Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

[Peter89]

The political leaders of the Wallies understood the situation better than a number of their military commanders, and both Roosevelt and Churchill gave orders contradicting their military advisors.

Then it's a good thing for you that Roosevelt didn't express exactly the same thoughts as his military leaders on this subject...

...oh wait:

FDR:

"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war
depends on the Russians." Recorded in Morgenthau's diary on June 15, 1942.

FDR:

Russia alone possesses the manpower potentially able to defeat Germany in Europe. ‘‘Brief Joint Estimate of the Military Situation of the Associated Powers,’’ memo, Dec. 21, 1941, JB 325, serial 729, RG 225, NA

-------------------------------------------------------

I'm not impervious to evidence - on the contrary, really.

I eagerly await the revision of your views in light of the above evidence.


Such a revision would force a revision on me regarding past statements such as:

I've cited this work before; some on AHF remain impervious to evidence.

Really?

So if I cite a quote from Hitler, it is actually an inevitable, iron law of foreign policy? Something that was bound to happen? Lol.

What these quotes are meaning is that FDR thought that the Russians played a key role in defeating the Germans in mid-late 1941. You try to read something there, that actually wasn't there.

No one denies that the Soviets played a key role in defeating the Germans, but it doesn't mean that the war would be over if the Germans beat the SU. Britain stood alone against the whole Axis for a year, and didn't quit, made no compromise, and showed resolve.

Now that I answered your questions again (seems like I'm not the one who's impervious to evidence), how about answering the very basic question:

What sense does it make to twist a hundred decisions in history, and examine the 101st twist as a plausible alternate history?

[TheMarcksPlan]

What these quotes are meaning is that FDR thought that the Russians played a key role in defeating the Germans in mid-late 1941.

FDR could have said that, were that what he meant.

So if I cite a quote from Hitler, it is actually an inevitable, iron law of foreign policy?

What on earth are you talking about?

[Peter89]

What these quotes are meaning is that FDR thought that the Russians played a key role in defeating the Germans in mid-late 1941.

FDR could have said that, were that what he meant.

So if I cite a quote from Hitler, it is actually an inevitable, iron law of foreign policy?

What on earth are you talking about?

Would you please answer my question?

I guess the we've talked a lot about yours.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Would you please answer my question?

No, not until you explain what in the heck you meant by the Hitler comment and/or retract any such implication.

I shifted my tone towards you owing to your past implication that I viewed as "legitimate" certain Nazi tactics. As a rule, I'm not tolerating the low tactic of attributing Axis sympathy based on analysis of Axis military actions.

[Peter89]

Would you please answer my question?

No, not until you explain what in the heck you meant by the Hitler comment and/or retract any such implication.

I shifted my tone towards you owing to your past implication that I viewed as "legitimate" certain Nazi tactics. As a rule, I'm not tolerating the low tactic of attributing Axis sympathy based on analysis of Axis military actions.

I didn't imply that, but why didn't you write me a pm if you are so upset about something? Instead, we are completely derailing a thread for pure personal purposes. You are welcome to discuss your feelings in pm.

Back to source understanding.

If I quote from FDR's diary, it means how he saw the world at a certain point of time, not that what he saw was truth or the future.

Same goes for Churchill, Hitler, Halder, Göring, et al.

FDR said that the American boys will not go to war. Then they did. I pointed out the lack of source criticism in cases when you find something that fits your narrative.

Now, how about to actually address my question?

[AbollonPolweder]

...
If I quote from FDR's diary, it means how he saw the world at a certain point of time, not that what he saw was truth or the future.

Same goes for Churchill, Hitler, Halder, Göring, et al.

Yes sir! You are complitely right! I would add Stalin if you don't mind to your list.

...
All this led to a weakening of our ability to defend and put the Soviet Union in a mortal threat.
…
I think that there is only one way out of this situation: to create already this year a second front somewhere in the Balkans or in France, capable of pulling off 30-40 German divisions from the eastern front, and at the same time providing the Soviet Union with 30 thousand tons of aluminum to early October and a monthly minimum assistance of 400 aircraft and 500 tanks (small or medium).

Without these two types of assistance, the Soviet Union will either be defeated or weakened to the point that it loses for a long time the ability to provide assistance to its allies by its active actions on the front of the struggle against Hitlerism.

Stalin's letter to Churchill. September,3 1941
https://www.prlib.ru/item/450795
A week later, Stalin asked to send 25-30 British divisions to the USSR if it was impossible to open a second front. From these requests it is clear that the dictator views the situation in the USSR as almost hopeless. And Roosevelt, of course, could have had a more optimistic opinion. But in this case I would rather believe Stalin.

[ljadw]

But Stalin was wrong : there was no ''Second Front "' (there was a virtual one ),the Germans did not withdraw 40 divisions and the USSR did not receive the aluminium and tanks/aircraft it asked ,and still, the USSR was not defeated/weakened .
The truth is very simple : even if the USSR was defeated, Germany would be still defeated by the Wallies.

[Peter89]

But Stalin was wrong : there was no ''Second Front "' (there was a virtual one ),the Germans did not withdraw 40 divisions and the USSR did not receive the aluminium and tanks/aircraft it asked ,and still, the USSR was not defeated/weakened .
The truth is very simple : even if the USSR was defeated, Germany would be still defeated by the Wallies.

To elaborate it further, the "defeat of the USSR" could not be done the way the Germans had planned it.

[Counter]

The truth is very simple : even if the USSR was defeated, Germany would be still defeated by the Wallies.

The Wallies had the capacity of producing enormous amount of very good weapons, had very good soldiers and officials and also they were on the side of the reason, liberty, democracy etc... but they could never afford the horrible human sacrificies that soviet and nazis reached. If nazis defeated USSR, they would be owners of unsurmountable raw materials resources, they would count on 200 divisions PLUS another 300 of other Axis nations (with the USSR defeated, the whole Europe "would be Axis"). On november 1944 there were presidential elections in the USA and nobody would vote for hundreds of thousands of young men to die in order to save Europe from the nazi tyranny... particularly if there is no coming victory to be seen.

And about the atom bomb, there was no certainty of that could work up to summer 1945 and previous to that it was a secret. Even it was no certainty that the nazi scientists (Hahn, Heisenberg...) could not make another bomb at the same time...

[ljadw]

The truth is very simple : even if the USSR was defeated, Germany would be still defeated by the Wallies.

The Wallies had the capacity of producing enormous amount of very good weapons, had very good soldiers and officials and also they were on the side of the reason, liberty, democracy etc... but they could never afford the horrible human sacrificies that soviet and nazis reached. If nazis defeated USSR, they would be owners of unsurmountable raw materials resources, they would count on 200 divisions PLUS another 300 of other Axis nations (with the USSR defeated, the whole Europe "would be Axis"). On november 1944 there were presidential elections in the USA and nobody would vote for hundreds of thousands of young men to die in order to save Europe from the nazi tyranny... particularly if there is no coming victory to be seen.

And about the atom bomb, there was no certainty of that could work up to summer 1945 and previous to that it was a secret. Even it was no certainty that the nazi scientists (Hahn, Heisenberg...) could not make another bomb at the same time...

This is not correct :
1 Germany's allies had not 300 divisions
2 Germany being the owner of a lot of raw materials is something meaningless,as these raw materials would remain in the East,because the railways could not transport them to Germany .
Example :during the preparations for Blau, the German oil experts warned that the maximum oil Germany could get from the Caucasus was 1 million ton a year,and this after several years of rebuilding the oil installations.
The truth is that Germany had not the means to occupy,colonize and exploit the USSR. Besides : Germany did not need the raw materials of the East .
3 About the atom bomb : that there was no certainty that it would work is irrelevant, because : it worked and was used .The atom bomb would be used against the German cities and Germany had not the means to riposte against the US : there was no German atom bomb and if there was one it could not be used against the US .
4 Even if Germany had won the war, the Third Reich would have collapsed before 1953 .Germany was too weak to dominate Europe, as were Spain, France and also the USSR .

[Counter]

Thank yoy Ijawd for your point of view

Germany's allies had not 300 divisions

If nazis defeated USSR of course they would: just summing Japan, Italy, France, Spain, Turkey...

Germany being the owner of a lot of raw materials is something meaningless,as these raw materials would remain in the East,because the railways could not transport them to Germany (...) During the preparations for Blau, the German oil experts warned that the maximum oil Germany could get from the Caucasus was 1 million ton a year,and this after several years of rebuilding the oil installations.

At the time nazis and soviets were "friends" -1939. 1940, 1941- soviet oil was transported to Germany. And above all, russian oil could be transported also by sea.

According to what I read they would not need so many years to rebuild installations. And I would like to learn more about those German oil experts considering that the whole European oil industry would be unable to make what the soviet industry could.

About the atom bomb : that there was no certainty that it would work is irrelevant, because : it worked and was used

You forgot to deal with the question of USA democracy and presidential elections in 1944. Would Roosevelt proclaim -as Goebbels- that they have "secret weapons" coming in the future to win the war?

And anyway it is not feasible to think that would drop the bomb existing the believable possibility that the nazis could retaliate with some other -or the same- revolutionary weapon.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Germany's allies did raise over 300 divisions. The Japanese had 195. The Italians 113. That is already over 300. Romania raised 31 division (twice!). Then there are Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria and Croatia.

Admittedly the equipment and quality of some is questionable, but 300+ divisions there certainly were.

The Soviet Union did not seem to find it impossible to move raw materials from the East around the country. Why would Germany once the rail gauge issue had been sorted?

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Japan was not at war with the USSR,thus it can not be counted .
The others,with the exception of Italy, did not fight against the Wallies ,thus their help to Germany is very questionable .
And, what would do the others when the USSR was defeated ?They would remove their forces at home and would demobilize,Italy is an exception .
The fact is that the Wallies would not have to fight against 500 Axis divisions,even not against 200 German divisions .
About the Russian raw materials : they were not moved from the East to the ''Alt" Russia :Magnitogorsk is not the East, but the West . The same for the Caucasus .
In one of the tomes of DDR ZWK ( I will have to look which one ) it is mentioned that the German oil experts warned for the illusion that the conquest of the Caucasus would result in the fall of the SU (after Stalingrad the Caucasus oil wells produced at only 50 % of their capacity and still the Soviets conquered Berlin ) AND also for the illusion that the conquest of European Russia would give Germany enough raw materials to win the war against the Wallies : the first years the maximum Germany could expect was 1 million ton of oil a year,and even if the transport problem was resolved ( the rail gauge issue was only a small part of this problem ) ,the difficulty would remain to restart the production of the needed raw materials .
Other point : curiously no one has been thinking on the question : why would Germany need more raw materials and fuel to win a war limited against the Wallies ?
Most German resources,manpower,fuel,... were committed and spent in the war against the USSR . When this war would be over, Germany would not need the oil and raw materials of Russia to win against the Wallies .

[ljadw]

Thank yoy Ijawd for your point of view

Germany's allies had not 300 divisions

If nazis defeated USSR of course they would: just summing Japan, Italy, France, Spain, Turkey...

Germany being the owner of a lot of raw materials is something meaningless,as these raw materials would remain in the East,because the railways could not transport them to Germany (...) During the preparations for Blau, the German oil experts warned that the maximum oil Germany could get from the Caucasus was 1 million ton a year,and this after several years of rebuilding the oil installations.

At the time nazis and soviets were "friends" -1939. 1940, 1941- soviet oil was transported to Germany. And above all, russian oil could be transported also by sea.

According to what I read they would not need so many years to rebuild installations. And I would like to learn more about those German oil experts considering that the whole European oil industry would be unable to make what the soviet industry could.

About the atom bomb : that there was no certainty that it would work is irrelevant, because : it worked and was used

You forgot to deal with the question of USA democracy and presidential elections in 1944. Would Roosevelt proclaim -as Goebbels- that they have "secret weapons" coming in the future to win the war?

And anyway it is not feasible to think that would drop the bomb existing the believable possibility that the nazis could retaliate with some other -or the same- revolutionary weapon.

Spain and Turkey were not allies and Germany was better without them .
The fall of the USSR would have no influence on the outcome of the war in the Pacific : the LSSAH would not go to Wladivostok and Japanese divisions would not go to Normandy.
About the oil :
In 1940 Germany produced 4,6 million ton of oil (mostly,but not all,synthetic oil ) and imported 2,1 million ton ,of which 800000 ton from the USSR .
In 1941 5,5 million and 2,8 million (of which 250000 from the USSR 0
1942 : 6,3 million and 2,3 million (mostly from Romania )
1943 : 7,5 million and 2,8 million
1944 : 5,4 million and 1 million .
If in 1941 Germany ( with 8,3 million ton of oil ) defeated the USSR,why would it need in 1942 8,6 million or 9,6 million ( + 1 million ton from the Caucasus ) to fight against the Wallies, as the big fighting would be over ) ?
About the 1944 elections : there was total unanimity between Democrats (FDR )and the GOP (Dewey ) : the WASPs dominated US political life and they would never accept a German domination of Europe and the existence of a national socialist Germany .It was the same in 1940 : the choice between FDR and Willkie was much of a muchness .It was the choice between arsenic and cyanide .
About the A bomb : FDR knew of the Manhattan program but did not mention it during the election campaign .

[KDF33]

Japan was not at war with the USSR,thus it can not be counted .

Do you lack basic reading comprehension? Counter specifically made the point that he was talking of the balance-of-forces after an eventual defeat of the USSR.