Political Crossfire Forums

[superskippy]

Quote: Russia destroyed 90% of German forces. I cant see the extra 10% making that much difference. I also think Britain and the other comenwealth country's could have oppened up a front in France or Italy probably not both but that wouldn't be out of the question. Not as early as we did it with American help but it still could have happened.

I really dont think it was 90%, the Germans still had around 1,800,000 men in Italy if not more as I recall, I beleive when Wolff surrendered at the end of the war it was around 1,400,00 German troops who surrendered in Italy and Northern Italy.

Then we can count in an additional 400,000 troops stretching from Greece to Croatia, as well as another 1,500,000-2,000,000 troops in France, Belgium, the Netherlands etc, another 200,000 men in Denmark and Norway, etc.

If effectivly redeployed the Germans could have abosrbed the mass of the Soviet Army in Poland along the many rivers, since they would have a full operational force, and more importantly they would have had an abundance of artillary and munitions and fuel.

The Soviets would have had similar numbers brought about to bear, man for man the Soviet Army in reality was not that much higher in numbers if at all it's just that they had some 15,000,000 men focused on one front against the Nazi's who had around 18,000,000-19,000,000 spread all over Europe in the Wermacht.

With a redployed force to lets say the Vistula and a line anchored along Warsaw and Danzig, they would have faced equal numbers nearly when engagements met, (Not along an entire front basis I would think but it is possible) and they would have been able to absorb and maul the Soviet Armies. Contrary to popular beleif the Soviets reserves were not infinite and if they had suffered another 5,000,000 men out of action in Poland lets say, than I searously beleive that Stalin would have quite possibly settled for a stalemate peace and would have taken all of Eastern Europe except part of Poland behind German lines as a concession and buffer.

Also an added bonus would have been a drastic cut back on the severity of allied air raids, there would have been no deep reaching air campaign like the one that did occur.

As for a British front in Italy or France, of course a landing would be possible in some areas but not for a significant area, the landing areas would have been crushed or they wouldnt have made heavy headway. The British unfortunatly heavily outnumbered and many times heavily outgunned.

I cant searously consider that a front opening campaign would have been possible or sustainable, and the effects of the almost certain reversal could be catastrophic.

I'd beleive that the biggest threat would be assaults like Diepe, it would allow the Brits to attack in large force so as to draw off German troops and keep a certain force static in France or Italy.

[antonio62]

Russia fought a German army which was around 5.7 million plus the Italian, Finish and other Eastern European nations it was fighting all he time. The 1.5 million men that the Americans and British faced were nothing in comparison to what the Russians faced mainly because in the west we had complete air and armoured superiority because the Germans had no oil because the British won the war in Africa. They didn't really have much of an air force left anyway. The best equipped and trained troops went to the eastern front. In the west the allies faced practically no resistance in comparison to what the Russians had to fight through.

As for Britain not being able to invade on there own. The British Commonwealth fielded an army of just over 11 million most of which was still ready to fight at the end of the war. Some of these were in the pacific of course. I don't have figures but I would doubt many more than a few million of these were in the Pacific. The Germans on the other fielded 13.6 million over the course of the war. Most of which were fighting the Russians. This meant British forces far outnumbered the German forces. Britain also had air control with or without America. We had tanks which by the end of the war Germany was struggling to get and most of them were on the eastern front. Britain certainly had the capability to invade. It would have been more difficult and happened later in the war but it was certainly possible.

[Jehan]

superskippy wrote: Quote: Russia destroyed 90% of German forces. I cant see the extra 10% making that much difference. I also think Britain and the other comenwealth country's could have oppened up a front in France or Italy probably not both but that wouldn't be out of the question. Not as early as we did it with American help but it still could have happened.

I really dont think it was 90%, the Germans still had around 1,800,000 men in Italy if not more as I recall, I beleive when Wolff surrendered at the end of the war it was around 1,400,00 German troops who surrendered in Italy and Northern Italy.

Then we can count in an additional 400,000 troops stretching from Greece to Croatia, as well as another 1,500,000-2,000,000 troops in France, Belgium, the Netherlands etc, another 200,000 men in Denmark and Norway, etc.

If effectivly redeployed the Germans could have abosrbed the mass of the Soviet Army in Poland along the many rivers, since they would have a full operational force, and more importantly they would have had an abundance of artillary and munitions and fuel.

The Soviets would have had similar numbers brought about to bear, man for man the Soviet Army in reality was not that much higher in numbers if at all it's just that they had some 15,000,000 men focused on one front against the Nazi's who had around 18,000,000-19,000,000 spread all over Europe in the Wermacht.

With a redployed force to lets say the Vistula and a line anchored along Warsaw and Danzig, they would have faced equal numbers nearly when engagements met, (Not along an entire front basis I would think but it is possible) and they would have been able to absorb and maul the Soviet Armies. Contrary to popular beleif the Soviets reserves were not infinite and if they had suffered another 5,000,000 men out of action in Poland lets say, than I searously beleive that Stalin would have quite possibly settled for a stalemate peace and would have taken all of Eastern Europe except part of Poland behind German lines as a concession and buffer.

Also an added bonus would have been a drastic cut back on the severity of allied air raids, there would have been no deep reaching air campaign like the one that did occur.

As for a British front in Italy or France, of course a landing would be possible in some areas but not for a significant area, the landing areas would have been crushed or they wouldnt have made heavy headway. The British unfortunatly heavily outnumbered and many times heavily outgunned.

I cant searously consider that a front opening campaign would have been possible or sustainable, and the effects of the almost certain reversal could be catastrophic.

I'd beleive that the biggest threat would be assaults like Diepe, it would allow the Brits to attack in large force so as to draw off German troops and keep a certain force static in France or Italy.

The Anglo-American allies faced 58 divisions in the West, By contrast, the Russians faced over 200 (can't remember the exact number.) Also, while the reserves of the Soviets were not inexhaustible, they were much more than Hitler could wipe out.

[red dragon]

It was a team effort by all our grandfathers...something we should never forget, also a lot of you are ignoring the fact that Bletchley Park had cracked the German sipher code early in the war, which gave the allies a supreme advantage, quickly followed by the US breaking the Japanese admiralty code. This was more decisive than anything else.

[superskippy]

Quote: The Anglo-American allies faced 58 divisions in the West, By contrast, the Russians faced over 200 (can't remember the exact number.) Also, while the reserves of the Soviets were not inexhaustible, they were much more than Hitler could wipe out.

Of course they had more reserves than Hitler, but if they had redployed the nessasery troops they could have chewed up the Soviet Army in Poland and if properly played could have resulted in a stalemate against the Soviets.

[Rankor and Pissing]

antonio62 wrote: superskippy wrote: Now, now, I dont think Russia would have steamrolled over Germany if there hadnt been a threat of invasion from the west, since if their was no threat of major invasion they could redeploy around 1,500,000 men to the Eastern Front, and hunker down along their defensive lines in Poland and the fringes of Russia.

If they had no other major theatre they could have steadily and easily reinforced and resupplied their troops on the Eastern Front, rather then having to spread it around, and they would have a very open and secure supply and industry zone in France and Italy.

I think that without American intervention and thus Hitlers great fear of a major invasion from the West, he could have deployed enough troops to the East to anchor along the Vistula at the very least, if not farther east.

I think those troops especially if put under adequite command and the fact that instead of the massive long front, they would have had a much shorter front and a much denser defense of the area.

With this in mind I'd propose that it would be more than possible for the Germans to hold the Russians back to a stalemate in Poland. Especially considering the fact that they did it temporarily with the ramshackle pieces of the Wermacht and Volksturm, and non combat personal, and rather wastefully with airmen in 1945, with a fully equipped army with a total of probably more than 2,500,000 men (All the redeployed troops, and the Wermacht troops from the Eastern Front), I propose that it would be very possible for them to achieve a stablization of their front and maul the Soviets sufficiently to make a stalemate.

This is why I love debating the alternate possabilities of World War 2 and other wars, there are just so many variables and possabilities that debating it can be so very interesting. I'm curious to see what you think with of my thoughts.

Russia destroyed 90% of German forces. I cant see the extra 10% making that much difference. I also think Britain and the other comenwealth country's could have oppened up a front in France or Italy probably not both but that wouldn't be out of the question. Not as early as we did it with American help but it still could have happened.

Antonio loves the 90% to 10% comparison, though it's not based in fact but fiction. See this thread where Antonio identifies 90% of the German troops were on the Russian front, while only 10% were on the Western front. Everything is 90% to 10%... :lol:

lhttp://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54405&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80

antonio62 wrote:
90% of the Germans were fighting on the Eastern front the Western front made little difference to the war if those 10% of extra Germans were fighting Russia they would have made little difference only delaying there enevitable defeat by a few months at most.

This discussion was again the value of Russia's overwhelming the Germans and need no aid whatsoever from any other country. Russia had things well in hand, no problems. Yeah, right. Don't take anyone's word for it on this forum - go get a book or two and do some reading about WWII. There's too many agenda's and some serious Russia Love going on by certain members...

Antonio is our resident wikipedia WWII scholar. :roll:

[Blogotron]

Nearly all of Russia's warmachine ( oil and materiel) was shipped through Iran from the USA. Russia had no war machine itself, just a well designed tank, tons of people scared of Stalin and Hitler, and commissars.

[antonio62]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Antonio loves the 90% to 10% comparison, though it's not based in fact but fiction. See this thread where Antonio identifies 90% of the German troops were on the Russian front, while only 10% were on the Western front. Everything is 90% to 10%... :lol:

lhttp://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54405&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80



This discussion was again the value of Russia's overwhelming the Germans and need no aid whatsoever from any other country. Russia had things well in hand, no problems. Yeah, right. Don't take anyone's word for it on this forum - go get a book or two and do some reading about WWII. There's too many agenda's and some serious Russia Love going on by certain members...

Antonio is our resident wikipedia WWII scholar. :roll:

This coming from the person who never even answered any of my points I made in that thread and who used wikipedia as a source in that thread. :lol:

[Jehan]

Blogotron wrote: Nearly all of Russia's warmachine ( oil and materiel) was shipped through Iran from the USA. Russia had no war machine itself, just a well designed tank, tons of people scared of Stalin and Hitler, and commissars.

bulls**t. The Factories in the Ural Mountains (Which the Soviets literally picked up and moved there) were producing the bulk of the Soviet warmachine's goods. The US sent some Lend-Lease stuff, but it was not until momentum had shifted to the Soviets and it was a small amount compared to what the Soviets cranked out.

As for oil, the Russians had plenty of it in the Caucusus, which was the main reason that Hitler attacked Stalingrad, so he could capture the Volga River and take the rich Russian oil fields.

[Jehan]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Antonio loves the 90% to 10% comparison, though it's not based in fact but fiction. See this thread where Antonio identifies 90% of the German troops were on the Russian front, while only 10% were on the Western front. Everything is 90% to 10%... :lol:

90% is off. 80% of all German casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front. If you consider that there were 5,500,000 German combat casualties, that means 4,400,000 deaths on the Eastern Front, and only 1,100,000 on the Western Front. That's quite a sizeable difference.

Quote: This discussion was again the value of Russia's overwhelming the Germans and need no aid whatsoever from any other country. Russia had things well in hand, no problems. Yeah, right. Don't take anyone's word for it on this forum - go get a book or two and do some reading about WWII. There's too many agenda's and some serious Russia Love going on by certain members...

Russia Love? :lol: What a load of bs. The Soviet Union was a cesspit and Josef Stalin was the greatest **** who ever lived. Doesn't change the fact he and his country contributed more to the downfall of Adolf Hitler than any other.

Quote: Antonio is our resident wikipedia WWII scholar. :roll:

If you have nothing of merit to add to this discussion, then don't, because it only wastes everyone else's time.

[ozymandias]

Quote: Britain and its Armed Forces were s**t during most of the war

...what? how did you get that idea?was it el alamein? battle of britain? convoy battles? chindits in burma? oh no we won all of that. qualify comment please.


as a matter of interest i've heard i think it was the americans, who could choose speciality, who were most uniformly rubbish. because they were allowed to choose their speciality, the brightest went to the artillery etc. whilst the infantry was left with the dumbasses. which meant an overreliance on genuinely great units such as the rangers and 101st.

The oft-repeated assertion concerning Allied combat inferiority is also echoed by Allan R. Millett in his essay "The United States Armed Forces in the Second World War," which appeared in volume three of Military Effectiveness (1988). The author concluded that with few notable exceptions the fighting quality of American troops "did not match the Germans."

George Patton disparaged the performance of the American infantry in both wars against Germany. George Marshall admitted the German soldiers were distinctly superior in both wars when compared to American soldiers.

then again, we couldn't have won without them...it's just that i think americans do have a slightly inflated sense of their skills in war.

[mendosan]

I meant **** to signify the out dated tactics and equipment the British used during the WW2, the mass surrender of British troops to Japanese forces in the far east, the reliance on Polish pilots(not counted in 'Few' speech) during the battle of Britain, the ineffectiveness of the British Navy compared with all other Navy's in the war, the reliance of the chindits on US airdrops, botched invasions in Greece the British military wasn't great during the war.

[Rankor and Pissing]

antonio62 wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Antonio loves the 90% to 10% comparison, though it's not based in fact but fiction. See this thread where Antonio identifies 90% of the German troops were on the Russian front, while only 10% were on the Western front. Everything is 90% to 10%... :lol:

lhttp://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54405&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80



This discussion was again the value of Russia's overwhelming the Germans and need no aid whatsoever from any other country. Russia had things well in hand, no problems. Yeah, right. Don't take anyone's word for it on this forum - go get a book or two and do some reading about WWII. There's too many agenda's and some serious Russia Love going on by certain members...

Antonio is our resident wikipedia WWII scholar. :roll:

This coming from the person who never even answered any of my points I made in that thread and who used wikipedia as a source in that thread. :lol:

I don't use wiki as it's unreliable. You need a trip to the library, read a book and stop making up facts and based opinions on the internet. Wait, don't tell me, 90% of everything you say is true and 10% is based on wiki right? :rotf:

[Rankor and Pissing]

Jehan wrote:

If you have nothing of merit to add to this discussion, then don't, because it only wastes everyone else's time.

Everything of merit on this topic has already been written a thousand times. Go read a book and stop trying to be the "posting police".

Here's a good one everyone may start out with:


Patton: A Biography by Alen Axelrod

All about a general who apparently sat on his hands the entire time on the Western Front as the Russian's had everything well in hand.

[thundertaker]

]quote]Patton: A Biography by Alen Axelrod [/quote]

No way is that his real name....

[Jehan]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: I don't use wiki as it's unreliable. You need a trip to the library, read a book and stop making up facts and based opinions on the internet. Wait, don't tell me, 90% of everything you say is true and 10% is based on wiki right? :rotf:



:roll:

[Ellron]

antonio62 wrote: mendosan wrote: Britain would have fallen or surrendered without American loans, food, and munitions. US Navy ships protected British merchant shipping (which kept Britain from starving) and fired on German subs well before the US declaration of war on Germany.

The battle of Britain was won only two months after lend lese started. It had minimal if any effect on the outcome of the Battle of Britain. This meant Germany could not invade Britain. Even if they did invade it is beleived the British defences would have held.

Quote: The British could not have won in North Africa without the US sending troops and the battles fought by General Patton. With German control of Egypt and the entire Mediterranean Turkey would have been forced to join the war on Germany's side as would have fascist Spain.

American troops only came to Africa a few months before the end of the African campgain. Sure they sped up the end but weren't decisive.

Quote: Without the US led Invasion of Italy the German forces manning the Teutonic line (theses troops were the last German troops to surrender in 1945) could have been free to fight the Russians.

Firstly it wasn't a US led invasion it was joint invasion by the British Comenwealth and the Americans. I also am pretty sure the majority of the troops were British and Comenwealth. Secondly if they had fought the Russians they would have been destroyed. The Russians destroyed 90% of German forces not to mention the troops from other Axis nations which it fought and destroyed.

Quote: Also a significant amount of soviet equipment was manufactured by the US also significant quantities of canned food for the Red Army. So without the US there would have been more troops free on the Eastern Front so I think the Germans would have won the entire war

Actually no very little of Soviet equipment came from America. Russia actually outproduced America on most equipment. Most of the aid Russia received was British actually.

Germany did not need to invade Britain or bomb it with planes all it needed to do was sit there and let you starve. You were going to run out of food in a few months if the US did not hand over tons of it to feed you.

In the African campaign you guys were getting your buts kicked by the dessert fox and his Afrikan corps.

Those troops would not make a difference!! Obviously you do not know how close USSR was to loosing. The USSR actually won through bad micro management through hitler which gave them enough time to make equipment.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/stalingrad/blue.aspx

I highly doubt the English gave more aid to Russia then we did.

[Jehan]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: All about a general who apparently sat on his hands the entire time on the Western Front as the Russian's had everything well in hand.

Don't put words in my mouth. The Western front was decisive in ending the war earlier, but the bulk of the fighting in Europe took place on the Western front.

[antonio62]

Ellron wrote: Germany did not need to invade Britain or bomb it with planes all it needed to do was sit there and let you starve. You were going to run out of food in a few months if the US did not hand over tons of it to feed you.

Britain needed food far moe during WW1. Even without Britain Russia woudl have won.

Quote: In the African campaign you guys were getting your buts kicked by the dessert fox and his Afrikan corps.

No we would have won in Africa regardles of whether America showed up 2 months before the end of the theatre of not.

Quote: Those troops would not make a difference!! Obviously you do not know how close USSR was to loosing. The USSR actually won through bad micro management through hitler which gave them enough time to make equipment.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/stalingrad/blue.aspx

Yes Germany should have won the war against all the allys but by this time they woudl ahve made no difference atoll. They were badly equiped, completely outnumbered, the enemy had total air supeirority, they had no oil to fuel there tanks. Really they would have made minimal difference.

Quote: I highly doubt the English gave more aid to Russia then we did.

Pretty sure it was and most of the aid was transported by the British to Russia.

[Ellron]

[quote="antonio62"] Ellron wrote:
Quote: Those troops would not make a difference!! Obviously you do not know how close USSR was to loosing. The USSR actually won through bad micro management through hitler which gave them enough time to make equipment.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/stalingrad/blue.aspx

Yes Germany should have won the war against all the allys but by this time they woudl ahve made no difference atoll. They were badly equiped, completely outnumbered, the enemy had total air supeirority, they had no oil to fuel there tanks. Really they would have made minimal difference.


I dont think Russia had total air superiority by this time. If you read the article it says the Germans were heavily bombing the city and using ground attack planes to hit the boats crossing the river.

If Hitler did not mismanage the war the 4th panzer and 6th army they would of moved in quickly enough to have captured many of the Russian soldiers which would of allowed the Germans to have quickly taken Stalingrad. Then after Stalingrad the oil behind it.