March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#46

Post by ljadw » 09 Jan 2016, 23:00

stg 44 wrote:
Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi stg 44,

I think you are giving the Soviets scant credit for their own efforts.

Lend-Lease and the diversionary effect of North Africa were very secondary compared with this.

I doubt Lend-lease reached decisive levels until 1943 and it still had to be used by Soviet crews. The quantity and quality of early Lend-Lease was also questionable. For example, the British and Americans seem not to have made much use of Valentine tanks and Airacobra fighters themselves.

The USSR also absorbed as many Italian troops as North Africa in 1942, besides dozens of other minor Axis divisions. One sometimes has to wonder who was doing the diverting!

But all that would have been irrelevant if the USSR had succombed in 1941. Stalin's territorial acquisitions played a significant role in this, because they gave him strategic depth to fall back on after eache succeding debacle in 1941.

Cheers,

Sid.
I mean the Soviets wouldn't have survived without their own efforts, but neither would they have survived and won in the end without their allies and their efforts. In 1941 the Soviet manpower and their strategic depth enabled them to survive. In 1942 it was that strategic depth, manpower, Lend-Lease, and diversions on other fronts that saved the Soviets again and enabled them to counterattack. In 1943 LL saved the economy from imploding and famine from setting in, while it also provided the strategic mobility to reclaim Ukraine and its resources. It was irreplaceable US/UK food, weapons, machine tools, raw materials, transport, electronics, and fuel that kept the Soviets going, especially starting in 1942. They managed to survive the opening campaign with minimal outside aid, but beyond 1941 LL and Allied military efforts saved the USSR and enabled them to recover enough to counterattack and roll back the invader. With LL in 1943 it finally stabilized the economy and got it growing again, allowing even greater manpower mobilization than ever before, even as casualties continued to be enormous.
http://www.amazon.com/Accounting-War-Pr ... 0521894247

Let me ask you then, if Britain succumbed in 1940, do you think the Soviets would have survived 1941? Or 1942 without Allies or LL?
If there were Allies,there would be LL,and if there was LL ,there were Allies .

LL while the US remained neutral was impossible .

The indirect Allied aid (air attacks on Germany,war in NA,in Italy, etc...) was much more important than LL .

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#47

Post by stg 44 » 09 Jan 2016, 23:02

ljadw wrote:Other point : the figure of 1/3 of the economy was lost,is something meaningless,because ,this does not specify what branches were affected, it does not mention that the territories which were not lost could replace most of the losses,and most important : the figure is not correct : it should be : 1/3 of the PEACE economy,while after 22 june,the Soviet economy was transformed in a war economy .

In 1939, the gross production of large-scale industries by region was as following (in billions of rubles)

RFSR : 62.5 billion

Urals,Siberia,Far East :11.6

Central Asia + Kazachstan :5.8

Ukraine : 17.4 (only)
Belorussia : 1.5

Caucasus : 3.5

Total : 102.6 billion

Lost in 1941 : 18.9 + an unspecified part of the RFSR .

What was lost in 1941 was not that important .

Source : The Economic transformation of the SU /P 301 /Table 30 .
How much of pre-war aluminum, steel, coal, etc. production was lost? How much of general industrial capacity was lost? How about pre-war agriculture and the resulting food crisis?


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#48

Post by ljadw » 10 Jan 2016, 10:17

A lot was lost,but a lot was replaced .
The SU won the war with less oil than before the war, less steel,less food . Thus the claim that the loss of pre-war production was affecting the Soviet war capacity is questionable .I see no corelation, no causal effect between both .

In Britain also the coal production was lower than before the war .And it is not so that with a greater coal production in Britain, the war would have been won earlier .
If more aluminium,steel and coal was available during the war, would the SU have produced more tanks ? And if yes, would this have shortened the war ?

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#49

Post by KDF33 » 10 Jan 2016, 11:33

There's no question the German invasion had an enormous impact on the Soviet economic potential. The loss of resources between 1940 and 1942 is simply enormous, and cannot seriously be compared to anything that occurred in Britain.

1940 / 1942:

Coal: 165.9 / 75.5 million tons (54% loss)
Steel: 18.3 / 8.1 million tons (66% loss)
Oil: 31.1 / 22.0 million tons (29% loss)
Grain: 95.5 / 29.7 million tons (69% loss)
Working population: 86.8 / 54.7 million people (37% loss)

Working population includes the military.

Regards,

KDF

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#50

Post by KDF33 » 10 Jan 2016, 13:29

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi stg 44,

I think you are giving the Soviets scant credit for their own efforts.

Lend-Lease and the diversionary effect of North Africa were very secondary compared with this.
The diversionary effect was massive, already in 1941, and it wasn't limited to North Africa. In terms of manpower, the Germans allocated about 3.5 million men for Barbarossa, including the Luftwaffe, but kept about 2.1 million deployed against the Western Allies. By December 1943, there was an equal number of men deployed between the East and the West, roughly 3.3 million for each theater.

Sources:

Here for 1941; here and here for 1943.

Regards,

KDF

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#51

Post by KDF33 » 10 Jan 2016, 14:30

Here's the full breakdown for Barbarossa. Data is West / East:

Active personnel

Ground forces: 1,172,400 / 3,138,600 (includes W-SS, railroad troops, coastal artillery)
Air forces: 246,800 / 312,200
AAA forces: 447,200 / 54,800
Naval forces: 353,000? / 0? (includes some reserves)

Equipment holdings of the active forces

Tanks: 842 / 3,795 (includes captured French tanks)
StuGs: 55 / 301
SP AT / artillery: 60 / 257
Armored scouts & half-tracks: 365 / 2,422

Field & AT artillery: 5,510 / 19,666
AA artillery: 12,553 / 3,769
Mortars: 5,346 / 17,081

Motor vehicles: 251,100 / 577,200
Half-track prime movers: 2,637 / 10,748

Single-engined fighters: 352 / 853
Dive bombers: 90 / 376
Twin-engined fighters: 257 / 78
Bombers: 500 / 929
Naval aircraft: 194 / 27

Regards,

KDF

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#52

Post by ljadw » 10 Jan 2016, 17:06

KDF33 wrote:There's no question the German invasion had an enormous impact on the Soviet economic potential. The loss of resources between 1940 and 1942 is simply enormous, and cannot seriously be compared to anything that occurred in Britain.

1940 / 1942:

Coal: 165.9 / 75.5 million tons (54% loss)
Steel: 18.3 / 8.1 million tons (66% loss)
Oil: 31.1 / 22.0 million tons (29% loss)
Grain: 95.5 / 29.7 million tons (69% loss)
Working population: 86.8 / 54.7 million people (37% loss)

Working population includes the military.

Regards,

KDF
These are meaningless figures :these losses did not prevent the Soviets to arrive at Berlin in 1945.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#53

Post by stg 44 » 10 Jan 2016, 17:13

ljadw wrote:
KDF33 wrote:There's no question the German invasion had an enormous impact on the Soviet economic potential. The loss of resources between 1940 and 1942 is simply enormous, and cannot seriously be compared to anything that occurred in Britain.

1940 / 1942:

Coal: 165.9 / 75.5 million tons (54% loss)
Steel: 18.3 / 8.1 million tons (66% loss)
Oil: 31.1 / 22.0 million tons (29% loss)
Grain: 95.5 / 29.7 million tons (69% loss)
Working population: 86.8 / 54.7 million people (37% loss)

Working population includes the military.

Regards,

KDF
These are meaningless figures :these losses did not prevent the Soviets to arrive at Berlin in 1945.
Thanks to Lend-Lease, strategic bombing, alternate fronts, and the blockade of Europe.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#54

Post by ljadw » 10 Jan 2016, 17:45

No : the Soviets would arrive at Berlin without LL and without strategic bombing and the blockade of Europe . They even would arrive at Berlin if the US/UK remained /were neutral .

The figures given by KDF 33 are meaningless,because they compared a peace economy with a war economy .

The only thing one can say is that Barbarossa increased the Soviet economic and military strength ,as did PH with the US .

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#55

Post by stg 44 » 10 Jan 2016, 19:00

ljadw wrote:No : the Soviets would arrive at Berlin without LL and without strategic bombing and the blockade of Europe . They even would arrive at Berlin if the US/UK remained /were neutral .

The figures given by KDF 33 are meaningless,because they compared a peace economy with a war economy .

The only thing one can say is that Barbarossa increased the Soviet economic and military strength ,as did PH with the US .
Ah no, not by a long shot. The Soviet economy was on the verge of collapse in 1942 but for military victories and Lend-Lease; the victory at Stalingrad was a function of so much German attention being focused on other fronts and Lend-Lease helping stabilize the Soviet economy:
http://www.amazon.com/Accounting-War-Pr ... 0521894247
In fact they were on the verge of famine if not for LL due to having been reduced to 43% of pre-war agricultural output in 1942 and had evacuated 25 million people to the interior of the country who needed to be fed.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#56

Post by ljadw » 10 Jan 2016, 22:42

We have this already discussed and the theory that LL food saved the Soviet population from famine can be discarded .You can't use the official stats for agricultural output in 1942: the Soviet population saved itself from famine by its own initiative . :good old capitalism .
Afaics,only one serious study has been published about the food situation in the SU during WWII : The Bread of Affliction . And its conclusion is very cleat : at the beginning of the war the regime said to the poplation : we can't feed you,you must take care of yourself . And the population did take care of herself . LL food was only helping and was very secundary .

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#57

Post by stg 44 » 10 Jan 2016, 23:33

ljadw wrote:We have this already discussed and the theory that LL food saved the Soviet population from famine can be discarded .You can't use the official stats for agricultural output in 1942: the Soviet population saved itself from famine by its own initiative . :good old capitalism .
Afaics,only one serious study has been published about the food situation in the SU during WWII : The Bread of Affliction . And its conclusion is very cleat : at the beginning of the war the regime said to the poplation : we can't feed you,you must take care of yourself . And the population did take care of herself . LL food was only helping and was very secundary .
It's been calculated that a 38% of the official ration's calories would have had to be cut without US/UK food. Even if a substantial part of Soviet food came from their own off hour production, a 38% cut in official ration when food was already scarce was a huge problem. Even more so because a lot of US food ended up on the black market, meaning no LL, no black market food for sustaining that off the books supplemental calorie intake.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/260606?Sear ... b_contents

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#58

Post by KDF33 » 11 Jan 2016, 10:28

ljadw wrote:These are meaningless figures :these losses did not prevent the Soviets to arrive at Berlin in 1945.
This is not what was being discussed. The question was whether or not Barbarossa inflicted massive economic damage on the USSR. The figures I provided demonstrate that it did.

Regards,

KDF

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#59

Post by KDF33 » 11 Jan 2016, 10:33

ljadw wrote:No : the Soviets would arrive at Berlin without LL and without strategic bombing and the blockade of Europe . They even would arrive at Berlin if the US/UK remained /were neutral .
That's most unlikely.
The figures given by KDF 33 are meaningless,because they compared a peace economy with a war economy .
That's a false dichotomy. The difference between an economy at war and an economy at peace is the proportion of the economy that is geared towards supporting the war effort. It is obvious that if your peacetime economy massively contracts, you will have, in absolute terms, less resources available for the war effort.
The only thing one can say is that Barbarossa increased the Soviet economic and military strength ,as did PH with the US .
The Soviets increased their military power after Barbarossa, yes. In economic terms, however, they were considerably weakened.

Regards,

KDF

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: March 1941, Stalin is finally convinced the Germans are about to attack...

#60

Post by ljadw » 11 Jan 2016, 12:00

The difference between an economy at peace and an economy at war is that the needs are totally different .It is no so that if the economy at peace is contracting ,you will have less resources available for war effort .

If peace economy goes down from 100 to 80, that does not mean less resources available for war effort . In the peace economy of 100 there are no resources available for war effort,because these resources are available for war effort only if there is a war .

And even if the war economy goes down from 100 to 80 that does not mean that less resources are available for war effort,besides what is important is not what is available,but what is needed :during the war,only a small part of the Soviet oil production was "given " to/needed by the military ;if the oil production went down (and it went down) the part for the military would not go down .

Post Reply

Return to “What if”