German economic collapse in 1944-45

[Michael Kenny]

I really don't get what the OP thinks should have happened? Fight like the Soviets?????

Basically he believes the number of soldiers you lose as KIA is 'the' indicator of military success. The more dead you have the greater your Army. That is why he will only use KIA numbers. The POWs took by the Western Allies greatly outnumber those taken by the Soviets so he flat-out refuses to use MIA/POW totals in any of his discredited tables. If the information don't fit his argument then that information is discarded.

[Stiltzkin]

And the US was involved in a two-front war.

So it was the US which was stripped of 1/3 of their assets, their labour force was being depleted faster than they could replace? Were there any German Panzer Divisions in Oak Ridge? So Japan was industrially stronger than the US?

[Yoozername]

It was the US that was attacked, on its own land, by the Japanese military. It was the Japanese that were aligned with the Axis forces. I really have no clue what you are going on about, LOL.

Basically, the US and its allies agreed to bump off Germany first. But the US still prosecuted a war of beating back the Japanese. In fact, June 15, 1944 - U.S. Marines invade Saipan in the Mariana Islands. So, less than two weeks after D-Day, they US was conducting an amphibious invasion.

[Richard Anderson]

It's true the WAllies managed to suffer way less battle deaths that way: 120,000 bomber crew were sacrificed in dropping bombs bombing vis. the 6 million Red Army soldiers who died in battle or from wounds.

The typical use of suspect data.

Bomber Command deaths KIA or while PoW 1 September 1939-8 May 1945 - 47,268
US Eighth Air Force deaths in the ETO were c. 26,000, but including 2,308 deaths in VIII FC, an unknown number of deaths in IX TCC and VIII Support Command, and approximately 10% losses in accidents. So something less than 20,000 bomber crew combat deaths.
US Fifteenth Air Force lost 20,430 bomber crewmen KIA, WIA, MIA, and PoW and likely the same percentage to accidents. So roughly 9,000 bomber crew combat losses and perhaps 4,500 combat deaths.

Perhaps 72,000 bomber crew combat deaths, 60% of that claimed by the OP, which is probably an accurate overall measure of the OP's data set and thus also his conclusions, which are rubbish.

Instead, we have c. 72,000 bomber crew deaths. In order to bleed off some 1,912 of 2,655 heavy Flak batteries, 1,048 0f 1,612 light Flak batteries, and 407 of 470 searchlight batteries, so roughly 71% of the 1,110,900 personnel of the Flakwaffe, including 662,200 Luftwaffe. Now add in the 75% of the Jagdwaffe deployed in the West and the crippling of the German bomber forces in order to maintain the Jagdwaffe, with roughly another 418,000 personnel. Now add in the indirect loss of productivity caused by having some 190,000 RAD and factory workers doing double-duty as workers and Flak helpers.

[Guaporense]

And the US was involved in a two-front war. And developed different strategic bombing aircraft for the fronts. The US was conducting amphib invasions on two fronts also. I really don't get what the OP thinks should have happened? Fight like the Soviets?????

No I suggest fighting like France did in WW1: increase the number of infantry divisions to the maximum their labor force allowed and focus on supplying them. Restrict aircraft to mostly reconnaissance and direct support and decrease expenditures on aircraft by 65% from historical levels (the US government expenditures were 15-18% aircraft by 1943-1945, about as much as 50% of the costs of pay and subsistence of the armed forces, insane amounts of resources wasted). Invade mainland Europe as soon as possible with maximum amount of manpower possible. I should say, fighting Japan should get only 10-15% of the budget and manpower: by December 1943 the US had almost 50% of their overseas manpower in the Pacific. Huge waste of resources fighting some third world dictatorship for rational reason.

What the US really did on WW2: awaited for the USSR to win the war and well after the war was already won by the Red Army (it was won since late 1943, after Kursk and the counteroffensives), quickly invaded Europe (in mid 1944, so about 8-9 months after Stalin had effectively won the war) to liberate the rich parts of Europe before the Red Army reached those and put them into their sphere of power. Pretend to help in the meanwhile by sacrificing a some tens of thousands of bomber crewmen in terrorist bombing attacks on German civilians and giving some money to help Stalin win the war. Oh yeah, and they fought a third world dictatorship called Japan too in some small scale engagements in some islands around the pacific before Stalin won the war. Some (American) people like call that "fighting in a two front war". That makes me laugh.

The US so far has never been a main participating in a large international war between great powers (as France, Russia, UK, Germany, Austria Hungary and Italy were in WW1 or Germany and Russia were in WW2) much less a two front war (they had that civil war that was kinda serious back in the 1860s although it was a great display of incompetence for the North who had 75% of the US's population (and over 80% of the white population and 85% of the industrial production) to take so long to win it), by far the most important effect in their participation in WW2 was to give Stalin money, other than that they were important mostly for preventing the Soviet Union from absorbing Western continental Europe as colonies. They are a pacific democratic individualistic free market culture who are not willing to fight large scale wars such as France did in WW1 or the USSR did in WW2. Actually, over the past 200 years the only country to actually mobilize it's adult male population to the full degree into the armed forces and fight a war of aggression outside of it's borders was the militaristic Prussian culture that was Imperial/Nazi Germany. They were a really weird country.

[Guaporense]

And the US was involved in a two-front war.

So it was the US which was stripped of 1/3 of their assets, their labour force was being depleted faster than they could replace? Were there any German Panzer Divisions in Oak Ridge? So Japan was industrially stronger than the US?

Indeed, Japan was about as industrially strong relative to the US as Poland, or the pair of countries combined: Yugoslavia and Greece, were relative to Germany. It's was a great achievement of military incompetence to take almost 4 years to make Japan surrender (and they surrendered without even being invaded). Well, mainly because the US didn't actually have a decent military in 1941, they had to build up an army from scratch and by the time they finished preparing for war, in mid 1944, Stalin had already won it quite some time before.

Still, the US in WW2 did something very important: they started playing the act of hegemonic country to stabilize international relations. Before WW2, the countries that performed the function of hegemons were France and UK, countries which were smaller and less powerful than Germany and Russia and so the world was always under tension of the eruption of a global war which happened twice, in 1914 and 1939. With WW2, the US, the world largest economy, took center stage in international relations by supporting Russia in the war while creating a lot of international institutions to help to establish a stable and peaceful global order such as Bretton Woods, the reation of the UN and the IMF. While their direct military action was not very important, their shift in their role in international relations, from an isolated country that didn't participate a lot in international politics to the world's central political player made the world much more stable and peaceful, ushering the era of peace and prosperity that has lasted over the past 70 years: a pax Americana. Even though, they did not actually "win the war", they supported Russia, who won the war, and organized the world system of international relations after it to a more reasonable basis (such as not allowing Russia to occupy all of continental Europe).

Their war against Japan was an example: Japan was a developing country that was more industrialized than the rest of Asia but was still far behind the Western countries. The US basically protected the sovereignty of a large fraction of Asia against Japan imperialism's while putting that militaristic dictatorship into it's place. Essentially acting as an hegemonic power taking care of kids bullying other kids (i.e. Japan bullying the rest of Asia) to preserve the world's system of international relations in a more reasonable and equal basis.

Nazi Germany was a very different case from Japan: it was an extremely aggressive superpower that was seeking to destroy the world system of international relations and to isolate itself from it by establishing a colonial empire in the middle of Europe, the world's central region. However, thanks to the fact that another superpower was right there in Europe, the USSR, made the US role in putting Germany back into it's place very easy indeed. Just give money to Stalin and the emotional support for the Red Army provided by strategic bombing.

[Yoozername]

Well, mainly because the US didn't actually have a decent military in 1941, they had to build up an army from scratch and by the time they finished preparing for war, in mid 1944, Stalin had already won it.

They built up a Navy also, and an Air Force, and an Army, and a Marine Corp, and made weapons, food and vehicles in quite large numbers....I guess the French in WWI didn't have to do much of that? They just needed privates with bolt action rifles???

[Guaporense]

Indeed, the US's mobilization in WW2 was impressive because they basically had nothing in 1939 but I think their mobilization was very inneficient in focusing too much on the air force and to little on the army.

While in WW1, France produced 290 million rounds of artillery ammunition in WW1, while the UK produced 220 million and the US produced 50 million. At the same time in WW1, France deployed 120 divisions in Europe, vis 100 for the UK and the US deployed like 40. France was extremely efficient in their war effort in WW1.

In both WW1 and WW2, the source of the bulk of the firepower for the armed forces consisted of mostly artillery and mortars. Those were by far the most important things to produce to supply the armed forces:



Aircraft inflicted around 3-5% of all casualties by comparison, their role was mostly psychological.

[Yoozername]

Who had better 1 man turret tanks? France or Japan...discuss....

[Michael Kenny]

They built up a Navy also, and an Air Force, and an Army, and a Marine Corp, and made weapons, food and vehicles in quite large numbers....I guess the French in WWI didn't have to do much of that? They just needed privates with bolt action rifles???

Do not fall into his trap and start blaming 'France' for the author stupidity. He would like to start a Western Allies v Soviets spat in order to detract from his insane arguments. Clearly the poster has a very limited understanding of the subject and believes that he (and he alone) has uncovered startling new evidence that all previous historians missed-wars can only won by bayonet charges of massed ranks of infantry advancing into a wall of MG fire!

[Michael Kenny]

Aircraft inflicted around 3-5% of all casualties by comparison, their role was mostly psychological.

The threat of a couple of bombs from a couple of aircraft forced one nation to surrender without a single enemy soldier setting foot on its homeland.

[Stiltzkin]

Do not fall into his trap and start blaming 'France' for the author stupidity. He would like to start a Western Allies v Soviets spat in order to detract from his insane arguments. Clearly the poster has a very limited understanding of the subject and believes that he (and he alone) has uncovered startling new evidence that all previous historians missed-wars can only won by bayonet charges of massed ranks of infantry advancing into a wall of MG fire!

1. The only thing I see is people not trying to debunk his claims or conduct a mature discussion, instead they rely on argumentum ad hominem attacks.
2. If you really read his post, you should have notized that he never stated such a thing, you seem to have misinterpreted or exchanged "bayonet charging infantry" vs "field army/larger focus on ground forces".

The threat of a couple of bombs from a couple of aircraft forced one nation to surrender without a single enemy soldier setting foot on its homeland.

So you are saying that the VVS alone would have been able to win the war in the East?

[Michael Kenny]

So you are saying that the VVS alone would have been able to win the war in the East?

I am saying what I said. Your attempts to distract me will be no more successful than they were under your other IDs

I have heard enough of Marcelo's arguments over the last 6 years to know exactly what he is saying.

[Michael Kenny]

you seem to have misinterpreted or exchanged "bayonet charging infantry" vs "field army/larger focus on ground forces".

Two nations in WW2 were forced by circumstances to operate with Armies beyond their ability to supply and maintain properly. Germany and the USSR. The Soviet Armies had horrific casualties inflicted on it by the better equipped German Armies. In the West the German Armies were blown to pieces by an a better equipped balanced force of soldiers, sailors and airmen. Both the German and Soviet armies suffered casualties and devastation on a scale that would have been unacceptable in any Western Democracy.
How anyone can hold up this act of desperation as the path to success that the UK/US should have followed is beyond me.
Both Allies had a plan. They worked out how many Divisions they could effectively support. They built their armies around those Division with a reliance on Artillery that far surpassed that or either Germany or the USSR. They were confident these armies could beat the best that Germany could throw at them and they were proved correct. Montgomery was confident that he only had to get within artillery range of the nearest German army in order to engage, degrade and destroy it. He was proved correct in his assumption.
This Allied efficiency of getting more from less is a virtue yet here we see ill-informed and ignorant poster(s?) claim that the only real measure of military success is a death-toll in the millions.

[Stiltzkin]

This is probably the most ridiculous post I have seen in this entire forum. Diagnose: Loss of reality.

your other IDs

I dont have any other IDs...