Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union !!!

[MarkN]

1. Germany declared war on Russia for political and social reasons.

2. Germany was defeated by Russia through economic, demographic and geographic means that gave them long term military advantage.

German could only 'win' if it were able to out-perform Russia economically, demographically and geographically. At what point in the time-continuum could Germany do that?

[steverodgers801]

With what air forces would the Germans use to interdict the Caspian? The one unit available was needed for the Black sea and was withdrawn to the Med. There is also the problem of bases, there's no places the Germans can reach the southern Caspian from that they held.

[stg 44]

1. Germany declared war on Russia for political and social reasons.

2. Germany was defeated by Russia through economic, demographic and geographic means that gave them long term military advantage.

German could only 'win' if it were able to out-perform Russia economically, demographically and geographically. At what point in the time-continuum could Germany do that?

Germany was defeated by American material, British technology, and Soviet blood. All played their roles, you cannot say the Soviets won the war without taking into consideration the US contribution; without the US supplies to the USSR and Wallied air power the Soviets would have been in famine, faced industrial collapse, and had to face a LW twice as large if not even more from 1942 on.

[MarkN]

1. Germany declared war on Russia for political and social reasons.

2. Germany was defeated by Russia through economic, demographic and geographic means that gave them long term military advantage.

German could only 'win' if it were able to out-perform Russia economically, demographically and geographically. At what point in the time-continuum could Germany do that?

Germany was defeated by American material, British technology, and Soviet blood. All played their roles, you cannot say the Soviets won the war without taking into consideration the US contribution; without the US supplies to the USSR and Wallied air power the Soviets would have been in famine, faced industrial collapse, and had to face a LW twice as large if not even more from 1942 on.

Reference bold and underlined.
Yes l can.
Russia had already prevented Germany achieving its war aims before the US even bothered to join in. With hindsight, we can see the result was inevitable. US and Empire effort shortened the war and ensured Western Europe remained free of Russian oppression.

[stg 44]

The US was selling to the Soviets from July on and was contributing LL from October on. The UK started convoys and had weapons used in the defense of Moscow, which was only possible due to US LL to Britain.
Source on LL:
http://www.o5m6.de/Routes.html

http://www.amazon.com/Accounting-War-Pr ... 0521894247
The author of the above has a chapter on LL and states that LL was indispensible to the USSR and how they were on the brink of famine in 1943 without LL food and as it was millions died of malnutrition.

http://www.amazon.com/How-War-Was-Won-C ... op?ie=UTF8
This book talks about the contribution of the strategic air war against Germany and how much effort was pumped into the naval war by the Germans that ended up sucking in over half of their war spending by 1942 and some 2/3s of spending by 1943.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Lend-Lease would help the British and Allied forces win the battles of future years; the help it gave in the battles of 1941 was trivial.[22] In 1943–1944, about a quarter of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft (in particular transport aircraft) comprised about a quarter of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships.[citation needed]

Even after the United States forces in Europe and the Pacific began to reach full strength in 1943–1944, Lend-Lease continued. Most remaining allies were largely self-sufficient in front line equipment (such as tanks and fighter aircraft) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including motor vehicles and railroad equipment) were of enormous assistance.

Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back severely on production of non-essentials, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military-industrial complex.

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).[23]

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed, by 1945 nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.[24]

American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:

"pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941 (paid for in gold and other minerals)
first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 7 October 1941),[28] these supplies were to be manufactured and delivered by the UK with US credit financing.
second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)
fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered on the 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. On 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was terminated.

Delivery was via the Arctic Convoys, the Persian Corridor, and the Pacific Route.

The Arctic route was the shortest and most direct route for lend-lease aid to the USSR, though it was also the most dangerous. Some 3,964,000 tons of goods were shipped by the Arctic route; 7% was lost, while 93% arrived safely.[29] This constituted some 23% of the total aid to the USSR during the war.

The Persian Corridor was the longest route, and was not fully operational until mid-1942. Thereafter it saw the passage of 4,160,000 tons of goods, 27% of the total.[29]

The Pacific Route opened in August 1941, but was affected by the start of hostilities between Japan and the US; after December 1941, only Soviet ships could be used, and, as Japan and the USSR observed a strict neutrality towards each other, only non-military goods could be transported.[30] Nevertheless, some 8,244,000 tons of goods went by this route, 50% of the total.[29]

In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386[31] of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);[32] 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)[33] and 1.75 million tons of food.[34]

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.[35][36]

The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.[37]

In June 1941 within weeks of the German invasion of the USSR the first British aid convoy set off along the dangerous Arctic sea routes to Murmansk arriving in September. It was carrying 40 Hawker Hurricanes along with 550 mechanics and pilots of No. 151 Wing to provide immediate air defence of the port and train Soviet pilots. After escorting Soviet bombers and scoring 14 kills for one loss, and completing the training of pilots and mechanics, No 151 Wing left in November their mission complete.[38] The convoy was the first of many convoys to Murmansk and Archangelsk in what became known as the Arctic convoys, the returning ships carried the gold that the USSR was using to pay the US.

Significant numbers of British Churchill, Matilda and Valentine tanks were shipped to the USSR along with the US M3 Lee after it became obsolete on the African Front. The Churchills, supplied by the arctic convoys, saw action in the Siege of Leningrad and the Battle of Kursk,[39][40] while tanks shipped by the Persian route supplied the Caucasian Front. With the USSR giving priority to the defence of Moscow for domestically produced tanks this resulted in 40% of tanks in service on the Caucasian Front being Lend-Lease models.[41] Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:

3,000+ Hurricanes
4,000+ other aircraft
27 naval vessels
5,218 tanks
5,000+ anti-tank guns
4,020 ambulances and trucks
323 machinery trucks
2,560 Universal Carriers
1,721 motorcycles
£1.15bn worth of aircraft engines
600 radar and sonar sets
Hundreds of naval guns
15 million pairs of boots

In total 4 million tonnes of war materials including food and medical supplies were delivered. The munitions totaled £308m (not including naval munitions supplied), the food and raw materials totaled £120m in 1946 index. In accordance with the Anglo-Soviet Military Supplies Agreement of 27 June 1942, military aid sent from Britain to the Soviet Union during the war was entirely free of charge.[42][43]

[BenjaminJ]

1. Germany declared war on Russia for political and social reasons.

2. Germany was defeated by Russia through economic, demographic and geographic means that gave them long term military advantage.

German could only 'win' if it were able to out-perform Russia economically, demographically and geographically. At what point in the time-continuum could Germany do that?

Germany was defeated by American material, British technology, and Soviet blood. All played their roles, you cannot say the Soviets won the war without taking into consideration the US contribution; without the US supplies to the USSR and Wallied air power the Soviets would have been in famine, faced industrial collapse, and had to face a LW twice as large if not even more from 1942 on.

For the most part, the soviet troops found US equipment and armament as inferior.

"Richard Evans, Third Reich in Power"

[MarkN]

The US was selling to the Soviets from July on and was contributing LL from October on.

No amount of war profiteering will 'win' a war or 'defeat' an aggressor. Supplies to Russia, at best, made defeat for the Germans come a little earlier.

Moreover, the combined Empire/US assault on France from the west was probably only possible because the Russians had spent the previous 3 years grinding the combat power out of the Wehrmacht and still kept the bulk of it occupied in the east.

Strategic bombing was a help but not a war winner.

[stg 44]

1. Germany declared war on Russia for political and social reasons.

2. Germany was defeated by Russia through economic, demographic and geographic means that gave them long term military advantage.

German could only 'win' if it were able to out-perform Russia economically, demographically and geographically. At what point in the time-continuum could Germany do that?

Germany was defeated by American material, British technology, and Soviet blood. All played their roles, you cannot say the Soviets won the war without taking into consideration the US contribution; without the US supplies to the USSR and Wallied air power the Soviets would have been in famine, faced industrial collapse, and had to face a LW twice as large if not even more from 1942 on.

For the most part, the soviet troops found US equipment and armament as inferior.

"Richard Evans, Third Reich in Power"

And? It didn't stop them from using a lot of it.

[stg 44]

The US was selling to the Soviets from July on and was contributing LL from October on.

No amount of war profiteering will 'win' a war or 'defeat' an aggressor. Supplies to Russia, at best, made defeat for the Germans come a little earlier.

Moreover, the combined Empire/US assault on France from the west was probably only possible because the Russians had spent the previous 3 years grinding the combat power out of the Wehrmacht and still kept the bulk of it occupied in the east.

Strategic bombing was a help but not a war winner.

Actually LL was not war profiteering it was a service that operated at a loss of the Allies because they were never paid back, but also it prevented the Soviets from collapsing. By late-1942 the USSR was reduced to half its pre-war GDP and about 40% of its pre-war food production. Millions died due to malnutrition and it was US food that kept them from full on famine and mass death. It allowed them to mobilize huge amounts of their manpower that would have otherwise been required to work in factories, mines, and farm fields rather than fighting. Lend-Lease kept the Soviets in the war and enabled them to win; beyond that strategic bombing enabled them to win too, especially at an acceptable cost. The death toll could have been FAR worse without strategic bombing wrecking German production and pulling away the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, and huge production used in air defense (plus the V-weapons, Atlantic wall, dispersed industry, and in subpen production).

[MarkN]

The US was selling to the Soviets from July on and was contributing LL from October on.

No amount of war profiteering will 'win' a war or 'defeat' an aggressor. Supplies to Russia, at best, made defeat for the Germans come a little earlier.

Moreover, the combined Empire/US assault on France from the west was probably only possible because the Russians had spent the previous 3 years grinding the combat power out of the Wehrmacht and still kept the bulk of it occupied in the east.

Strategic bombing was a help but not a war winner.

Actually LL was not war profiteering it was a service that operated at a loss of the Allies because they were never paid back, but also it prevented the Soviets from collapsing. By late-1942 the USSR was reduced to half its pre-war GDP and about 40% of its pre-war food production. Millions died due to malnutrition and it was US food that kept them from full on famine and mass death. It allowed them to mobilize huge amounts of their manpower that would have otherwise been required to work in factories, mines, and farm fields rather than fighting. Lend-Lease kept the Soviets in the war and enabled them to win; beyond that strategic bombing enabled them to win too, especially at an acceptable cost. The death toll could have been FAR worse without strategic bombing wrecking German production and pulling away the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, and huge production used in air defense (plus the V-weapons, Atlantic wall, dispersed industry, and in subpen production).

All of which supports my arguement that the Russians defeated Germany and that Empire/US support "enabled them to win" earlier than had they stood completely alone. The greatest achievement for the Empire/US was maintaining Western Europe free from subsequent Russian subjugation.

[Max Payload]

Russians defeated Germany and ... Empire/US support "enabled them to win" earlier than had they stood completely alone.

I don't have the reference, but I believe that even Zhukov acknowledged that the SU could not have won the war had it not been for the support of the Allies. As has been pointed out, that support was not just LL, it was the diversion of German military/industrial and manpower resources away from the Eastern Front.

[MarkN]

Russians defeated Germany and ... Empire/US support "enabled them to win" earlier than had they stood completely alone.

I don't have the reference, but I believe that even Zhukov acknowledged that the SU could not have won the war had it not been for the support of the Allies. As has been pointed out, that support was not just LL, it was the diversion of German military/industrial and manpower resources away from the Eastern Front.

I have not studied Zhukov nor what he said. Was the context...
a) we could not have won the war in the manner and timeframe that we did without Allied support, or
b) we could not have won the war at all without Allied support?

Historical fact is historical fact. I do not dispute that the manner and timeframe of the Russian victory was predicated by supplies arriving from the Allies, Allied strategic bombing and Allied efforts on the ground in Western Europe.

However, it is my opinion that had Russia not received said support from the Empire/US, it would still have turned up 'victorious' at some point in time.

In reverse, if we take Russia out of the equation (ie Hitler sticks to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact or German achieves its objectives as outlined in Weisungs 21 and 32), I very much doubt Germany could have been defeated by the Empire/US short of dropping atomic weapons. Try and imagine the strength of the German forces defending the West in the instance that they had not been battered in the East for 3 years and still deploying the bulk of their forces to meet that ongoing operation. Indeed, had Germany not declared war on the US, we cannot even be sure the US would have entered the European theater at all!

Since this is all in the realm of 'what if' ahistorical speculation, I accept that others may hold different opinions and beliefs. And, of course, it should be recognised that no opinion or belief in this context can be proven or disproven, nor can any opinion or belief claim to be 'better' or more 'right' than any other.

[stg 44]

The US was selling to the Soviets from July on and was contributing LL from October on.

No amount of war profiteering will 'win' a war or 'defeat' an aggressor. Supplies to Russia, at best, made defeat for the Germans come a little earlier.

Moreover, the combined Empire/US assault on France from the west was probably only possible because the Russians had spent the previous 3 years grinding the combat power out of the Wehrmacht and still kept the bulk of it occupied in the east.

Strategic bombing was a help but not a war winner.

Actually LL was not war profiteering it was a service that operated at a loss of the Allies because they were never paid back, but also it prevented the Soviets from collapsing. By late-1942 the USSR was reduced to half its pre-war GDP and about 40% of its pre-war food production. Millions died due to malnutrition and it was US food that kept them from full on famine and mass death. It allowed them to mobilize huge amounts of their manpower that would have otherwise been required to work in factories, mines, and farm fields rather than fighting. Lend-Lease kept the Soviets in the war and enabled them to win; beyond that strategic bombing enabled them to win too, especially at an acceptable cost. The death toll could have been FAR worse without strategic bombing wrecking German production and pulling away the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, and huge production used in air defense (plus the V-weapons, Atlantic wall, dispersed industry, and in subpen production).

All of which supports my arguement that the Russians defeated Germany and that Empire/US support "enabled them to win" earlier than had they stood completely alone. The greatest achievement for the Empire/US was maintaining Western Europe free from subsequent Russian subjugation.

I don't think you understand what enabled to win means; it means they could not have won without that support. One on one they would have been crushed. By late 1942 the Soviet economy was reduced to half that of Germany alone in terms of GDP and it would have collapsed if not for LL and the Mediterranean theater escalating and drawing off German troops and air power.

[stg 44]

I have not studied Zhukov nor what he said. Was the context...
b) we could not have won the war at all without Allied support?

Yes this one.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=188798

This is what Zhukov told about this, in an interview in the 1960s:

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a
backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's
truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and
1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of
eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

The quote is from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Russias-Life-Save ... 0739145630

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Quotations

Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."[26][27]

[MarkN]

I don't think you understand what enabled to win means; it means they could not have won without that support. One on one they would have been crushed.

No. That is your interpretation and belief. Which you are of coyrse entitled to, but please do not confuse it with historical fact.

Yes this one.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=188798

This is what Zhukov told about this, in an interview in the 1960s:

Snipped for brevity

Thank you for reposting that. Interesting that the original thread never got any further than the original quote and neither that poster nor you felt able to expand on it.

I see that the context of the quote concerns Zhukov's attempt to interupt the Russian leadership's prediliction for changing and falsifying their history to mislead their own people about their own actions and deeds. Brave of Zhukov to speak out in such a way.

I now see why you believe that US supplies to Russia were critical in turning defeat into victory.

However, I remain unconvinced that this 'proves' a 'what if' scenario falls in a certain direction. However important and knowledgeable Zhukov undoubtably was, it is just a single throw-away line that is merely his opinion.

Moreover, have you considered the further consequences and implications of your belief? If you are proud to claim credit for the US in ensuring Russia remained on its feet and provided the means to "enable" it to defeat Germany, then the US must also accept responsibility for Russia occupying and oppressing Eastern Europe for the next 50 years. The two elements go hand in hand. You cannot claim one with pride and deny the other. Well, you can, but it would be incoherent nonsense.