Big WW2 Question: Who Really Won It?

I have heard the historian Andrew Roberts say the key things the western powers supplied to the Soviet Union was clothing things like socks. Rather than any war fighting material.

 

Correct.

 

I really dont know where you get your history, but controlling 9/10 of Stalingrad meant nothing. The Germans had no real way to get over the Volga river, and the Russians were shelling the crap out of them the whole time. The Russians knew as soon as the winter freeze set in they could resupply their units at an unprecedented rate, and that is exactly what happened.

 

There has been a lot of debate on this subject and if it was Stalins grand plan he never wrote it down anywhere we can find. In support of the theory is the fact that as the Soviet army was being reorganized and upgraded the best units were being assembled in Stalingrad. There is evidence of this in the comparatively slow advance the German army group reported compared to the other's moving for example toward Moscow

 

The Soviets, Americans and the British all had inferior tanks to the German tanks. The T34 was a big improvement and the production basically began in 1941 but the production was interrupted for nearly a year as the factories were relocated to the Urals from Stalingrad. The delivery of the US Sherman's increased the numbers of Soviet tanks and was part of what helped them stave off the Germans in Stalingrad.

 

While the U.S. did provide some pretty significant supplies to the Russians in terms of lend lease, I don't think it was decisive alone. I think the one million plus Axis soldiers tied up in Africa, Italy, France, Belgium etc. by the allies (not just the U.S.) and the air war over Europe was much more decisive. I say the word decisive because the argument about "who won the war" is rather silly. Think of it in terms of a glass of water. The Russians filled the glass 3/4th full of water while the Allies added another 1/3 that spilled over the top (i.e. won the war). That doesn't mean that Russia's 3/4th (or whatever agreed upon ratio) wasn't important, it just means it wasn't decisive.

I also think that once the U.S. entered the War Germany was toast. People are enamored by Blitzkrieg and maneuver warfare, but once the allies tactics and equipment caught up to Germany it became an economic grind. Something that Germany simply couldn't keep up with. Had the war continued into 1946 and 1947 the U.S. would have become fully mobilized and brought even more troops and equipment to bear. The U.S. had almost twice the population of Germany and about 85% of the Soviet Union. It had barely been bloodied by the war and actually curved back its war production months before the end of the war. There were millions of U.S. troops waiting to poor into Europe. Once the war in the Japan was over it could have added even more material and troops to the conflict. The point is, that the war was over before the U.S. could even really reach its full potential. The Soviets were unquestionably the ones who bloodied the Germans the most, but that doesn't mean that they were the only country who could (don't forget Britain other allies as well).

By 1944 the U.S. alone was producing more than 1.5 times what all of the axis powers combined were producing. That's 3 times more than Germany, 4 times more than the Soviet Union and Britain, and almost 7 times more than Japan.

 

Yes but talk to a former Soviet citizen educated in the Soviet school system and they would tell you they hardly knew that anybody was fighting in the war except the Soviets. They have little to no idea that there was a Normandy invasion and an Italian invasion or a war in Africa. They have no idea of how that contributed to the total war effort in bringing down Germany. They also had no idea that the British and American forces were just as close to Berlin in the end.

They are brain washed.

 

Just the tank nerd in me arguing- in general I agree with your thesis that American Lend Lease was critical to the Soviets- I just disagree with where it mattered.

That being said- German tanks at the beginning of the invasion of Russia were Mark III's with 37 mm and 50 mm cannon and Mark IV with short 75 mm cannon.

In most aspects- they were inferior to both the T-34 and the KV-1.

The Soviets outnumbered the Soviet tanks by about 3 to 1- having 16,000 tanks and AFV- of which roughly 1,000 were T-34 or KV-1.

The Germans mostly were far more experienced tankers - and combined arms forces than the Russians were.

From what I could find, looks like about 1,100 T-34's were manufactured in 1941. Germany invaded the Soviet Union with only about 3,000 tanks.

I went and looked and I can't find any reference to Shermans being in action before 1943 or being involved with the battle of Stalingrad- if you have information on that, I would love to read it.

 

We in Britain are just as "brainwashed" with Dunkirk and The Battle of Britain being great victories and hardly a mention of Singapore or Hong Kong. The sinking of HMS Hood is talked about as a great loss of the great and powerful ship. Mainly we are taught about how the war effected domestic British life in London and how the Americans basically won the war, with little or no mention of the Empire. Also Churchill is painted as the greatest leader in history and Chamberlain a fool. Mainly though I was taught about the Romans, how bad Henry the 8th was, slavery being a evil of empire and how bad WW1 was from the land war point of view. So now I have no interest at all in the Romans, I think Henry the 8th is the best monarch in the post Norman history of Britain, I think slavery was trade and that WW1 was the best British victory ever.

Americans are just as "brainwashed", is there any mention of the importance of the French in your teachings at school? Or the Burning Washington?

 

No you are not as brainwashed as the Soviets. You are entirely aware who fought the Nazis and all contributions. You are educated in a system that teaches all history. The various levels of importance of specific battles is not the same as complete omission of giant facts.

We in America are completely taught of the burning of Washington and the good and bad done by both sides in the American Revolution and the war of 1812. Sure the reasons and emphasis will vary but not the facts of who fought who and how.

 

I was basically unaware of the commonwealth in WW2 and WW1. There wasn't any mention of the Royal Navy at any point dispite it being the most important institution in history. I wouldn't know anything about the Russian education system.

Well that is one mistake already it was the 13 colonies war of independence, not the American Revolution. Hahaha. I guess American history is rather short so you can go into things in more detail. It is a shame you seem to have such a disinterestested population and Americans in the Media are meant to be stupid.

 

Sure but I know you teach it as the colonial war of independence but really that is a matter of perspective, it is not the complete omission of facts.

Not clear on exactly your point about the disinterested population. Sure there are a lot of people completely disinterested in world politics and history. I am quite sure this is so to some extent in all countries but a greater extent here because we are well, isolated by distance from Europe.

Yes Americans are portrayed as stupid in many films and such. Its a stereotype.

 

This phony "Greatest Generation" lets their sons get slaughtered in Vietnam while the children of the rich didn't have to fight. They also let the rich get away with every other kind of betrayal of the American people. As the GG weaseled out of the front lines and watched others die fighting fascism, they also refused to stop economic fascism and Class Supremacy when the plutocrats and their worthless spawn took over here after World War Two. Also the hypocritical bootlickers who excuse Chickenhawks made up the name "Greatest Generation."

Their fathers were the real Greatest Generation. They forced Joe Kennedy to tell his sons that the American people would never vote for some Heirhead who used his Daddy's influence to get out of the fighting. They also booed a national sports hero like Joe Dimaggio for fixing it so he wouldn't get drafted for a long time, forcing him to join up like we should have lined the preppies up against the wall. But the GG had no problem with the fact that practically all the big tough pro athlete sissies bribed their way into units of the Reserve, which the traitors in the Pentagon had perverted into being a hideout for unpatriotic rich cowards. The penalty for treason is death, but under the GG it became no penalty at all as long as the draftdodgers didn't join anti-war protests like Clinton did.

- - - Updated - - -

This phony "Greatest Generation" lets their sons get slaughtered in Vietnam while the children of the rich didn't have to fight. They also let the rich get away with every other kind of betrayal of the American people. As the GG weaseled out of the front lines and watched others die fighting fascism, they also refused to stop economic fascism and Class Supremacy when the plutocrats and their worthless spawn took over here after World War Two. Also the hypocritical bootlickers who excuse Chickenhawks made up the name "Greatest Generation."

Their fathers were the real Greatest Generation. They forced Joe Kennedy to tell his sons that the American people would never vote for some Heirhead who used his Daddy's influence to get out of the fighting. They also booed a national sports hero like Joe Dimaggio for fixing it so he wouldn't get drafted for a long time, forcing him to join up like we should have lined the preppies up against the wall. But the GG had no problem with the fact that practically all the big tough pro athlete sissies bribed their way into units of the Reserve, which the traitors in the Pentagon had perverted into being a hideout for unpatriotic rich cowards. The penalty for treason is death, but under the GG it became no penalty at all as long as the draftdodgers didn't join anti-war protests like Clinton did.

 

All Hitler's "successes" in Russia were purposely designed by Stalin to get Hitler to settle into the trap. Underestimating the brilliant deceits of Stalin is why we lost Eastern Europe to Communism.

 

Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was initially successful but it was impossible to penetrate deep into Siberia and subjugate Russia in its entirety without coordinated Japanese attack. Hitler urged Japan to take part in the attack in 1941 but the idea of a Japanese attack on Siberia was opposed by the military. The battle of Khalkhin-Gol in 1939 changed the course of history because there were around 45,000 Japanese total casualties, compared with around 9,000 on the Soviet side, and it resulted in the Japanese decision to expand southwards to avoid challenging the Soviets.

 

That is a complete crock. Stalin was completely and utterly unprepared for the invasion. He had prior to the invasion devastated his military leaders. The Army was without leadership.

The standing orders of Stalin for the army was to hold static lines. This indicated no attempt to have controlled withdrawals. Instead the Soviet army was decimated during the invasion. Stalin actually did not believe the initial reports of the German invasion. This is a well documented fact..

 

It was only Hilter's wondering mind that saved them. He changed the strategy and goals of the invasion 2-3 times. The Soviets strategy stayed the same hold the lines, in the end as is normally the case strategy defeats tactics.

 

They were/are not brain washed. They learn the history that is important to them. It is not even a percular situation. British kids are taught Monty won the war, and Paton hung onto his coat tails. American kids are taught Paton won the war and Monty was a second rater. Australian kids are taught the defense of Tobruk and the battle of Kokoda where the pivotal events in the winning of the war in Europe and the Pacific

 

There has been a persistent rumor the Germans were not even aware of what happened at Khalkhin-Gol

 

The English, Americans and Australians are all taught all aspects of the war. We are taught what the British, American, Australian and Soviet military did to win the war. Really I do not think you understand about what is completely omitted from the Soviet teaching of history.

 

Indeed. Hitler was a lousy military leader. His brash initial invasions of Poland and France were successful because of his attack, attack, attack. He was no tactician and had no idea of what a tactical retreat was. If he was not such a military moron they would have actually gone much further and lasted much longer. He was the reason why they did not put money into the production of the jet fighter. The fighter alone would have done much to tip things in Germany's favor. Then he insisted the jet be made a ground support bomber instead of a fighter. Another big mistake. He made mistake after mistake after mistake. Had he not made these series of lunatic decisions the war would have lasted longer and they may too have been able to produce the nuclear bomb.

Thank goodness he was such a lousy military leader. If not who knows what would have happened?

 

The Germans came very close to breaking not only the Soviet Union but also Britain. The taking of Norway and Denmark was a massive blow of Britain, a lot is talked about the Channel but the North Sea is just as important to control. The German knew this so they kept a large number of troops their. This also meant the Germans could attack British ports and shipbuilding in the North of England and Scotland where the bulk of the British raw materials and ship building was. The Germans however never had what to took to defeat the RAF.

The German army was massively better than the Soviet army, but they looked at the Soviet Union from a tactical point of view if we win the battles we win the war, rather than what the Soviets needed to fight the war. Hilter was a moron no doubt, my favourite historian Andrew Roberts a made a number of books about him and WW2. Even in the plan the General staff made up they were no going to attack the Soviet oil fields or try and get people to join them against the Soviets like the Ukrainians. It was all based on breaking through the Soviet lines and heading straight for major cities, then destroying the Soviet armies after. I really think Hilter was right in the first place to try and destroy the Soviet army then head for major cities. Then he decided to change and destroy the Soviet economy which hadn't been planned for at all, this wasted time and energy they German army and air force didn't have to burn.

They should have put Von Manstein in charge from the very start and just let him run the whole operation, what he did to hold the German line after Stalingrad was nothing short of remarkable.

 

Germany wasn't close to the bomb. The main German theorist went down a wrong avenue. Anti-Semitism also pretty much stamped out the main scientific hub for nuclear research in Germany/continental Europe.

 

And again Hitler's stupidity came into play with the bombing of London. If he had stuck to the Luftwaffe plan to bomb the airfields and the radar installations they could have indeed pulled off the invasion of Britain. The Germans had knocked out a portion of the radar installations and had crippled fighter airfield to an extent that if it had continued the Germans could have controlled the airspace. Instead in a typical rage decision, Hitler bombed the city instead as revenge for British bombings in Germany. No doubt an actual invasion would have instantly brought the USA into the battle but no doubt it would have been a day late and a dollar short. Again Hitler blew it as an Executive General, overruling his military leaders.

- - - Updated - - -

True but they did have a complete working knowledge of a nuclear reaction. Given another year things could have been very different.

 

While its anecdotal, I placed this very question to one of my history professors, a well published expert in European history (with an emphasis on scientific/cultural history), and he said quite decisively that Germany was no real threat to develop a nuclear weapon. He said they'd turned away from the right direction earlier in the war and weren't making any sort of breakthrough by 1945. They had yet to make a nuclear reactor, were disorganized, and had no comprehensive plan to develop a weapon. A German scientist by the name of Heisenberg led German efforts and he made some critical errors, including vastly overestimating the amount of uranium needed for a bomb. After the war the allies were surprised at how far away the Germans actually were from producing a weapon.