Importance of eastern front

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 05 May 2005 23:11

john1761 wrote:Sorry but actually I do. Without the west's help the russian's would have had a much harder time to stop being defeated let alone from defeating the germans.
Your beliefs are misplaced, read more on the topic.

john1761
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 15 Oct 2004 18:44
Location: USA

Post by john1761 » 05 May 2005 23:17

Could you suggest some references I might look up that espouse theworthlessness of the west's effort in defeating germany in WW2?

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 05 May 2005 23:18

john1761 wrote:Could you suggest some references I might look up that espouse theworthlessness of the west's effort in defeating germany in WW2?
No need to put words in my mouth. Simply learn about what happened in the East, then the West will come into context. There have been many of these discussions already, I do not like 'what ifs' nor do I want to, again, participant in one.

john1761
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 15 Oct 2004 18:44
Location: USA

Post by john1761 » 05 May 2005 23:30

This thread is not a what if. I was responding to others posters contention that the weastern front was of no importance to the events on the eastern front.While you might believe that the russain army could have defeated the "Wehrmacht" on their own is open to debate. I know from having read a great deal on the subject that even with a distracted Whermacht that the battles on the eastern front were a touch and thing. If some decisions were made a different way the russain would be in a very tight spot. Why do you suppose Stalin offered a amarmastise in 43 if things were going that good?

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 05 May 2005 23:31

john1761 wrote:This thread is not a what if. I was responding to others posters contention that the weastern front was of no importance to the events on the eastern front.While you might believe that the russain army could have defeated the "Wehrmacht" on their own is open to debate. I know from having read a great deal on the subject that even with a distracted Whermacht that the battles on the eastern front were a touch and thing. If some decisions were made a different way the russain would be in a very tight spot. Why do you suppose Stalin offered a amarmastise in 43 if things were going that good?
I've yet to see actual proof that he did any such thing.

john1761
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 15 Oct 2004 18:44
Location: USA

Post by john1761 » 05 May 2005 23:48

He . He who ? Do you mean the orgrinal poster? His theroy is that the russian could have beaten the germans without allied help . Every one else was tiring to show that the russains could not have achived what want they did without the west's help.

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 05 May 2005 23:55

john1761 wrote:He . He who ? Do you mean the orgrinal poster? His theroy is that the russian could have beaten the germans without allied help . Every one else was tiring to show that the russains could not have achived what want they did without the west's help.
No, that Stalin offered anything to Hitler in 1943. As for the original post, D-Day was not the deciding factor in the war, that is simple logic.

User avatar
VDV
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 26 Oct 2004 08:40
Location: USA

Post by VDV » 06 May 2005 00:39

What is for sure is that Germany could not have won a massive, prolonged attrition war. The primary allied contribution to defeating the Wehrmacht came only in mid-1944 - at which point Germany's defeat was merely a matter of time.

Doppleganger
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 11 Jun 2004 22:46
Location: UK

Post by Doppleganger » 06 May 2005 01:35

Lend-Lease was probably the biggest Western contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. There's a strong argument to be made that Lend-Lease kept the Red Army in the war during 1941/42, and not because of AFV or Aircraft supplies either. The following link supports a theory that Lend-Lease may have kept the Soviet Railroad system running, which was vital for the supply and deployment of the Red Army. Lend-Lease also provided the Red Army with a huge amount of trucks which was also vital for supplying and moving around Red Army formations. Even besides the other very useful supplies, like tyres and machine tools, it's clear that Lend-Lease aid had a significant impact on the Red Army's ability, and Soviet Industry, to continue to wage war and conduct large-scale operations.

http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/SovLendLease.html

D-Day undoubtedly compounded Nazi Germany's problems in a measurable way and definately helped to hasten their eventual defeat. But I do not believe that D-Day was decisive. Germany was already staring defeat in the face - the decisive battle in 1944 was Operation Bagration and not Operation Overlord.

User avatar
VDV
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 26 Oct 2004 08:40
Location: USA

Post by VDV » 06 May 2005 06:33

Hi Doppleganger:
There's a strong argument to be made that Lend-Lease kept the Red Army in the war during 1941/42
I cannot agree here.. in 1942, let alone 1941, LL aid arrived in quantities too small to make an effect on the Soviet war effort. It was certainly not enough to aid the Red Army's recovery from the catastrophic defeats of 1941 and neither was it sufficient enough to play a role in changing the course of the war in favor of the Red Army. LL aid only started to arrive in large quantities from 1943 and onwards - when Soviet industry was already producing enough and in some cases even more than enough to supply the Red Army.
The following link supports a theory that Lend-Lease may have kept the Soviet Railroad system running, which was vital for the supply and deployment of the Red Army. Lend-Lease also provided the Red Army with a huge amount of trucks which was also vital for supplying and moving around Red Army formations. Even besides the other very useful supplies, like tyres and machine tools, it's clear that Lend-Lease aid had a significant impact on the Red Army's ability, and Soviet Industry, to continue to wage war and conduct large-scale operations.
I have been to this site before. Some of these figures are somewhat misleading. If you look at the "Tires" section, it's somewhat strange that there is an "Allied Deliveries" number and underneath a footnote adding: "The UK also delivered 103,500 tons of natural rubber so the actual Allied proportion was quite a bit higher." The proportion of what? Tires or rubber in general?? The locomotives section is also interesting: does this mean that in the course of the war there were only 2408 locomotives in the entire Soviet Union?? 8O

Here are a pair of links i'd like to bring to attention:

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticle ... uction.htm

Karri
Member
Posts: 513
Joined: 07 Nov 2003 20:41
Location: Dublin

Post by Karri » 06 May 2005 08:14

VDV wrote:What is for sure is that Germany could not have won a massive, prolonged attrition war. The primary allied contribution to defeating the Wehrmacht came only in mid-1944 - at which point Germany's defeat was merely a matter of time.
You're wrong. Germany could have won the attrition warfare against Soviet Union if there had been no 'western allies'. This would mean that German war industry could run without problems, since Soviet Union lacked the air strenght to conduct a similar bombing campaign as Allies did. It also means, as stated previoulsy, that Germany could concentrate it's production on other things than AA and AA-ammo. Now, we all know that majority of German casualties happened in Eastern Front, but this does not mean that there weren't casualties in other fronts. Let's say peace is made with Western Allies in 1940 after fall of France. This means that all thos soldiers lost in France, Italy and North Africa could have been used in the East instead, not to mention the equipment lost. Also resources used on submarine warfare could be used somewhere else.
And without fronts in Italy and France the Axis would have several dozen more divisions in the East.

Germany could have won an attrition war against Soviet Union.
Germany could have, and not counting A-bomb probaply would have, won an attrition war against Western Allies.
But not against both.

Doppleganger
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 11 Jun 2004 22:46
Location: UK

Post by Doppleganger » 06 May 2005 12:37

VDV wrote:Hi Doppleganger:
There's a strong argument to be made that Lend-Lease kept the Red Army in the war during 1941/42
I cannot agree here.. in 1942, let alone 1941, LL aid arrived in quantities too small to make an effect on the Soviet war effort. It was certainly not enough to aid the Red Army's recovery from the catastrophic defeats of 1941 and neither was it sufficient enough to play a role in changing the course of the war in favor of the Red Army. LL aid only started to arrive in large quantities from 1943 and onwards - when Soviet industry was already producing enough and in some cases even more than enough to supply the Red Army.
The following link supports a theory that Lend-Lease may have kept the Soviet Railroad system running, which was vital for the supply and deployment of the Red Army. Lend-Lease also provided the Red Army with a huge amount of trucks which was also vital for supplying and moving around Red Army formations. Even besides the other very useful supplies, like tyres and machine tools, it's clear that Lend-Lease aid had a significant impact on the Red Army's ability, and Soviet Industry, to continue to wage war and conduct large-scale operations.
I have been to this site before. Some of these figures are somewhat misleading. If you look at the "Tires" section, it's somewhat strange that there is an "Allied Deliveries" number and underneath a footnote adding: "The UK also delivered 103,500 tons of natural rubber so the actual Allied proportion was quite a bit higher." The proportion of what? Tires or rubber in general?? The locomotives section is also interesting: does this mean that in the course of the war there were only 2408 locomotives in the entire Soviet Union?? 8O

Here are a pair of links i'd like to bring to attention:

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticle ... uction.htm
Hi VDV.

My point was that perhaps the deliveries of Locomotives kept the USSR in the war and indeed, the link shows that the vast majority of locomotives was delivered in 1940/41. It's clear that the Soviet Union was well able to supply, for example, it's own AFV and Aircraft needs but I am not focusing on that. You might pick apart some of the figures but the link does have referenced material which I intend to consult when convenient. The links you provided had no such Bibliography and therefore it's a lot harder to check the accuracy of the data.

User avatar
Dora
Member
Posts: 451
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 16:36
Location: Hanover, Pennsylvania

Post by Dora » 06 May 2005 15:15

All,
One important arguement so far not mentioned in the posts is to ignore the vital role occupied France, Belguim, the Netherlands performed in the German war industry and OKW unit management. France, in particular, had become a giant rest and recuperation site for refitting German divisions fighting in Russia. In addition, was the manufacturing resources of French industry which had been contributing to the German military industrial complex. In addition to the military diversion of units to western Europe required by Overlord we must recall the loss of France, Belguim, and the Netherlands also representited the loss of valuable industrial and economic resources for the badly (1944) wounded Third Reich.
Dora

User avatar
VDV
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 26 Oct 2004 08:40
Location: USA

Post by VDV » 06 May 2005 15:40

Doppleganger:
My point was that perhaps the deliveries of Locomotives kept the USSR in the war and indeed, the link shows that the vast majority of locomotives was delivered in 1940/41.
How could the majority of LL aid in locomotives come in 1940(!)/1941 when small scale deliveries were only starting to arrive in the fall of 1941?
The links you provided had no such Bibliography and therefore it's a lot harder to check the accuracy of the data.
Actually, the page regarding LL vehicles is based on an article by V.F. Vorsin from the Sept. 1994 issue of the "Journal of Slavic Military Studies"

The percentage of LL vehicles to all vehicles used by the Red Army (33%) can also be verified in Krivosheev's book "Combat losses of Russia and the USSR in the 20th century" pg. 471

User avatar
VDV
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 26 Oct 2004 08:40
Location: USA

Post by VDV » 06 May 2005 15:56

Germany could have won the attrition warfare against Soviet Union
Karri: Operation Barbarossa called for a swift, decisive defeat of the Soviet Union - not a prolonged attrition war. Op. Barbarossa had failed to reach it's objectives already by December 1941.

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”