sad thoughts on poly posters

[DarkCloud]

Why? Because he knew how to build a rocket that could carry a 1-ton payload a few hundred miles, impact mithin a few thousand yards of where you wanted it to, and do so at speeds which prevented enemy intecept.

That doesn't seem bad.

But Frogger, the Russians didn't really push the Germans until later... Of course they pushed them out of Russia soon enough, but closer to the German supply routes (they were cut off IIRC) the Germans would be better prepared to meet the good russian generals. It would ahve been a hard fight. I agree. It could go either way.

If stalin or Hitler went crazy, the tide could have easily turned. I agree. But I still don't think Russia could have decisively crused Germany. Pushed them back past Ukraine, yes, but mroe than that is questionable.

[Capt Dizle]

The USA supplied the USSR with 6,430 planes, 3,734 tanks, 104 ships and boats, 210,000 autos, 3,000 anti-aircraft guns, 245,000 field telephones, gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, steel and five million tons of food. This was enough to feed an army of 12 million every day of the war. Britain supplied 5,800 planes, 4,292 tanks, and 12 minesweepers. Canada supplied 1,188 tanks, 842 armoured cars, nearly one million shells, and 208,000 tons of wheat and flour. The USSR depended on American trucks for its mobility since 427,000 out of 665,000 motor vehicles (trucks and jeeps) at the end of the war were of western origin.

Take that revisionists!

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

That doesn't seem bad.

But Frogger, the Russians didn't really push the Germans until later... Of course they pushed them out of Russia soon enough, but closer to the German supply routes (they were cut off IIRC) the Germans would be better prepared to meet the good russian generals. It would ahve been a hard fight. I agree. It could go either way.

If stalin or Hitler went crazy, the tide could have easily turned. I agree. But I still don't think Russia could have decisively crused Germany. Pushed them back past Ukraine, yes, but mroe than that is questionable.

I disagree. Russia had too much men and materiel - they were bound to win eventually just on that basis. Much like the Japanese having less production capacity than the US. It might have taken longer, yes, but they would have won.

[DarkCloud]

But jimmy, history is important, if you know what was and why, then you can conjecture what might be and what might happen later because the human persona is the same but the outlook changes... everything is relevant.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

That doesn't seem bad.

But Frogger, the Russians didn't really push the Germans until later... Of course they pushed them out of Russia soon enough, but closer to the German supply routes (they were cut off IIRC) the Germans would be better prepared to meet the good russian generals. It would ahve been a hard fight. I agree. It could go either way

How so? The Germans were already collapsing from overextension. There was no going back; they'd pissed away their advantages (highly trained and well-equipped units + technological superiority) and the Russians were much, much stronger than they'd been prior to Barbarossa. Russian factories were hitting full stride, the army had been restructured to undo the damage of the purges of the 30s, even their air force was beginning to be able to contend against the Luftwaffe. The Germans had to occupy all of Europe; even without the British+US threat on the coasts (minimal in 1942) they had to leave people there to fight rebellions. They were trying to do this with a population which was running out of people of fit age for military service, and they were running out of oil, iron ore, etc.

Even had they managed to take the ME, it was ridiculously far away from their bases of supply...

[Capt Dizle]

I do want to say that the world should never forget the enormous sacrifice of life in WW2, and let me point out the russian people in particular. America's contribution of material might have been key in victory but pales in comparison to the significance of the blood sacrifice made on the eastern front.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The USA supplied the USSR with 6,430 planes, 3,734 tanks, 104 ships and boats, 210,000 autos, 3,000 anti-aircraft guns, 245,000 field telephones, gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, steel and five million tons of food. This was enough to feed an army of 12 million every day of the war. Britain supplied 5,800 planes, 4,292 tanks, and 12 minesweepers. Canada supplied 1,188 tanks, 842 armoured cars, nearly one million shells, and 208,000 tons of wheat and flour. The USSR depended on American trucks for its mobility since 427,000 out of 665,000 motor vehicles (trucks and jeeps) at the end of the war were of western origin.

Take that revisionists!

Please give the figures prior to mid-1942. The war might have dragged on for a few years past 1945, but the end of the German empire was already on the horizon.

IIRC, by 1943, the Germans were producing 1000 tanks every month. The USSR was producing 2000. End of story.

[nationalist]

If the U.S. was not involved in WW2, the Japanese would have been free to attack the U.S.S.R. form the East. The Soviets would have been crushed between two superior forces. A war between the Nazis and Soviets would have been much closer, especially if the Nazis had managed to defeat the Brits before attacking. The Nazis had the peoples and industry of Western Europe under their control. Given an oppurtunity to truly marshal their potential powers, I think that the Nazis would have prevailed over the Soviets. Then it would have been America's turn to be crushed, whether it wanted to fight or not. Hitler always envisioned the final struggle to be between the U.S. and Germany for the mastery of the world.

[David Floyd]

The USA supplied the USSR with 6,430 planes, 3,734 tanks, 104 ships and boats, 210,000 autos, 3,000 anti-aircraft guns, 245,000 field telephones, gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, steel and five million tons of food. This was enough to feed an army of 12 million every day of the war. Britain supplied 5,800 planes, 4,292 tanks, and 12 minesweepers. Canada supplied 1,188 tanks, 842 armoured cars, nearly one million shells, and 208,000 tons of wheat and flour. The USSR depended on American trucks for its mobility since 427,000 out of 665,000 motor vehicles (trucks and jeeps) at the end of the war were of western origin.

Take that revisionists!

Bingo - without Lend-Lease, Russia would not have won.

Frogger, at the time of Operation Typhoon, there was so little Russian armor left that there were entire brigades equipped with US and British tanks.

Soviet forces were almost totally reliant on US motorized vehicles in order to move, and their railways were highly reliant on US track and railcars. The US also gave the Soviets tons and tons of mundane items - everything from boots to barbed wire. Without Lend-Lease, Russia would have had to produce all of these items, and would have not been producing NEARLY 2000 tanks a month in 1943.

[David Floyd]

If the U.S. was not involved in WW2, the Japanese would have been free to attack the U.S.S.R. form the East. The Soviets would have been crushed between two superior forces.

I've got two thoughts for you:
1)Battle of Nomonhan
2)State of Japanese armor

Even the stripped down Far East Military District in Winter of 1941 would have whipped the **** out of the Japanese Kwangtung Army.

[Capt Dizle]

Thats a good point David, Zhukov may have won WW2 by beating the Japs with modern armored tactics. Had Stalin been forced to fight on 2 fronts.....

[nationalist]

David,

The Nomonhan situation may have turned out differently if the Soviets were already fighting the Nazis. Who knows what would have happened if the Japanese would have waited until Barbarossa to engge with the Soviets. At the very least the Kwangtung Army would have been better armed than it was in RL.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger


?

How so? Europe dithered, but so did the US (and for 2 years longer, too). At least the UK and France had the decency to make up their minds before they'd actually gotten a bloody nose...

It's rather academic, lots of what ifs and should have beens. However, the French were fully capable of dealing with the Nazis in 36 or 37 by themselves. They chose not to.

In 38 the Czechs, French and British would also have made short work of the Nazis. The Czechs wanted to. British and French pressure convinced Benes(?) to cave. Munich was the bloody nose for the French and British.

The bottom line was the French and British people did not want to fight a war on their own door steps, until it was too late. Too late was after the Germans had integrated the excellent weapons of the Czech army into the Panzer divisions, and had had another year to equip their mechanized and air forces.

So then the American people still didn't want to fight. Why should they have? Europe was an awefully long way away from them in 1939. The French Army was the largest and was regarded by many as the best. Very few people had any kind of inkling at that time of the interesting things 'Fast' Heinz Guderion had devised to do with armoured forces.

So yes, the US was very slow to enter the war. However, they did not live in the same world in 1939 as they did in 1945.

[David Floyd]

The Nomonhan situation may have turned out differently if the Soviets were already fighting the Nazis. Who knows what would have happened if the Japanese would have waited until Barbarossa to engge with the Soviets. At the very least the Kwangtung Army would have been better armed than it was in RL.

Nomonhon had nothing to do with the military situation in Western Russia. It had to do with traditional Japanese generals trying to use out-of-date tactics with antiquated armored vehicles against a superior commander using much more up to date armor and tactics.

And the power and armament of the Kwangtung Army went down, as troops were bled off to fight in China and the Pacific. Eventually, all that was in the Kwangtung fortifications were some of the worst formations in the IJA, with little or no air support, and poorly led. Why do you think the Soviets had such an easy time in Manchuria in 1945?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
The Sovs would have won WWII without US+UK help, IMO.

The turning point for the war in the East was in mid-1942, when American supplies were a second-order concern, and American contribuion to the actual fighting was almost non-existent.

Two words. Pish and tosh.

The outcome in the East was nowhere near certain in 1942. When the Germans began moving in the South the Russians marched east. They kept marching east for as far as they dared. The furthest they dared was the Volga. Just east of the Volga and there were no more North South lines of communication. The USSR would have been cut in 2 for all intents and purposes.

If the Germans had been solely intent on the USSR and if the USSR had not received the aid they did, there is no question that either Moscow would have fallen in 1941 or the Volga line lost in 1942. Either case would have meant the end for the ability of the Soviets to ever 'win' the war by themselves.

[David Floyd]

Actually, Moscow would have fallen in 1941 anyway if Hitler had allowed his generals to go after Moscow, which every single one of them except for Jodl (who was Hitler's ***** anyway) wanted to do, rather than wasting time in the Ukraine. It almost fell as things were - 700,000 of the last 800,000 Russian defenders were wiped out during Operation Typhoon before the Wehrmact ground to a halt almost within site of Moscow.

[nationalist]

My guess is that Japanese tactics would have changed as a result of initial Nazi-Soviet fighting. Plus, if the Japs weren't fighting the U.S., they wouldn't have had nearly as much of a drain on their man power. The Japanese High Command didn't really want Nomonhan. What would have happened if they would have turned the full of their strength in an attack on the Soviets? What would have happened if they would have had an entire army instead of a division? I think that the Japanese could have taken out the Soviets in this situation.

[notyoueither]

Yes. And if the Soviets had been fighting alone, such considerations of Hitler's lack of focus would have been that much less relevant.

[David Floyd]

My guess is that Japanese tactics would have changed as a result of initial Nazi-Soviet fighting.

On what do you base this?

Plus, if the Japs weren't fighting the U.S., they wouldn't have had nearly as much of a drain on their man power.

True, but most of the drain was to China.

The Japanese High Command didn't really want Nomonhan.

They didn't want a defeat, but they certainly wanted Russia - before Pearl Harbor, the IJA really wanted another crack at Siberia.

What would have happened if they would have turned the full of their strength in an attack on the Soviets?

The Soviets would have drawn them into Siberia, stretched them out, and then cut them off with their armor. Even the T-26, which was a piece of ****, was still better than anything the Japanese played around with.

What would have happened if they would have had an entire army instead of a division? I think that the Japanese could have taken out the Soviets in this situation.

Again, what are you basing this on? Historical evidence points the other way.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by nationalist
If the U.S. was not involved in WW2, the Japanese would have been free to attack the U.S.S.R. form the East. The Soviets would have been crushed between two superior forces. A war between the Nazis and Soviets would have been much closer, especially if the Nazis had managed to defeat the Brits before attacking. The Nazis had the peoples and industry of Western Europe under their control. Given an oppurtunity to truly marshal their potential powers, I think that the Nazis would have prevailed over the Soviets. Then it would have been America's turn to be crushed, whether it wanted to fight or not. Hitler always envisioned the final struggle to be between the U.S. and Germany for the mastery of the world.

The Japanese didn't want to attack the SU. It wasn't part of their ideas for expansion, which involved nabbing the entire Pacific Ocean for themselves. They were rightly scared of the Soviets who, unlike all the other Allies save Australia+NZ had to operate from naval bases and with severely stretched supply lines.

There was nothing for the Japanese in the SU. All they wanted was security along that frontier, which the Soviets were happy to provide.

[David Floyd]

The Japanese didn't want to attack the SU.

Actually many elements in the Army definitely wanted a piece of the SU. They lost face at Nomonhan.

[KrazyHorse]

a) They would have been thoroughly ****ed if they attempted it.

b) The Japanese had no chance against the SU on the SU's soil, and they knew it. Whatever the bluster, they knew it.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by David Floyd

On what do you base this?

I think if they would have coordinated an attack after the Nazis had begun theirs, the Japanese could have learned from Nazi mistakes. They also would have had more of an oppurtunity to update their technology.

Again, what are you basing this on? Historical evidence points the other way.

I'm just basing this on the fact that they would have had a larger number of people concentrated on attacking an enemy who was already at war with another enemy. Maybe the Soviets could have stretched the Japs out in Siberia, but would the effort have cost the Soviets enough to ensure Nazi victory in the west? How much of their forces could the Soviets have diverted if Japan was fully mobolized to invade them from the east? That is what I am referring to when I write about having armies instead of divisions.

[David Floyd]

Well, that's what I'm trying to tell notyoueither.

[KrazyHorse]

I know. And I've actually stated that the Americans, IMO, made the difference (okay, the only real contribution) in the Pacific campaign. Without them, China, Korea, SE Asia etc. would have been stuck with the Japanese as overlords for quite a while...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, that's what I'm trying to tell notyoueither.

I'm not saying anything about the Japanese. They were not relevant in the equation. Way too much of a wild if chase.

[David Floyd]

Certainly - even in 1944, the Japanese were making advances in areas of China. The Chinese really had no ability to stop the Japanese militarily.

[Ned]

Jimmytrick, Just let me say that I agree with your post. The world is the way it is today largely due to America. To the greatest extent, we were acting selflessly. We really didn't have to get involved in either WWI or WWII. Nor did we have to leave our troops in Europe to defend against the USSR. The threat in all three cases was against France and the UK, or in the case of WWII, China. No one was threatening the United States.

SD, you said we got involved in WWII because it was in our interests. However, prior to Pearl Harbor, there was a lot of debate in the US about whether or not we should get involved. Many did not see that American interests were clearly at stake.

So, SG, or anyone else, what American interests were at stake?

[GeneralTacticus]

Certainly - even in 1944, the Japanese were making advances in areas of China. The Chinese really had no ability to stop the Japanese militarily.

They might have, actually. The only thing getting in the way was the absolute idiocy of Chiang Kai-Shek.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
So, SG, or anyone else, what American interests were at stake?

The interest of defeating an enemy who threatened the US, and had taken action against the US.

It would not have been in Americas interest to have a Fascist Europe and Asia.

Incidentally I think France and Britain acted out of self-interest. I'm under no illusions of "saving democracy", neither should anyone else be.

If the Germans had been solely intent on the USSR and if the USSR had not received the aid they did, there is no question that either Moscow would have fallen in 1941 or the Volga line lost in 1942. Either case would have meant the end for the ability of the Soviets to ever 'win' the war by themselves

So if the Western Allies had given less help to the USSR then Eastern Europe would never have fallen under Soviet domination?