What County Was Most Responsible For The Defeat Of Germany In WW2?

[KG_Panzerschreck]

The answer to this question may not be as obvious as you might think. Take into consideration the following -

Russia - Russia took the brunt of the German's attention thru WW2 once they were involved. They enabled the other Allies to build up a force to hit the Germans on a second front in Europe while they fought for their very lives. Remember that 8 out of 10 German soldiers killed in WW2 were killed on the Eastern Front.

England - The English defeated the Germans in the battle of Brittan and kept the from launching operation sea lion. The Brits held on by themselves before America and Russia joined the Allied side. If England would of went down in the battle of brittian and then was overrun in operation sea lion, the Germans could of focused their entire military on Russia and may have taken Moscow in the first year that they invaded, knocking out the Russians before the Americans could influence anything in Europe. Also the Americans may of Focused entirely on Japan and considered Europe something to be delt with later, or a forgone conclusion.

America - We all know what happened and what a huge aid the USA was to its allies. Not only in war material and production capability, but its location so far from its opponents allmost assured that they would be unmollested as far as bombing campaigns and invasion threats. Another factor was the enormous amount of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that could be and was raised and used to liberate the Pacific and Europe.

Other - Convince us that another country was more responsible than these other options. Good luck!

[KG_Jag]

I go with the good old USA.

While the other two may have stopped Germany from winning, only the entry of the United States into the war caused the ultimate defeat of Germany. Without the US, there would not have been the decisive victory in North Africa, at least not when it occurred. There would have been no Sicily, Italy or cross-channel invasion, much less one in southern France. US air power and naval assets were also critical. With some help from others, the US develped the atomic bomb, which was designed for use against the Germans. Perhaps most important the arms, transportation and material that the US sent to the other two was absolutely vital to their repelling Hitler and his boys.

Oh by the way, the US bore the brunt of the war in the Pacific.

[KG_Koz]

Naah.

The Soviet Union had already defeated Germany by the Winter of 1942. The US provided incredible support to the Soviets in terms of supplies/equipment, but it was the Soviets who beat the German war machine.

Many people believe that the only reason that the Western Allies invaded N. Africa was to stop Stalin's complaining about how the Soviets were singlehandedly fighting the Germans. Many people also believe that the underlying push to invade France was to keep the Soviets from overrunning all of Europe.

There may not be truth to these theories, but there can be no denying that Germany's best efforts were directed East. Even if Normandy had never occurred, the only way that Germany could have defeated the Soviets after 1942 would have been for Hitler and his rediculous military ideas/policies/fantasies to be internally overthrown.

[Bulldog]

I agree with koz on this one the Soviets had Germany... the US just aided them in this defeat...

however I am not saying the US didn't do much of anything by all means, the US did thier part, but I am just saying that the US helped more then led it back on to what koz said...

[KG_Swampfox]

I stand behind Jim here, nothing could have kept the russians out of berlin
Well other than nuclear weapons..........

[KG_ThorsHammer]

Can Adolf be counted as a country?:P

[KG_AGCent]

I voted Russa but now that I think aboyut it, Thor is on to something... subtract the dude with the bad 'stache and maybe we have facism from sea to shining sea...

[KG_Jag]

Actually his mustache was about the best thing about him.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

The next Poll i do ill make sure im more specific. I should of either said "What Allied country..." or "Germany itself isnt an option". Thats what i get for assuming that no one would pick Germany. Lesson learned. :withstupi

[KG_Soldier]

I'd say Germany, not just Hitler. It's easy to blame Hitler, but the German General Staff made its fair share of mistakes -- albiet with the help (or lack thereof) of Adolph.

[KG_SSpoom]

My "Other" was with Germany in mind.
Could have stopped at Czechoslovakia
and gotten clean away with some gains.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

I picked America. I feel that without the lend lease aspect of the relationship with Russia, Russia would of been in a terrible position. Im not just talking about the obvious weapons and ammo, but other items that were just as, if not more important. IMHO the 3 most important lend lease items sent to Russia were the following -

1. Weather proof telephone/radio lines. This is something the Russians just couldnt manufacture to any degree of quality and consistancy. Very vital to the next item on the list.

2. Radios/Field Phones. Alot of people dont realize what an impact radios/field phones had on the Russian armed forces from the mid to late war period. After recieving and dispersing these items to enough units by the mid war years, the Russians were light years ahead of where they were at the beginning of the war when they basicly had no effective communications below the divisional and regimental HQ level. By the end of the war alot of armored units acually got to where they had radios in the individual tanks themselves, something that never would of happened without good ole Uncle Sam.

3. Food. To be more specific canned food that could doled out to individual soldiers, especially canned meat. As big of a country that Russia is, it just couldnt give its soldiers the proper amounts of food to eat. With the exceptions of special units and gaurds divisions, most Russian army units were constantly on the verge of starvation through out most of the war. Its not too hard to imagine what would of happened if America had not supplied the Russians with so much food.

Besides the lend lease aspect and its huge industrial capacity, America was the dominant power once it joined the war. I belive half the troops that were drafted during the war never left the USA. The impact of all those soldiers who did leave the country assured that Germany, Italy and Japan were finished. The war ended for Japan the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and ended for Germany the day they declared war on America, it was all just a matter of where, when and how. Its truely amazing that we were able to fight Japan for the most part singlehandedly while being able to do the things in Africa, the Mediterranian and Europe that we did.

[Full Monty]

Has to be Britain!

Why?, I hear you all cry! Simple, I reply.

Following the fall of France in 1940 the rational course for the British was to reach an accomodation with the Nazis, something Hitler was prepared to offer very generous terms to secure. But, as we all know, they didn't. But let's imagine what would have happened if they had made peace. Firstly, the Balkan Campaign of 1941 would have been a walkover, if it had happened at all. Secondly, Hitler could concentrate the Wehrmacht against the USSR. Thirdly, the aid from Britain, small though it was, would not have been sent east. Fourthly, no Lend-Lease for the USSR. Given that the Germans came close to defeating the USSR in the historical 'Barbarossa' it's quite possible that the combination of the last three might have tipped the scales decisively in favour of the Wehrmacht.

There is one more point to consider. In 1940, British scientists were at the forefront of research into atomic weapons. Had this fallen into German hands instead of being used to further US development it's entirely possible that they would have developed the Bomb first.

[Full Monty]

Incidentally, the poll is flawed. 'England' is not a country, it should read 'Great Britain' or 'United Kingdom':bigchainsaw:

[KG_Soldier]

Another example of the English's propensity to overblow their importance in world matters. Agreed, "England's" acceptance of peace with Germany in '39 or '40 would have greatly helped the Germans in a moral as well as a material and technological way. However, that possibility wasn't really ever seriously considered by (as we Americans say) "England" (remember, it was "England" and France which declared war on Germany, not vice-versa). Makes me wonder if joining with Germany would have been the right decision. Would Europe be better off today if Germany and England had defeated Stalin? Would Hitler have been followed by a more moderate leader, hence more moderate policy. How much influence would "England" have put on Hitler to not exterminate the Jews (or would they have supported it)? If Ifs are counted, maybe. As to the way it occured, no way "England" is first, at best fourth: Germany, Russia, U.S.A., "England."

[KG_Soldier]

I've always wondered why "England" and France didn't declare war on the Soviet Union after they joined Germany in taking over Poland in '39? What is different about Russia's invasion than that of Germany's?

[Full Monty]

Another example of the English's propensity to overblow their importance in world matters. Agreed, "England's" acceptance of peace with Germany in '39 or '40 would have greatly helped the Germans in a moral as well as a material and technological way. However, that possibility wasn't really ever seriously considered by (as we Americans say) "England" (remember, it was "England" and France which declared war on Germany, not vice-versa). Makes me wonder if joining with Germany would have been the right decision. Would Europe be better off today if Germany and England had defeated Stalin? Would Hitler have been followed by a more moderate leader, hence more moderate policy. How much influence would "England" have put on Hitler to not exterminate the Jews (or would they have supported it)? If Ifs are counted, maybe. As to the way it occured, no way "England" is first, at best fourth: Germany, Russia, U.S.A., "England."

Stirrer!:grenade:

However, that possibility wasn't really ever seriously considered

Oh it was!

[KG_Cooper]

Naah.

The Soviet Union had already defeated Germany by the Winter of 1942. The US provided incredible support to the Soviets in terms of supplies/equipment, but it was the Soviets who beat the German war machine.

I do not think this is correct - not only did Lend Lease support the Soviets but others as well which tipped the balance in the favor of the Soviets and GB (N. Africa...)

If we did not help the Germans would have be able to achive a stalemant in the east and with no 2nd front in the ETO or MTO the Germans would have had sufficent military power to do this.

Please do not minimize the contribution we (USA) made in WW2 - our bombing of the Reich from 43-44 on allowed us to destroy their oil production and other vital industries which in turn provided the Soviets the keys to victory in the East.

[KG_Soldier]

So Monty, you purport there was sufficient backing of accepting peace with Germany in '40 to negate Churchill's authority? Or do you suggest Churchill in fact considered this option seriously? Must I go into his famous "We will never surrender...."

Regards,
Stirrer -- I like that -- KG_Stirrer -- many will agree it fits well!

[Full Monty]

So Monty, you purport there was sufficient backing of accepting peace with Germany in '40 to negate Churchill's authority? Or do you suggest Churchill in fact considered this option seriously? Must I go into his famous "We will never surrender...."

Apparently the War Cabinet was split 50/50 on the issue in the immediate aftermath of Dunkirk. Only Churchill's casting vote carried the day! That it was discussed at all is significant imho.


Regards,
Stirrer -- I like that -- KG_Stirrer -- many will agree it fits well!

You must have found your niche in life.:biggrin:

[KG_Cloghaun]

I voted for America ofcourse.

Without American backing (Detroit in particular), Great Britain would've agreed to a negotiated peace by the end of 42'.

Think of everything America did to make the Russians successful. We carried two fronts, Italy & France. We led the strategic bombing campaign over Germany (in daylight I might add) which crippled their factories & oil production. Most of all we initiated the Lend-Lease program.

If Germany only had Russia to deal with during WW2, I think they could've overcome their initial mistakes & defeated Russia.

Another way of looking at this question is to simply ask which country would win against the other?

Imagine Nimitz rolling into the Black Sea with the 5th fleet to land the 4th,5th & 6th Marine Divisions at Sevastopol.

[KG_Koz]

I dont know Frank. I have a feeling that the 4th, 5th and 6th Marine divisions would have had their hands full.

I still say that Germany's peak was in Summer of 42. BEFORE the US entered the war. Before the 2nd Front. Before the bombing.

G. Britain would never have had the stomach to accept the kind of casualties that the Russians endured. I do not think that the US could have accepted the casualty counts. I think that both countries would have sued for peace first.

The best German units were on the E. Front, most German casualties were on the E. Front. Russian casualties made the W. Allies casualties seem insignificant. The Russians turned back the Germans and their axis allies with overwhelming #'s of tanks (mostly Russian designed), Sturmoviks and men.

It was "team" effort, but the Soviets pulled harder than anyone else. They absorbed the best that the Germans had to give and responded with a huge victory at Stalingrad. They were fighting for their lives in a war where no quarter was spared.

[KG_Jag]

Jim with such a closely run things as events were in the battle in front of Moscow and then on the southern steppes in 1942, it is the lend lease to UK and USSR, and the other American help of the bankrupt UK to stay in the war at all that was the difference. Because of the US, the Allies were able to take the offensive in North Africa, while holding Malta, that was all made possible by the US.

As Frank suggested, the UK would have been out of the War in 1940 or 1941 without US economic and material support. With the UK gone (and very likely not even in Greece in 1941), I submit that Hitler could have taken the USSR in 1941.

[KG_Cloghaun]

The US would never have had to accept those kinds of losses because they weren't a bunch of dumbasses like the Soviets.

You don't think the 5th fleet could've turned Sevastopol into a parking lot? Please Jim, open a book & look at the TOE of the 5th fleet. Had their hands full yes- full of Vodka waiting for Bob Hope to show up for a few rounds of golf.

It was a "team" effort alright. The Russian army was one of the worst organized, worst trained armies of the world in 1941, & without an officer corps. The Russians absorbed more because they could afford to based on the unending supply on manpower they could feed into the meatgrinder. The only war it won was a war of attrition.

[Full Monty]

Ignoring Cloghaun's 'Cold War' vintage style comments, the USSR was the only major Allied power that could accept the human cost of defeating Germany. Not because of the vastness of the population but because of the nature of the government. Modern democracies quickly tire of war if casualties mount up, no matter how noble the cause. More authoritarian regimes can exert more control over the media quelling doubts and issuing powerful propaganda images whilst playing up enemy casualties and downplaying their own.

Regarding aid, it wasn't until mid-1941 that the UK started receiving aid of any significance from the US and for the USSR it was very late in 1942.

[KG_Cloghaun]

Well, you can call them an "Authoritarian Regime" & I'll call them "dumbasses". And because of the nature of these "dumbasses", the vastness of their population was too much for the German war machine, thus they won their war of attrition.

My other point was that the US military didn't take the losses the Soviets did because they were an overall better fighting force and placed more of a premium on human life.

[KG_ThorsHammer]

Although Britiain and the US played their part (Britain in the beginning and the US later), it has to be Russia. 9 out of 10 Germans fell on the Russian front.
Lend lease, as important as it was, provided only a fraction of the material the Russians would produce on their own, with the biggest help being the large number of trucks sent over. Had the Germans never invaded Russia, or had they invaded but quickly won, I dont think even a US/British alliance could have defeated Germany/Japan/Italy. With the Russians tying down the bulk of German forces for the remainder of the war, Britain was spared and the US had time to get into the fray. Of course if Canada was a choice, everyone would have picked it I'm sure. We took the continent virtually by ourselves!:aetsch:

[KG_Cloghaun]

Had the Germans never invaded Russia, or had they invaded but quickly won, I dont think even a US/British alliance could have defeated Germany/Japan/Italy.

Blasphemer! Repent! Good thing for you Lent is right around the corner.


Of course if Canada was a choice, everyone would have picked it I'm sure.
Don't sell your country short, Dave. They did a Hell of a job in the Battle of the Atlantic & never get the credit they deserve for it.

[KG_ThorsHammer]

yeah I know, I just didnt think you would so I didnt mention that lol.

[Full Monty]

Well, you can call them an "Authoritarian Regime" & I'll call them "dumbasses". And because of the nature of these "dumbasses", the vastness of their population was too much for the German war machine, thus they won their war of attrition.


They didn't fight a 'war of attrition' though. Take the first year of the war out (where the Red Army was nearly destroyed for all sorts of reasons) and the military losses on both sides are not disproportionate. If they had fought the kind of war you believe they did they would have run out of soldiers long before they reached Berlin.

My other point was that the US military didn't take the losses the Soviets did because they were an overall better fighting force and placed more of a premium on human life.

They didn't take the losses because they never fought the main body of the German Army. Be thankful that the Soviets did.

[KG_Soldier]

I agree Monty. I also think that if the Russians had had a mind to, they'd have run both the U.S. and "England" back to the channel, despite Patton's blustering; that is, if we didn't get the bomb first. At the end of the war in Europe, Russia's Army was almost as dominant as America's is now.

However, you still haven't addressed "England's" reasoning for declaring war on Germany but not Russia after both invaded Poland in '39. Am I wrong, or did the Brits and French have a mutual defense treaty that guaranteed Poland's borders against any attacker? Or was it just guaranteed against German invasion?

KG_Stirrer :)

[Full Monty]

However, you still haven't addressed "England's" reasoning for declaring war on Germany but not Russia after both invaded Poland in '39. Am I wrong, or did the Brits and French have a mutual defense treaty that guaranteed Poland's borders against any attacker? Or was it just guaranteed against German invasion?

KG_Stirrer :)

To clarify Britain's obligations to Poland, it was Polands 'sovereignty' that was guaranteed and only against an attack by a 'European' power. Since the USSR was not considered to be a European power, there was no obligation to decalre war on them too (Norman Davies - 'Rising '44' - p.30). Shabby I know but there it is.

[KG_Swampfox]

Shabby is one word for it, naturally the Poles might think it clucks of something else........... ;)

[KG_Cloghaun]

They didn't fight a 'war of attrition' though. Take the first year of the war out (where the Red Army was nearly destroyed for all sorts of reasons) and the military losses on both sides are not disproportionate. If they had fought the kind of war you believe they did they would have run out of soldiers long before they reached Berlin.

The Germans lost approx. 4 million soldiers total (that's in all theatres combined). The Soviets lost approx. between 12-15 million soldiers to Krupp steel. Do the math. A war of attrition accounts for more than just manpower alone, but material as well. 60 years later, Russian construction companies are still excavating the rusted hulks of destroyed Russian AFV's & American built trucks they were too stupid to fix and just left on the side of the road to rot. (<-more vintage cold war comments).

The Russian Army outnumbered the German Army in men & material in almost every single engagment of the war. Or after initial parity, were able to sustain a continual supply of reinforcements.

They didn't take the losses because they never fought the main body of the German Army. Be thankful that the Soviets did.

Could the Soviets have pulled off the Invasion of Normandy in 1944? I think not. Ya, D-Day was a cake walk. I suppose the Battle of the Bulge was a hiccup as well.

I also think that if the Russians had had a mind to, they'd have run both the U.S. and "England" back to the channel, despite Patton's blustering

Where do you get that idea? The Russian Army was in no shape to tackle the US in 45'. We were just hitting our stride. We had the biggest, most devestating Air Force in the world. The Pershing just started rolling out of the factories. Our artillery fire-control was the best of any army's. Come on Soldier..

[Full Monty]

The Germans lost approx. 4 million soldiers total (that's in all theatres combined). The Soviets lost approx. between 12-15 million soldiers to Krupp steel. Do the math. A war of attrition accounts for more than just manpower alone, but material as well. 60 years later, Russian construction companies are still excavating the rusted hulks of destroyed Russian AFV's & American built trucks they were too stupid to fix and just left on the side of the road to rot. (<-more vintage cold war comments).

You're right, that is VERY 'Cold War'.

I don't know where you get your figures from but the current best estimate is that the Red Army lost around 7 million dead. (Richard Overy - 'Russia's War' - p.288)

The Russian Army outnumbered the German Army in men & material in almost every single engagment of the war. Or after initial parity, were able to sustain a continual supply of reinforcements.

I'd like to see more information on that.

[KG_Jag]

Monty--while your arguments might support the case for selecting the USSR, it is ironic that they simultaneously deal severe damage to your argument for the UK.

[KG_Cloghaun]

I did state that my numbers were approx. Here are 19 different sources. (Hope that's enough). The median number being somewhere in the middle of both our estimates.

source-
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm

Compton's: 6,750,000
Keegan: 7,000,000
Small & Singer: 7,500,000
Eckhardt: 7,500,000
Davies: 8,000,000 to 9,000,000
Barbarossa, the Axis and the Allies, by John Erickson and David Dilks
KIA, Died of wounds, Accidents, Suicides: 6,885,1000 [sic]
Dead and Missing: 8,668,400
Mentions and dismisses other estimates of 23M and 26.4M.
Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997); also :
KIA, DoW, etc.: 6,885,100
Total Dead: 8,668,400
Mazower: 3M POWs through starvation + 6.5M in battle = 9.5M
Urlanis: 10,000,000
Volkogonov: 10,000,000
Ellis: 11,000,000
Britannica: 11,000,000
Encarta: 13,000,000
Kinder: 13,600,000
Wallechinsky: 13,600,000
HarperCollins: 14,500,000
30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 22M
Steven Shabad
Sokolov's new calculations: 26.4M
Gorbachev's official est.: 8,668,000 Red Army dead
MEDIAN: 10 Million

However, by the same token, lets look at 11 different sources on German losses. Again, mind you, these are "all incompassing" losses, covering every front the Germans fought on.


Germany

Military:
HarperCollins: 2,850,000
Ellis: 3,250,000
Compton's: 3,250,000
Info. Please: 3,250,000 (all causes)
Clodfelter: 3,250,000 d. incl...
2,850,000 KIA
Britannica: 3,500,000 (incl. 1M missing. Not incl.: 250,000 dead of natural causes, suicide and execution)
Small & Singer: 3,500,000
Encarta: 3,500,000
Keegan: 4,000,000
Kinder: 4,000,000
Urlanis: 4,500,000
Eckhardt: 4,750,000
MEDIAN: 3.5MWhen one looks at the Soviet median number of 10 million military losses vs the German median number of 3.5 million (on all fronts), this data supports the obvious.

Take the first year of the war out (where the Red Army was nearly destroyed for all sorts of reasons) and the military losses on both sides are not disproportionate.

Aside from losses in infantry, material losses were also severely disproportionate throughout the war.

One example would be Operation Bagration. June 28th-29th, 1944, north of Minsk, near the Krupki Rail Station. 29 Tiger I's of the sPzAbt.505 attempted to block the 3rd Guards Tank Corps of the 3rd Byelorussian Front. All 29 Tiger's were lost in combat/mechanical failure over the two days, but not before destroying 128 Soviet tanks. It may not seem like alot, but when you're facing down several hundred, what do you expect.

[KG_Soldier]

My comment on the Soviet Union's ability to drive us back to the channel if they wished bases itself on the supply problems we had fighting the Germans. The Soviet Army outnumbered us at least 3 to 1 in tanks (better tanks too). Just imagine if the Germans had outnumbered us in tanks! The Red Air Force was bigger, of course not better, than than ours and would have given us a run for our money, at least in ground support. All out war between the Soviets and the Allies in '45 would have been a bloodbath, and we were still deeply involved against the Japanese. We would have surely seen if "Western Democracies" could stand up to massive casualties. We already know the Soviets could. Remember, the French were on our side; I think.

And Monty, your answer sounds a lot like President Clinton's definition of "is." "Only invasion by a 'European' power," does that mean Japan could have invaded without "England" putting up a fuss? :)

KG_Stirrer

[KG_Jag]

Interesting thoughts Mark--although off topic.We know that the Soviets had withstood great casualties in their war against the hated German invaders of the Motherland. That does not translate that they would do it again to fight their former Allies (and likely a great many of their former enemies) in the central part of Europe.Also don't forget that even absent the atomic bomb issue, which is a very large one, we (US & Brits) had a significant strategic bombing capability with long range high altitude fighters for escorts. The Soviet air force was not designed to fight at high altitude. This plus the Brit & US naval superiority gave us tremendous advantages. In addition US (and Canadian) war production was outside the Soviet reach.With regard to the Japanese, there was little reason in 1945 to do much more than continue to strangle them. It is even possible that they would have been willing to join the Brits & US and have a go at the western USSR. Assuming that the Anglo-Soviet war would have broken out after the Soviets entry into the war against Japan but before Japan surrendered (a very short time historically speaking), a great deal of speculation unfolds.

[KG_SSpoom]

The Soviets were quite nearly at the end of their manpower and material
rope by the time the took Berlin. No way could they have continued sucessfully against the U.S and Great Britain. They may have had the upperhand for a bit, but thats all, no push to the channel problably not even out of Germany. With around 8-10 million dead soldiers, how many dead civvies(Soviet) were there?

[KG_Soldier]

You've been listening to Jay for too long, Steve. The logistical nightmare faced by the U.S. would have been crippling in a ground war against the Soviets. Soviet war production would have been outside our reach too, for the most part. We would have to build everything here, ship it across the Atlantic, and then transport it across Europe. On the other hand, the Soviets, while having to face our not too accurate interdiction bombing of railroads, bridges, and such, would have had a much easier time getting gas, guns, and bullets to their troops. Just look at how the Battle of the Buldge gave us problems and think of what we'd have done with SEVERAL Soviet armies rolling at us. I don't think there's any way we could keep our guys resupplied enough to stop the Soviets.

[KG_Koz]

Mark is soooooo right on this. It would have been ugly. Sure, the Soviets would have taken horrific casualties but the US and GB never would have accepted similar casualties. The Soviet military was kick-ass, and just got done defeating the best units the Germans had available. Their tactics were sound and their manpower/material advantage in German was overwhelming. I'm not into the statistics like some of you but i'd love to know the size of the Russian army versus that of the combined European US and British armies at the end of the war.

But....some people will never accept this so lets get back to the original question. I still say that anyone who feels that the Soviet Union is not "most responsible" for the defeat of Germany is wrong for all the reasons previously pointed out.

I guess it is a stalemate!

[KG_Cloghaun]

Sure, the Soviets would have taken horrific casualties but the US and GB never would have accepted similar casualties.
I can argue this two ways.
#1,
Don't sell our country's stomach for violence short. We inflicted the costliest Civil War in Western society upon ourselves in modern history.
#2
Again, why does everyone immediately assume that an army has to take the losses the Soviet Army did in order to achieve victory? Is it not possible to achieve the same results with fewer casualties if you have a better all-around fighting force? It's a historical fact that the Soviets pissed away millions of good men & thousands of planes, tanks & other equipments in the first year of the war alone.


The Soviet military was kick-ass

So is the rock group Metallica.

Their tactics were sound

What makes you say that?

and their manpower/material advantage in German was overwhelming.

I won't argue with you there. Hence my "war of attrition" statements.


i'd love to know the size of the Russian army versus that of the combined European US and British armies at the end of the war.


Here's your info-

USA-
At the end of the war in Europe there were a total of sixty-one divisions in the ETO: fifteen armored, forty-two infantry, and four airborne (one airborne division, the 13th, did not enter combat). Also, there were seven divisions in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations (MTO): one armored, five infantry, and the 10th Mountain. This puts the total number of ground forces at approx. 6 million men. In addition, it had 2.2 million men in the Army Air Force.

Britain- The information I have (I will defer to Monty on the exact numbers here), is that in August of 1945, Britain had 80,000 soldiers in Germany, which had been part of 21st Army Group, later to be given back it's former name, "British Army of the Rhine", and even later designated "I Corps", all in the same year.

So, for the sake of arguement, lets put the Allied "boots on the ground" at 6 million plus combined. Not including French, Canadian & Free Polish. - Oh ya, and about 600,000 seasoned German veterans who are sitting around with nothing to do.

Let's use Monty's quoted source, Overy.

Overy in Russia's War, has the following:

Military Mobilization at 29.57 Million
Total Manpower including other agencies: 34.47 Million

Of which total loses dead/pow/missing: 11.44 Million.
Killed in Action: 6.88 Million
Total Dead 1941-1945 8.66 Million
Total Medical Casualties: 18.34 Million

So, the bottom line is that in May of 1945, I subtract 18.34 million from the 34.47 million, I get 16.13 million men. Now, I assume "other agencies" include Air force, Navy, & whatever other agencies they felt the need to note. So, including the 2.2 million for the Army Air Force, the puts the forces of good at 8 million vs the forces of evil at 16 million.
So all you enjoy is a 2-1 edge in manpower Jim. I'll take the US and those numbers any day.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

I must say that i have enjoyed reading everyones thoughts in this poll. This is the kind of discussion i have been hoping for with my polls. Heres what i think about the USA, UK vrs Russia -

I have to agree with Franky on the whole USA & UK vrs Russia topic. Added to the numbers above the Frank used there were many, many more troops in the USA at the end of the war than there was in Europe. Not sure of the numbers exactly but there was a vast amount that never left the states because they werent needed. I have no doubt initially the russians would of hurt us badly, but the US airforce would of cut them off from their supplies and in a few months they could of been surrounded and wiped out. Not to mention what would of happened with the 2 nukes that wouldnt of been used in Japan. One probably would of flattened the Russians largest troop concentration and the other turns Moscow into a parking lot, end of story.

As far as the supply situation was concerned, could you imagine all the shipping that would of been made available, just in the USA mind you, that would of immediately been turned over to the military if hostilities would of broke out between Russian and the USA? I have no doubt that anything that could float would of been used. As far as the supplies go, we were using small arms, arty rounds and bombs that were left over from WW2 well after the Viet Nam war. And there are still warehouses packed full of small arms and equipment all over the USA with WW2 small arms, equipment and ammo in them.

The Russian navy wouldnt of been able to do anything about our shipping either. Our submarine force would of been sent from the Pacific, at that point in the war they werent needed, they could of blockaded all russian ports and taken out anything that made it into the open ocean.

Detroit could of retooled and started pumping out Tigers & Panthers! LOL, could you imagine that?!

[KG_Soldier]

The relentless pressure the Red Army could have put on us would have run us out of ammo before we stopped them. Their ability to re-supply was much better (shorter) than ours. Do not underestimate Stalin's power. No one questioned his authority--NO ONE! Had the Soviets wished, they would have overrun us. Now, once we'd retreated back to the channel, things might have changed. I'm not sure what kind of stockpiles of supplies were there. If we could have held them off 'til we got the BOMB, well... enough said.

Frank, the sheer size of the Red Army forced you to take heavier casualties. And they would have been on the offensive. Granted, like the Germans, we'd have held in places. But like water gets around giant rocks in the ocean, they'd have gotten around us. I just can't see any way we'd have been able to hold a line across Germany and don't think we'd have been smart enough to pull back.

In the end, because of the BOMB, it proved sound for them not to fight us.

[KG_ThorsHammer]

As much as I hate to say it, i think the ruskies would have run ramshot over the western allies. Despite their tremendous wartime losses, they still outnumbered the (i believe) 1 million allied soldiers by quite a bit. The mass of Russian tanks and infantry would be a very difficult prospect. The Allies overall air superiority (especially in heavy bombers), would still have a tough fight on its hands and would not have total air control to deal with Russian tanks. The new is3 tank would also be coming into play to wreck havok.

[Full Monty]

Again, why does everyone immediately assume that an army has to take the losses the Soviet Army did in order to achieve victory?

Probably for the same reason it's referred to as 'The War of the Century'

Is it not possible to achieve the same results with fewer casualties if you have a better all-around fighting force? It's a historical fact that the Soviets pissed away millions of good men & thousands of planes, tanks & other equipments in the first year of the war alone.

'Pissed Away'? Are we talking about the same WW2 here?

USA-
At the end of the war in Europe there were a total of sixty-one divisions in the ETO: fifteen armored, forty-two infantry, and four airborne (one airborne division, the 13th, did not enter combat). Also, there were seven divisions in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations (MTO): one armored, five infantry, and the 10th Mountain. This puts the total number of ground forces at approx. 6 million men. In addition, it had 2.2 million men in the Army Air Force.

Source? Not arguing, just looking for clarification.

Britain- The information I have (I will defer to Monty on the exact numbers here), is that in August of 1945, Britain had 80,000 soldiers in Germany, which had been part of 21st Army Group, later to be given back it's former name, "British Army of the Rhine", and even later designated "I Corps", all in the same year.

Are we going to be talking about 'at the end of the war' (your US figures) or 'August 1945' (your British figures)?


Let's use Monty's quoted source, Overy.

Overy in Russia's War, has the following:

Military Mobilization at 29.57 Million
Total Manpower including other agencies: 34.47 Million

Of which total loses dead/pow/missing: 11.44 Million.
Killed in Action: 6.88 Million
Total Dead 1941-1945 8.66 Million
Total Medical Casualties: 18.34 Million

So, the bottom line is that in May of 1945, I subtract 18.34 million from the 34.47 million, I get 16.13 million men. Now, I assume "other agencies" include Air force, Navy, & whatever other agencies they felt the need to note. So, including the 2.2 million for the Army Air Force,
So all you enjoy is a 2-1 edge in manpower Jim. I'll take the US and those numbers any day.

Eleven million is the figure I have for the Soviet army,

the puts the forces of good at 8 million vs the forces of evil at 16 million.

Must you continue to use these tired old 'Cold War' bs definitions?

[Full Monty]

Monty--while your arguments might support the case for selecting the USSR, it is ironic that they simultaneously deal severe damage to your argument for the UK.

Not at all, if you look at my reasoning behind selecting the UK.

[Full Monty]

And Monty, your answer sounds a lot like President Clinton's definition of "is." "Only invasion by a 'European' power," does that mean Japan could have invaded without "England" putting up a fuss? :)

KG_Stirrer

Who knows? Given the action taken by the Western Allies to assist Poland, the whole of Asia could have invaded and it wouldn't have made any difference.

[Full Monty]

I did state that my numbers were approx. Here are 19 different sources. (Hope that's enough). The median number being somewhere in the middle of both our estimates.

source-
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
<snip>.....

But where do those figures derive from? I know where Overy gets his figures from, but these are all secondary sources. Red Army losses have been grossly inflated in various publications over the years (I still see 29 million mentioned in some books and web sites) so I'm unwilling to take a 'median' figure for either side. Additionally, just citing German losses distorts the picture somewhat given that there were Rumanians, Hungarians, Italians and Spaniards all fighting on the side of the Axis.


One example would be Operation Bagration. June 28th-29th, 1944, north of Minsk, near the Krupki Rail Station. 29 Tiger I's of the sPzAbt.505 attempted to block the 3rd Guards Tank Corps of the 3rd Byelorussian Front. All 29 Tiger's were lost in combat/mechanical failure over the two days, but not before destroying 128 Soviet tanks. It may not seem like alot, but when you're facing down several hundred, what do you expect.

Picking isolated instances like this proves nothing. If we take 'Bagration' as a whole the Germans lost 350,000 men (killed or taken prisoner) as against the Red Army's 178,000. (Paul Adair - Hitler's Greatest Defeat' - p.171). Not that this proves much more:biggrin: but it does give a different perspective on comparative losses.

[KG_Cloghaun]

Probably for the same reason it's referred to as 'The War of the Century'
Or because a poorly trained, unprepaired army usually incurres heavy losses when facing a superior army. Or follow Stalin's early war armored doctrine of counter-attacking whether the tanks had the required fuel, so they ran out just as they arrived to engage the enemy.

'Pissed Away'? Are we talking about the same WW2 here?


No, I'm talking about the other WW2.

Source? Not arguing, just looking for clarification.

Appendix with original sources.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/sources.aspx
Source.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/introduction.aspx

Are we going to be talking about 'at the end of the war' (your US figures) or 'August 1945' (your British figures)?

Whichever. It's not like it would be that hard to get back to the front.

Eleven million is the figure I have for the Soviet army,

11 million?! Your going to dispute Overy?! Say it isn't so!

Must you continue to use these tired old 'Cold War' bs definitions?

I'm sorry, did the US & Russia stop pointing Nuclear Missiles at one another and no one told me? Seeing as you don't know anything about me, you would be hard pressed to identify my use of sarcasm. I find it amusing that you take issue with my silly "cold war" monologue, but have no problem with KG_Soldier's earlier "hypothetical" making "England" complicit to the Holocaust.
How much influence would "England" have put on Hitler to not exterminate the Jews (or would they have supported it)?

But where do those figures derive from? I know where Overy gets his figures from, but these are all secondary sources.

You want me to look up the sources 19 different authors used for the purposes of this discussion? Boy, that's not asking alot. You've cited one author in this whole discussion. You certainly put alot of stock in one persons research to refute 17 other authors/publishers, Keegan being the only exception. He is British ofcourse. Do you work for his publisher? Or did you attend one of his history courses? It's just that England is so small, what are the odds, ya know? Just kidding.
I also see where Overy gets his figures for his book, "Russia's War" from newly released K.G.B. archives. Those figures would'nt be distorted in the slightest, would they? I mean shit, they were so forthcoming about the Kursk disaster and that just happened 6 years ago, no reason to think Stalin didn't keep the record books straight.

(I still see 29 million mentioned in some books and web sites) so I'm unwilling to take a 'median' figure for either side.

Well, if you count "hanging chads",.. (that's a joke for any American voters out there, Monty. Pay no attention).

Additionally, just citing German losses distorts the picture somewhat given that there were Rumanians, Hungarians, Italians and Spaniards all fighting on the side of the Axis.

Now you're trying to take a freebie there! The site I gave clearly stated "Germany", not "Axis", and listed German military manpower losses. When counting casualties, it is common practice to seperate nationalities out from the armies they fought for at the end of wars.

Picking isolated instances like this proves nothing.

My example is far from being an isolated event & if I had the time, I'd be happy to prove it. However, you are correct, there is no point as the end result is the Germans lost, plain & simple.

[KG_Soldier]

John Keegan: "The Price of Glory" the section on the Somme is the best ever written. Man, that dude can write, awesome style. Without question, one of my favorite guys to read--and of course, A.J.P. Taylor.

[KG_Mauserman]

definatly russia for me. once hitler open pandoras box there was nothing he could do.