not received all their DD Tanks due to production delays.

The Allies had a critical shortage of landing craft throughout the war, operations were delayed or postponed often due to shortages of these vessels.

Even Stalin agreed that as much as he wished a second front it was pointless launching before all was ready.

Much is always made by some people that the West did nothing until 1944, forgetting that the west and Britain in particular had been fighting for longer than Russia (while also forgetting Russia and Germany cosied up to each other throughout the 30's, culminating in the carve up Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Eastonia Pact).

The Western Allies fought the Sea Battles, Med Battles, Italy. Britain stood alone against Italy and Germany for a year and then when Hitler with the rest of the Axis forces attacked Russia' Britain sent aid which it desperately needed itself.

Without lend lease etc the Soviet forces would not have been able to do what they did as they built no trains to replace those lost, limited trucks were produced. The USA provided the vast majority of soft skinned vehicles that the Soviets used, over 1500 locomotives, nearly 3000 railway wagons. Without the logistics tail to back the Soviet forces up they would have been stuck, to produce these equipments themselves meant factories and resources being diverted from fighting vehicles. Couple all this into the disruption and diversion of forces that the Western Allies caused with the side line wars and the air campaign and it would by no means have been certain the Soviets could have reached Berlin.

The oft repeated comments about the Allies wishing Germany and the Soviet Union to wear each other out before they stepped in also went true for Stalin. He hoped that France and the UK would be bled while bleeding Germany so he could sweep in.

Chevan
08-10-2011, 02:02 AM
Much is always made by some people that the West did nothing until 1944, forgetting that the west and Britain in particular had been fighting for longer than Russia (while also forgetting Russia and Germany cosied up to each other throughout the 30's, culminating in the carve up Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Eastonia Pact).

This is not true.
Endeed the Soviet fought with Axis powers since 1936 in Europe (Spain) and since 1937 ( Japane, Halkin-gol). With just the short pause 1939-1941.
West ( ie England) fought since 1940 ( not to mention "Phony war").
Soviet Union stood in harsh anti-nazis points a long time befor the west has bfinaly recognized the Hitler as a treat.


The Western Allies fought the Sea Battles, Med Battles, Italy. Britain stood alone against Italy and Germany for a year and then when Hitler with the rest of the Axis forces attacked Russia' Britain sent aid which it desperately needed itself.

But how did they stand?
Just sited and survived the bombings raids, having no ability to react properly.
And of cource the start of Barbarossa has seriously decreased the threat for Britain( i.e. fully eliminated it the risk invasion), coz major powers of Luftwaffe had been re-moved to the East.
So that tiny help that Britain was able to send in USSR hardly played much role. However , for sake of true , i have to add that Britain was the first state which send help to Russia in most critical days of winter 1941.


Without lend lease etc the Soviet forces would not have been able to do what they did as they built no trains to replace those lost, limited trucks were produced. The USA provided the vast majority of soft skinned vehicles that the Soviets used, over 1500 locomotives, nearly 3000 railway wagons. Without the logistics tail to back the Soviet forces up they would have been stuck, to produce these equipments themselves meant factories and resources being diverted from fighting vehicles. Couple all this into the disruption and diversion of forces that the Western Allies caused with the side line wars and the air campaign and it would by no means have been certain the Soviets could have reached Berlin.

firstly without the Lend Lease the Bratain was ...dead.
the 65% of lend lease actualy has been absorbed by .. Britain.USSA got no more then about 30% of it. More likely 27%.
Actualy this help was essentual , but hardly critical. The lack of trucks may delayed the quick advance of the Red army over Eruope in 1944-45 but hardly it can save the Germans in Russia from defeat.

Chevan
08-10-2011, 03:08 AM
It's a fact that the just-deployed 12th Army was the -by average- youngest German outfit with of the youngest commander ever to command an army in WW2 (Wenck was born in 1900).
12 army has bee just reinforcement in april 1945? no?



:D
In the hands of an experienced soldier a Panzerfaust might've been an effective AT weapon. However I doubt that 2700 one-shot AT weapons (mostly in the hands of absolute greenhorns) and up to 20 tanks/tank destroyers make a serious opponent to Lelyushenko's 4th Guards Tank Army.

the Panzerfaust migh tbe deadly effective ( and it was ) even in hands of granddads from Wolkstorm. German propogand specially portray the PF as very simple and effective AT mean that migh been operated even the grandmas:)
Now the armor of 12 army just make you smile , but remember how seadly effective might be Panther or Tiger from a ambush.


After all 12th Army did comparatively well, e.g. in the fierce battles around Ferch.
That's what i mean. In france the 12 army didn't look like a childish.

steben
08-10-2011, 03:14 AM
I find it hard to overlook the facts and try to see the hard efforts.
First, all the "aid" to USSR that we are talking about could have been used by own troops, but they decided to give it away in large numbers to a communist "Ally".
Easy to speak about material shortage if you have lost control over it. But it's fairly simple: Britain and the USA wanted the USSR to be less weak but wanted it to fight a smuch as possible to weaken germany.
And yes, of course Stalin wanted the west to bleed as well. Du-uh .... but we never talk about Stalin as a "democratic benevolent leader" do we? I find it a progress you dare to compare west and east to conclude they did the same. But ... from the east we expect no praise as we do from the west.
Conclusion is that the west certainly did not much more for me or my parents than the Soviets did.

leccy
08-10-2011, 05:10 AM
Lendlease aid to the USSR

Khrushchev taped interview.
Several times I heard Stalin acknowledge (lend lease) within the small circle of people around him. He said that if we had to deal with Germany one to one we would not have been able to cope because we lost so much of our industry.

Marshall Zhukov bugged interview 1963
He endorsed the view that without aid the Soviet Union 'could not have continued the war'

The most important items may not have been military but had a huge impact on the Soviet capabilities.
77,900 Jeeps, 151,000 light trucks, 200,000 Studebakers.
57.8% Aviation fuel
53% Explosives
nearly 50% of all copper, aluminium, rubber tyres.
1900 locomotives (the USSR built 92),
56.6% of all rails laid
11,075 railway cars (USSR built 1087)
Enough food to provide an estimated 1/2 a pound of concentrated nourishment per Soviet soldier for every day of the war.

The British Commonwealth got slightly more aid from the US than the USSR did but the British Commonwealth also sent aid on top of the US aid to the Soviet Union.

The non direct military aid meant the Soviets could concentrate production on tanks etc, without the aluminium you have problems producing the tank engines and aircraft, without the railways you cant transport them from the far removed factories to the front.

German production was also ramping up from early 1942 about the time the UK and US were starting to increase the bombing campaign so diverting assets to the west especially air defence fighters and AA guns (AA weapon production also took away from production that could have been used in the East). The equivalent of 6 German motorised and armoured divisions destroyed in North Africa in 42/43,

Chevan
08-10-2011, 05:21 AM
I find it hard to overlook the facts and try to see the hard efforts.
First, all the "aid" to USSR that we are talking about could have been used by own troops, but they decided to give it away in large numbers to a communist "Ally".

But lend lease in USSR was very "profitable" investition from the western point, wasn't it?The just 27% of lend-lease make to hold 80% of Germans Wermacht and up to 50% of Luftwaffe on the Eastern front.While the west faced only relatively small part of GErmans army in Normandy. As for Italy - the GErmans never hold there the first-class troops at all.So , if to talk frankly enough, the West finally has benefited itself much from lend lease to USSR. I guess even more benefit if the lend lease was used only within Allied coalition.

Rising Sun*
08-10-2011, 05:34 AM
I find it hard to overlook the facts and try to see the hard efforts.
First, all the "aid" to USSR that we are talking about could have been used by own troops, but they decided to give it away in large numbers to a communist "Ally".

What might have encouraged them to give it away to that communist Ally, and particularly in Britain where it was fighting for its own survival?


Britain and the USA wanted the USSR to be less weak but wanted it to fight a smuch as possible to weaken germany.

No doubt. But, in answer to your quoted comment and my last question, could it have had rather more to with bringing as much of the Allies' resources as possible to bear against the major concentration of their common enemy, being the Germans with the bulk of their land and air forces in the East, as a perfectly logical and reasonable part of winning the war against Germany?


And yes, of course Stalin wanted the west to bleed as well. Du-uh .... but we never talk about Stalin as a "democratic benevolent leader" do we?

No.

And I haven't heard anyone use that or a similar description of any of the other Allied war leaders.


Conclusion is that the west certainly did not much more for me or my parents than the Soviets did.

Is anybody arguing to the contrary?

I think we all recognise that the bulk of the land war mid-1941 to the end of the war against Germany was fought by the Soviets, but that does not diminish the earlier contributions made by Britain and its Commonwealth in standing alone against Germany while the Soviets and Americans stood on the sidelines, and particularly while the Soviets conspired with the Germans to carve up middle Europe for Soviet advantage.

Anyway, what obligation did America or Britain have to do anything for your parents or Belgium?

Rising Sun*
08-10-2011, 05:58 AM
The British Commonwealth got slightly more aid from the US than the USSR did but the British Commonwealth also sent aid on top of the US aid to the Soviet Union.

The British Commonwealth, unlike the Soviet Union, was also engaged in a war against Japan across a vast spread of ocean and land from Bougainville to Burma.

This theatre of war was, compared with the land war fought by the Soviets against the Germans, much larger, more distant from the sources of supply, and more demanding in every aspect of logistics in sustaining land, sea and air forces in repelling the Japanese.

So far as delivery of lend lease materiel to the USSR is concerned, the USSR contributed little or nothing to the merchant and naval components of each of the convoys which brought the lend lease equipment to the USSR at great risk, and loss, to the men and ships in those convoys. It's all very well to bitch about how, depending upon the contradictory positions one wishes to take, lend lease wasn't enough or didn't contribute anything to the Soviet victory over the Germans, but the simple fact is that the Soviets to a very large extent didn't have to do anything but unload the (insert, according to your personal opinion of lend lease to the USSR, 'inadequate' or 'unnecessary' or 'unwanted' or 'inferior' or 'decadent' or any other term disparaging the goods the Soviets apparently didn't want or need) goods.

If the materiel was so unnecessary, can anyone explain why the Soviets bothered even to unload it? Let alone use it?

Chevan
08-10-2011, 06:09 AM
The British Commonwealth got slightly more aid from the US than the USSR did but the British Commonwealth also sent aid on top of the US aid to the Soviet Union.

"slightly more" is about TREE times:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
And they actualy re-lendleased some of wearpon to USSR. Say they got newest Mustangs from USA- and send to Soviet their Hawker Hurricane:) Nice exchange..

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $759 billion at 2008 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China.
Soviets endeed got even lesser then t wrote. 11,3 from 50,2 billion - ~22,5%
So , it will correct to say , that sending lend lease to USSR - America saved its own ***. The Western Allies of USA- France and Britain got the lion part of lend-lease altogether.


The non direct military aid meant the Soviets could concentrate production on tanks etc, without the aluminium you have problems producing the tank engines and aircraft, without the railways you cant transport them from the far removed factories to the front.

You are forgetting that without the Soviet fight , keeping busy the MAJOR forces of Wermacht on East, you should never even dare to land on Europe.neither Italy nor France.


German production was also ramping up from early 1942 about the time the UK and US were starting to increase the bombing campaign so diverting assets to the west especially air defence fighters and AA guns (AA weapon production also took away from production that could have been used in the East). The equivalent of 6 German motorised and armoured divisions destroyed in North Africa in 42/43,
The Strategic bombing compain also devastated YOUR own economy. The superexpensive stategic armades cost so much that say , the Britain spend HALP of it's military budget on it.Although Germany was forced partly to correct it's military production to favour of AA defence - the west spend huge unproportional amount of resources on bombings raids.
The " 6 motorised divisions" looks impressive on paper ,but not in real fight. compared with 100-150 divisions fighting on the East. At the same time the allies lost up to ....20 000 of bombers over Europe during a war. Impressive figure, considering the fact how muchaverage bomber did cost.

steben
08-10-2011, 06:26 AM
Actually, the British world hegemony was completely shattered after WWII.
Although crippling german empire, they shot in their own feet as well.

steben
08-10-2011, 06:28 AM
Anyway, what obligation did America or Britain have to do anything for your parents or Belgium?

They can be happy today that we still walk in line after 70 years.
Our gratitude has always been exagerated and paid with nuclear stocks, stop gap oil supply and financial crises, where the gratitude to the east was wrapped in embargo's, hatred and weaponry build up.

Chevan
08-10-2011, 06:33 AM
The British Commonwealth, unlike the Soviet Union, was also engaged in a war against Japan across a vast spread of ocean and land from Bougainville to Burma.

The Soviets also hold entire 1 million FAR East Army agains Kwantung army, made them to keep serious forces out of active battle on the pacific.


This theatre of war was, compared with the land war fought by the Soviets against the Germans, much larger, more distant from the sources of supply, and more demanding in every aspect of logistics in sustaining land, sea and air forces in repelling the Japanese.

Well if such a distant frontline was such a large and inportaint - why then you have spend only 15% of you war effort against ENTIRE asiatic giant of Japane:)
While the close and compact European front absorbed the rest 85%?


So far as delivery of lend lease materiel to the USSR is concerned, the USSR contributed little or nothing to the merchant and naval components of each of the convoys which brought the lend lease equipment to the USSR at great risk, and loss, to the men and ships in those convoys. It's all very well to bitch about how, depending upon the contradictory positions one wishes to take, lend lease wasn't enough or didn't contribute anything to the Soviet victory over the Germans, but the simple fact is that the Soviets to a very large extent didn't have to do anything but unload the (insert, according to your personal opinion of lend lease to the USSR, 'inadequate' or 'unnecessary' or 'unwanted' or 'inferior' or 'decadent' or any other term disparaging the goods the Soviets apparently didn't want or need) goods.

the Soviets , mate , had not just the Northern way of Murmansk for lend lease. The Murmansk got no more then 35% of lend lease. Endeed the more importaint was souther way throu Iran and Kavkaz, and Eastern way- from Syberia-Alaska ( the all of the BEll aircobra has been delivered byt this way). In those ways the Soviets also keep guard this lines of supplies. Moreover all the aircraft from Alaska had been piloted by the Soviet pilots.


If the materiel was so unnecessary, can anyone explain why the Soviets bothered even to unload it? Let alone use it?
It's simple. Coz GErmans may cautch those materials and use it against allies later.;)

Rising Sun*
08-10-2011, 06:42 AM
Actually, the British world hegemony was completely shattered after WWII.
Although crippling german empire, they shot in their own feet as well.

Yes, we all know that.

On an objective basis you could, but won't, also take the view that, even if in self-interestedly fighting German attempts at European domination and colonial expansion in two world wars, Britain destoyed itself as a colonial and world power but in so doing achieved freedom for Western Europe nations, which is more than any of those Western Europe nations acheived for themselves in either world war.

That is not meant to disparage the huge sacrifices of some of those Western European nations in both world wars, but the simple fact is that without Britain and America they would have been speaking German for a long time now.

steben
08-10-2011, 07:04 AM
Yes, we all know that.

On an objective basis you could, but won't, also take the view that, even if in self-interestedly fighting German attempts at European domination and colonial expansion in two world wars, Britain destoyed itself as a colonial and world power but in so doing achieved freedom for Western Europe nations, which is more than any of those Western Europe nations acheived for themselves in either world war.

That is not meant to disparage the huge sacrifices of some of those Western European nations in both world wars, but the simple fact is that without Britain and America they would have been speaking German for a long time now.

German is third language of Belgium and thaught in school anyway :mrgreen:
ok, is a bit over the edge, but your example is a bit off centre, since German is becoming a very important language in Eastern Europe again and is known by many western Europeans.
perhaps if german oppression would have prevailed we would all still hate it. Now we dont.

On the other we all know very well that in the mind of english speaking "natives" (USA/UK/AUS/...) it all seems like "free" from german language oppression and all consequences, but you forget that we are not english speaking natives and our society has developed under pressure in your direction. We are all speaking differently and with different cultural consequences. Yet, we all know english and we all know american hegemony and we - though not as oppressed - for a bit are forced to accept this. Marshall plan was not only money... Even the resurection of Germany itself was under pressure of the US and payed by US - way off from France's aspirations for example.
It's very harsh, but our society has a weight on its shoulder in an Anglo-Saxon colour, simply because the last tanks on our soil were. It's as simple as that.
How do you call as sytem where American and British companies are spread over everywhere in Europe, the crises are directly given through and were the english speaking mass can go everywhere and be welcomed in their "Lingua Franca"? And don't forget UN and NATO... Hegemony certainly and an "modern empire" perhaps?

Rising Sun*
08-10-2011, 07:06 AM
The Soviets also hold entire 1 million FAR East Army agains Kwantung army, made them to keep serious forces out of active battle on the pacific.

We've long agreed on that, and on its importance in aiding the other Allies by keeping those Japanese troops out of action against them.

But there is a very great logistical difference in maintaining a static Soviet defence army supplied by a relatively short line of communications on its own land compared with supplying the Allied forces advancing, generally by seaborne landings, across thousands of miles of ocean and foreign islands. For example, the Soviets didn't need the ships or fuel or supplies to maintain a fleet train to supply the major naval efforts in the Pacific and to a lesser extent the Indian Oceans, nor did they need to transport everything else, from troops to rations to planes and everything else necessary to sustain them, to those destinations. Also, as the Soviets weren't fighting the Japanese, they weren't suffering casualties so they didn't need the medical resources, casualty evacuation, and troop reinforcements etc which drag down a fighting army.


Well if such a distant frontline was such a large and inportaint - why then you have spend only 15% of you war effort against ENTIRE asiatic giant of Japane:) While the close and compact European front absorbed the rest 85%?

Because we regarded a Russian as being worth about 85% of one of us, and a Japanese as about 15% of one of us. ;) :D

Seriously, it was the 'Germany first' policy which determined the allocation of resources to each theatre.

But the 15% is the percentage of American effort, although some commentators state it as being as low as 10%.

I've never seen a figure for the British / Commonwealth effort. It could be lower, given the 'Forgotten Army' in Burma, or it could be higher when one brings in British forces in India and the Australian forces which did most of the land fighting in New Guinea in 1943 while MacArthur readied his forces for his advance on the Philippines.


the Soviets , mate , had not just the Northern way of Murmansk for lend lease. The Murmansk got no more then 35% of lend lease. Endeed the more importaint was souther way throu Iran and Kavkaz, and Eastern way- from Syberia-Alaska ( the all of the BEll aircobra has been delivered byt this way). In those ways the Soviets also keep guard this lines of supplies. Moreover all the aircraft from Alaska had been piloted by the Soviet pilots.

This is why these discussions are worthwhile. Because I'd forgotten about Iran and I didn't know about Alaska.

Could you provide more information on those aspects?


It's simple. Coz GErmans may cautch those materials and use it against allies later.;)

Then it was very noble and self-sacrificing of the Russians to use their resources to unload stuff they didn't want just to keep it away from the Germans. ;) :D

Did Stalin think about just telling Churchill not to send the stuff, because the Russian wharf cranes must been needed for unloading supplies coming to the USSR from other supporters such as .... ? ;)

Chevan
08-10-2011, 07:40 AM
We've long agreed on that, and on its importance in aiding the other Allies by keeping those Japanese troops out of action against them.

But there is a very great logistical difference in maintaining a static Soviet defence army supplied by a relatively short line of communications on its own land compared with supplying the Allied forces advancing, generally by seaborne landings, across thousands of miles of ocean and foreign islands. For example, the Soviets didn't need the ships or fuel or supplies to maintain a fleet train to supply the major naval efforts in the Pacific and to a lesser extent the Indian Oceans, nor did they need to transport everything else, from troops to rations to planes and everything else necessary to sustain them, to those destinations. Also, as the Soviets weren't fighting the Japanese, they weren't suffering casualties so they didn't need the medical resources, casualty evacuation, and troop reinforcements etc which drag down a fighting army.

even so , to keep out the battle the serious amount of troops was very importaint factor. How many Japane troops were needed to capture Singapoore? 30-40 of thousands. We hold frozen almost million ( and 1/3 ot them were experienced troops). At the same time we sacrifaced by the other troops, keeping safe the Far East army.


Because we regarded a Russian as being worth about 85% of one of us, and a Japanese as about 15% of one of us. ;) :D

Seriously, it was the 'Germany first' policy which determined the allocation of resources to each theatre.

So this is just a another confirmation that the Pacific theater was no more importaint for America then the 15% of 100%, right?;)The everything was aboutfighting Germany.


This is why these discussions are worthwhile. Because I'd forgotten about Iran and I didn't know about Alaska.
Could you provide more information on those aspects?

Everything i could for you:)
But what you want to know?how much were supplied throug the about ways?


Then it was very noble and self-sacrificing of the Russians to use their resources to unload stuff they didn't want just to keep it away from the Germans. ;) :D

It's no more noble then to supply Germany with alluminium , flooding them armades of full-metal bombers that was almost all shoted down:)


Did Stalin think about just telling Churchill not to send the stuff, because the Russian wharf cranes must been needed for unloading supplies coming to the USSR from other supporters such as .... ? ;)
As i remember Stalin all the war just persuaded Churchill to stop the lend-lease and open the second front;) But Church as a truly conservative elglander nothing want to hear about;)Untill the most moment it wasn't really needed for Stalin:)

Rising Sun*
08-10-2011, 07:53 AM
German is third language of Belgium and thaught in school anyway :mrgreen:

Well, I've always had a problem with countries which have more than one language.

Look at Canada. In Quebec they have to have English and French signs. So you have a sign which says 'cafe' (don't know how to do the acute over the e in cafe) in English and under it a sign in French which says 'cafe'.

If they had to have signs in German it would probably say 'cafe'.

So I think the Allies did the world a huge favour by ensuring that the Germans didn't get into Quebec, because it's stupid enough having two signs in different languages saying the same thing without burdening the Quebecois with the cost of a third lot of signs saying the same thing which only confuses tourists. ;) :D


ok, is a bit over the edge, but your example is a bit off centre, since German is becoming a very important language in Eastern Europe again and is known by many western Europeans.

My comment was a flippant comment intended to illustrate that without the Allies then Western Europe could still be under German control, as could much of the rest of the world.

As for German language being important, down here there were university subjects before WWII; during it; and after it called 'Science German' or similar. It was popular with medical and science students as it enabled them to read the original papers in those fields by Germans, who were often world leaders in their fields.


On the other we all know very well that in the mind of english speaking "natives" (USA/UK/AUS/...) it all seems like "free" from german language oppression and all consequences, but you forget that we are not english speaking natives and our society has developed under pressure in your direction. We are all speaking differently and with different cultural consequences. Yet, we all know english and we all know american hegemony and we - though not as oppressed - for a bit are forced to accept this.

You seem to be making the common assumption that Australians are naturally aligned with America and Britain because we share a common language.

You couldn't be further from the truth.

Many Australians share the European resentment of pervasive American cultural domination through a range of things from movies and television shows to McDonalds and KFC, not to mention the occasional interference of American government agencies in our local politics, including the widely believed if unproved conspiracy in bringing down our national government in 1975 so it could be replaced with a conservative government more favourable to the Americans. Not as brutal as Chile around the same time, but consistent with American arrogance then. And now, even as America fails to recognise and deal with its decline as the greatest power on the planet as China, if it doesn't go off on another one of its crazy tangents such as the Cultural Revolution, moves steadily towards replacing America as the real gorilla on the planet.


How do you call as sytem where American and British companies are spread over everywhere in Europe, the crises are directly given through and were the english speaking mass can go everywhere and be welcomed in their "Lingua Franca"? En empire perhaps?

How do you call a system where countries in Europe, and my own country, sought American and British investment and were happy to have those foreign companies on their soil while they were profitable and employing local labour but, as soon as economic conditions go bad, blame those countries and foreign companies for everything that's gone wrong?

Personally, I'd say that those sorts of criticisms show a self-centred determination to demand the benefits of uncontrolled foreign investment without being willing to share its disadvantages, and a narrow and completely unrealistic sort of nationalism which demands that foreign companies invest in your or my country as some sort of altruistic exercise for the benefit of the locals. Blind Freddie can see they're in it to make money out of your or my country without regard to our benefit or intersts. If you get into bed with the devil, sooner or later you're going to get a hot fork, or even the devil's ****, up your arse. Don't be surprised and don't complain when it happens

flamethrowerguy
08-10-2011, 08:03 AM
the Panzerfaust migh tbe deadly effective ( and it was ) even in hands of granddads from Wolkstorm. German propogand specially portray the PF as very simple and effective AT mean that migh been operated even the grandmas:)

I think I remember seeing a photo of you in uniform once hence you'll probably know the sound and the earth shaking when a tank runs by...pretty scary.
Surely the handling of the Panzerfaust was quite easy -still dangerous for the user- but I'm sure aiming and firing at an enemy tank crawling with 'Urräh' yelling grunts from small distance requires balls...or at least nerves of steel if the shooter is a grandma.


That's what i mean. In france the 12 army didn't look like a childish.

The 12th Army was re-deployed on April 10, 1945. The unit had little in common with that from 1940.

leccy
08-10-2011, 08:05 AM
Chevan

You are forgetting that without the Soviet fight , keeping busy the MAJOR forces of Wermacht on East, you should never even dare to land on Europe.neither Italy nor France.

No I am not forgetting anything, I am pointing out that without lend lease aid despite what many people seem to think, it was in no way certain that the Soviets would have been able to reach Berlin first or even certain that they would have defeated the axis forces at all.
The West probably would not have won and it may have ended in a huge stalemate without the Soviets, but likewise the Soviets needed the Western Allies as well. All contributed to the final defeat of Germany.

The losses in Aircrew were costly but when that was your only means of fighting back and affecting the war in the East then thats what you do, slowing down German production, diverting troops and resources from elsewhere at a huge cost to aircrew.

I am sure the Soviets would have loved the UK and US to not bomb German factories (however inaccurate and sometimes only causing a few weeks close down), would have preferred to face those extra AA weapons (loads of lovely AA guns and more fighters). How many weapons, ball bearings, fuel could be produced in a few weeks that the Germans lost each time, all that diversion of manpower to repairing infrastructure not to mention material.

How long to drive a tank from the new far back factories to the front, how fit for battle will it be (average 1000 miles was a major rebuild), how much fuel, manpower will it take, much better to stick them on the US railcars pulled by US locos, with the fuel and munitions supplied by US trucks.

Without the materials like aluminium (T34 engine was made from it) at a rough example cut out US aluminium which was over 50% of what the USSR used then you cut out 50% tank production at a stroke, no engine just a fancy pill box.
Without the railway stock and material you can produce as many fighting vehicles as you want but you cant get them to the front and after a while the factories have no material as can not be delivered.
No bombing of Germany means full production and all of it going East, suddenly that material advantage is not so great.

Chevan
08-10-2011, 08:13 AM
I think I remember seeing a photo of you in uniform once hence you'll probably know the sound and the earth shaking when a tank runs by...pretty scary.
Surely the handling of the Panzerfaust was quite easy -still dangerous for the user- but I'm sure aiming and firing at an enemy tank crawling with 'Urräh' yelling grunts from small distance requires balls...or at least nerves of steel if the shooter is a grandma.

Well once i heard how the real tank moved near me:)What i can say. At that moment i racalled not the Panzerfaust but ..Molotov Coctaile. the one should actualy have a big balls to drop the firing Coctail to a moving tank;) And i may to guaranty you that many woman were prepeared to drop the coctail to a german tank in 1941. So no wonder if old gramma with Faust will targeting the T-34 in Berlin. it was likely scenario. At least for tank crew..


The 12th Army was re-deployed on April 10, 1945. The unit had little in common with that from 1940.
Sure they had not much common. In april 1945 they had a Tigers. Nothing even close simular they had in 1940;)

flamethrowerguy
08-10-2011, 08:28 AM
And i may to guaranty you that many woman were prepeared to drop the coctail to a german tank in 1941.

I bet...Germans could never deal with the idea of women as a combat opponent (I guess we still can't today). The troops were kind of shocked in 1941.


So no wonder if old gramma with Faust will targeting the T-34 in Berlin. it was likely scenario. At least for tank crew..

Just because German propaganda obviously was very effective...;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1973-001-30%2C_Volkssturm%2C_Frau_mit_Panzerfaust.jpg
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1973-001-30, Volkssturm, Frau mit Panzerfaust.jpg



Sure they had not much common. In april 1945 they had a Tigers. Nothing even close simular they had in 1940;)

Not sure if I'd prefer a bulk of pre war trained tank crews in Panzer IV-A over 17-year-old school boys in Tigers with little or no training...

steben
08-10-2011, 08:46 AM
Well, I've always had a problem with countries which have more than one language.

Look at Canada. In Quebec they have to have English and French signs. So you have a sign which says 'cafe' (don't know how to do the acute over the e in cafe) in English and under it a sign in French which says 'cafe'.

If they had to have signs in German it would probably say 'cafe'.

So I think the Allies did the world a huge favour by ensuring that the Germans didn't get into Quebec, because it's stupid enough having two signs in different languages saying the same thing without burdening the Quebecois with the cost of a third lot of signs saying the same thing which only confuses tourists. ;) :D

lol
starting to understand the deep rooted (trivial though but fundamental) problem of the Belgian Puzzle aye?... Belgium = Quebec³

However, looking at Switzerland you see a different story, direct democratic culture over there is admirable.



My comment was a flippant comment intended to illustrate that without the Allies then Western Europe could still be under German control, as could much of the rest of the world.

Europe is now under Franco-German control anyway. It's always the same story.
If Germany would have prevailed, the previous known countries would still be on the map, with indeed some sort of puppet gouvernment (as seen in Eastern Europe). Its not that Brussels would the capital of Western Greater Germany etc. German would be important language, as Russian was in the east.



You seem to be making the common assumption that Australians are naturally aligned with America and Britain because we share a common language.
You couldn't be further from the truth.
Many Australians share the European resentment of pervasive American cultural domination through a range of things from movies and television shows to McDonalds and KFC, not to mention the occasional interference of American government agencies in our local politics, including the widely believed if unproved conspiracy in bringing down our national government in 1975 so it could be replaced with a conservative government more favourable to the Americans. Not as brutal as Chile around the same time, but consistent with American arrogance then. And now, even as America fails to recognise and deal with its decline as the greatest power on the planet as China, if it doesn't go off on another one of its crazy tangents such as the Cultural Revolution, moves steadily towards replacing America as the real gorilla on the planet.


nice ... sorry if I neglected your view on this



How do you call a system where countries in Europe, and my own country, sought American and British investment and were happy to have those foreign companies on their soil while they were profitable and employing local labour but, as soon as economic conditions go bad, blame those countries and foreign companies for everything that's gone wrong?

Nature? :mrgreen:
Yes true, but it's a sort of generation problem.
Our parents were much more content with US involvement.
You can count in as well that US policy has changed a bit since 40ties.
Influence and grasp has always been there, but brutal economic policies and unilateral views have grown since 80-90ties.
I mean: US views have been more pleasant earlier and more cooperative than recent days.



Personally, I'd say that those sorts of criticisms show a self-centred determination to demand the benefits of uncontrolled foreign investment without being willing to share its disadvantages, and a narrow and completely unrealistic sort of nationalism which demands that foreign companies invest in your or my country as some sort of altruistic exercise for the benefit of the locals. Blind Freddie can see they're in it to make money out of your or my country without regard to our benefit or intersts. If you get into bed with the devil, sooner or later you're going to get a hot fork, or even the devil's ****, up your arse. Don't be surprised and don't complain when it happens

true, but again: most disadvantages are felt today than they did yesterday.

Rising Sun*
08-10-2011, 09:46 AM
nice ... sorry if I neglected your view on this

No need to apolgise, because I hadn't expressed that view before.

Against that view, Australian governments of either major party will generally go with the Americans on most issues, because of a quaint if horribly mistaken belief that if we pay our dues by contributing about 1% of forces in combined ops in matters of contemporary interest to the Yanks, the Yanks will repay us at some future unspecified time when we're under threat, such as standing between us and China when it's not to the Yank's advantage. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

On the other hand, we may well have managed to sucker the Yanks into greater involvement in Vietnam in the early stages because we feared that America was about to desert us when we were confronted with a potential conflict with much larger Indonesia, so we're just as exploitative as every other country in pursuing out national interests at the expense of other nations.

steben
08-10-2011, 10:01 AM
No need to apolgise, because I hadn't expressed that view before.

Against that view, Australian governments of either major party will generally go with the Americans on most issues, because of a quaint if horribly mistaken belief that if we pay our dues by contributing about 1% of forces in combined ops in matters of contemporary interest to the Yanks, the Yanks will repay us at some future unspecified time when we're under threat, such as standing between us and China when it's not to the Yank's advantage. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

On the other hand, we may well have managed to sucker the Yanks into greater involvement in Vietnam in the early stages because we feared that America was about to desert us when we were confronted with a potential conflict with much larger Indonesia, so we're just as exploitative as every other country in pursuing out national interests at the expense of other nations.

Hmmmm, don't think US policy needed a push ...
Vietnam is completely an issue of maintaining the break even and defending markets to western / US economics. Indonesia's role in it is enormous. If Vietnam succeeded in taking control over itself, it would be a example for Indonesians. As soon as the Indonesian regime accounted for maintaining free economic role of western companies, the Vietnam symbolic " don't let think for themselves " obstacle was gone and the gate went open for popular doctrines in "saving US lives" and retreating.

Chevan
08-10-2011, 11:24 AM
Chevan

No I am not forgetting anything, I am pointing out that without lend lease aid despite what many people seem to think, it was in no way certain that the Soviets would have been able to reach Berlin first or even certain that they would have defeated the axis forces at all.
The West probably would not have won and it may have ended in a huge stalemate without the Soviets, but likewise the Soviets needed the Western Allies as well. All contributed to the final defeat of Germany.

The losses in Aircrew were costly but when that was your only means of fighting back and affecting the war in the East then thats what you do, slowing down German production, diverting troops and resources from elsewhere at a huge cost to aircrew.

I am sure the Soviets would have loved the UK and US to not bomb German factories (however inaccurate and sometimes only causing a few weeks close down), would have preferred to face those extra AA weapons (loads of lovely AA guns and more fighters). How many weapons, ball bearings, fuel could be produced in a few weeks that the Germans lost each time, all that diversion of manpower to repairing infrastructure not to mention material.

How long to drive a tank from the new far back factories to the front, how fit for battle will it be (average 1000 miles was a major rebuild), how much fuel, manpower will it take, much better to stick them on the US railcars pulled by US locos, with the fuel and munitions supplied by US trucks.

Without the materials like aluminium (T34 engine was made from it) at a rough example cut out US aluminium which was over 50% of what the USSR used then you cut out 50% tank production at a stroke, no engine just a fancy pill box.
Without the railway stock and material you can produce as many fighting vehicles as you want but you cant get them to the front and after a while the factories have no material as can not be delivered.
No bombing of Germany means full production and all of it going East, suddenly that material advantage is not so great.
dear Leccy.
I/m not a complitelly disagree with you. But lets not to mix the separate questions up into one post.
1. Was the lend lease such a great thinbg that saved allied coalition? Definitelly YES.
2. Was the lend lease critical for defence of USSR?No. But it was critical for ..Britain.As we saw in figures, the major customer of lend lease was a UK.From what the next conclusion comes out - providing the lend lease to it's allies America saved ...itslef.
3. Was the strategical bombings so effective and cool like it usially portrayed in posts like you wrote? IMO No.
You told an excellent example of how alluninium was importaint in war production in example of T-34 engine.I say you more.Let's take a simple mathematic. Do you know how much alluminium is needed for production of one B-17? The Soviets had its own project of analog four engine bomber - Pe-8. SO one full-metal Pe-8 absorbed AS MUCH alluminium as .....( attention!!!!) 30 of soviet fighters Jak. But 30 fighters migh be much more USEFUL in front.SO the reality was hard. The USSR specially denied its strategical bomber in favoure of MUCH more effective and needed for army fighters and sturmoviks ( Il-2). This is just everything about war's economy. The same was in Germany. Instead of armades of peices of crap like fw-200- they concentrated on the production of fighters- the only the strategy they may let for itselt.
IF one just imagine how much excellent fighter migh to produce the US/UK instead of 20 000 of bombers - i guess equalent to 100 000 of fighters. Having so much fighters YOU migh to finish Luftwaffe within few week. But you didn't. Although YOU have enough resources / manpower for that. Instead you started just doubtful compain for "reducing the German inductry". Losing the fantstic figures of superexpensive bombers - you still want to be proud how it influed on German war effort.
There is exist the different ways to fight with enemy. You have chosed the worst one. It's like to bomb the berlin by the stones , hoping one hit the Hitler's head and war , therefore should end soon;)

Chevan
08-10-2011, 11:52 AM
I bet...Germans could never deal with the idea of women as a combat opponent (I guess we still can't today). The troops were kind of shocked in 1941.

huh, and how about Hanna Reich?Did she shocked the German public as much as the inferior russian fighting females?;)


Just because German propaganda obviously was very effective...;)

Yes, it effective while people do believe. I mean they believe the any Frau migh to hit the enemy tank:)


Not sure if I'd prefer a bulk of pre war trained tank crews in Panzer IV-A over 17-year-old school boys in Tigers with little or no training...
I bet on..Tiger. The boys migh to get an experience very quick endeed.

flamethrowerguy
08-10-2011, 12:07 PM
huh, and how about Hanna Reich?Did she shocked the German public as much as the inferior russian fighting females?;)

A good example actually. Hanna Reitsch intended to volunteer for a suicide mission near the end of the war but met with an incredulous shake of the head by both
Hitler and Goebbels.

royal744
10-17-2011, 05:46 PM
Rising Sun is right: the bomb was intended originally for Germany. The US would have dropped it. The irony is that by holding out, Japan became its recipient instead. Oh, and BTW, the Russians would have reached Berlin anyway.

mtclimber
06-22-2012, 12:05 AM
Don't forget that after Germany surrendered, many of the scientists involved with the Manhattan Project began to actively petition that the bomb not be used, since Japan wasn't the threat that Germany had been. Must be noted that many of these scientists (Leo Szilard and Niels Bohr in particular), were from areas directly affected by Naziism. The bomb was most certainly developed to be used on Germany, not Japan. I personally believe that a big factor in it being used on Japan was to avoid the inevitable Congressional Inquiry on why 2 billion dollars were spent on a weapon that was never used.