Search this Topic:
Jul 16 17 5:12 AM
Jul 16 17 5:43 AM
Jul 16 17 9:39 AM
2lapsdown wrote:Just be quiet you moron. every time you hit the keybord you show how dumb you are..Do you have to resort to personal insults ? IF you disagree with him, put forward your solution or explanation
Jul 16 17 11:09 AM
Jul 16 17 1:25 PM
Jul 16 17 3:13 PM
Joe Steel wrote:Baron, I am not sure whether you are arguing what you think would have happened, or what you hope would have happened. There would be no "swindle" if the Germans surrendered armies in the West in late 1944, just as there wasn't when this actually happened in 1945. There were not "13 million battle tested vets" in the Soviet Army in 1944, there were about 6.5 million, not all of them available to fight on their western front. The Yak-3 was only available in fairly small numbers in 1944 (it IOC'd that year) so arguing that there were few Allied fighters to match it it almost meaningless. US deliveries of Lend-Lease alone amounted to the supplies necessary to arm and maintain 60 US-style infantry divisions. Stalin did not at all supply his army with their military needs through Soviet production.
And the Western Allies didn't "barely" defeat the "1/4 of the German Army [you] found in the west." Just before D-Day, the Germans had about 3.5 million men deployed against the Soviets, 1 million in Italy, and 1.5 million in France (and about a million more in occupation duties in Norway and the Balkans). The German forces in the West were more comprehensively defeated even than those in the East.
Now, the issue at stake here is political; what would the West think that they had to concede to the Soviets to keep them satisfied after that war? What would Stalin settle for? Neither would want to risk a major war, because the Soviets couldn't fight such a war (they needed desperately to get some farmers back on the land, especially if US food supplies were cut off, and they had no manpower reserves) and the West wouldn't want to as it would be political suicide. I think that the Soviets would get their buffer to the West (probably a Finlandized Poland and Czechoslovakia and a Soviet-dominated Hungary, Romania, and Baltics) but no territory in Germany.
Jul 16 17 4:00 PM
Jul 17 17 12:44 AM
Baron wrote:Not so. Stalin was mostly supplying his own military needs but he did appreciate the 400,000 Studebakers. The thousands M3 Lee tanks and obsolete aircraft we sent were amusing to the builders of the T-34 and Yak3 no doubt.
Stalin had already taken the measure of the mighty German army and found it wanting. The Allies were barely able to defeat the 1/4 of the German army we found in the west.
I l. doubt if the 2 million battle tested Allied soldiers scared Stalin's 13 million battle tested vets much.
I think the Red Army would do quite well. The Air force is the only real superior asset the Allies have and its not clear if they have an big advantage there or not except in heavy bombers. The only fighter the west has that is markedly superior to the Yak3 is the P51.
Most Russian industry lies back at the Urals now so thousand of miles out of range for any allied aircraft
By Late Oct 1945 we will have produced exactly 4 of these weapons and used two so that mean only two of them to drop on Russia.
The real unasked point of this thread is would the Americans, the Canadians and British people put up with this double cross and swindle?
Jul 17 17 12:50 AM
Jul 17 17 1:04 AM
IcelofAngeln wrote:Czecho and perhaps even Hungary might have wound up democratic NATO members, and Poland perhaps a Finlandized neutral rather than WP.
Dave AAA wrote:Baron wrote:Not so. Stalin was mostly supplying his own military needs but he did appreciate the 400,000 Studebakers. The thousands M3 Lee tanks and obsolete aircraft we sent were amusing to the builders of the T-34 and Yak3 no doubt.The Soviets also really appreciated (and much liked) the four thousand Shermans, the seven thousand P-39 and P-63, and the twenty-eight hundred A-20 - not to mention the raw materials, the locomotives, the electronics and so on. One might also note that a lack of food was a major factor in the collapse of Russia in the previous war.
Stalin had already taken the measure of the mighty German army and found it wanting. The Allies were barely able to defeat the 1/4 of the German army we found in the west.Barely? I think the fact that we got to the Elbe at the same time as the Soviets shows that we were doing better than that against the third of the Heer the West faced. The Western Allies (particularly the USAAF) also played the major role in defeating the Luftwaffe and it was the West that destroyed the Kriegsmarine.
I l. doubt if the 2 million battle tested Allied soldiers scared Stalin's 13 million battle tested vets much. Four and a half million Western soldiers plus whatever former Wehrmacht troops could be reorganized.
I think the Red Army would do quite well. The Air force is the only real superior asset the Allies have and its not clear if they have an big advantage there or not except in heavy bombers. The only fighter the west has that is markedly superior to the Yak3 is the P51. Also the Spitfire, Typhoon, Meteor, Thunderbolt, Lightning, and Corsair. Actually, every land based fighter in front line service in 1944. Soviet pilots were also not nearly as well trained as the West, as seen when they fought each other over Korea.
Most Russian industry lies back at the Urals now so thousand of miles out of range for any allied aircraft.Not for the B-29. The distance from West Germany to the Urals is about the same or less than that from the Marianas to Japan.By Late Oct 1945 we will have produced exactly 4 of these weapons and used two so that mean only two of them to drop on Russia.They were planning on building three or four per month until the end of the war made it unnecessary.The real unasked point of this thread is would the Americans, the Canadians and British people put up with this double cross and swindle?No, as you note. For that matter, the Soviet people would be confused if not rebellious at starting a new war immediately after winning the old one unless the West gave them a very convincing casus belli. As early as the Tehran Conference it was decided to completely occupy Germany with each of the three major Allied powers getting a zone.
Dave AAA wrote:Take Poand, for instance. The Nazis murdered six million Poles, about three million each ethnic Poles and Jews. The Communists, about a million. The Germans stripped Polish industry, closed schools, and eliminated Poles in management positions. Their plan was the eventual elimination of the Polish people and the reduction of the country to feudal farm-holds. The Communists reopenedschools and universities, including seminaries, and built more of them. They invested in economic development leaving Poland better than they found it (though almost certainly not better than it would have been if left to the free market). Poles were returned to management and executive positions all the way up to the most senior levels of government (though at that level, they were supervised to some extend by the Soviets.)Much better than the Nazis, though as faint praise goes, that's pretty faint.
Baron wrote:I can't argue that it wouldn't appear be a better deal than historically for Germans but it would be more than a bit shady, don't you think? And what if Stalin didn't buy it? What if he told Zhukov to roll over the Allied armies? Then what?
Remember the Allies hadn't faced but about 25% of the Germany Army at any point in the war. Stalin's forces were enormous, His air force was huge, modern and well set up. His armor was unmatched by anything on the Allied side. His artillery doctrine and number of tubes was well beyond anything we had. I think his forces had the edge on experience. I wouldn't be too surprised if the Red Army wasn't able to push us right back over the Rhine to be honest. And what can FDR/WSC tell us here back at home where war weariness was rampant, "on to Moscow"? I don't think that's going to work.
And all this, if it came to pass, because we put ourselves in the wrong with a double cross.
All speculation of course.
Baron wrote:Joe Steel, I'm not arguing what I wished would have happened. I'm arguing for what I think is most likely to have happened if the coup against Hitler would have succeeded and the German army gained political control of the country. We can quibble about how many soldiers one army has or the value of lend lease and I'm fine with that.
What I wish would have happened is for the British government to join with France in resisting Hitler more aggressively in 1934 when he invaded the Rhineland with a few battalions of riflemen. The French were willing but the Brits were not. A great chance to avoid a war all knew was coming was thrown away. Would it have went down differently if Churchill or Leo Amery had been PM instead of the useless Stanley Baldwin? I don't know but that's what I wish in hindsight.
The division of German territory wasn't officially finalized until the Yalta Conference in January 1945. If Germany had collapsed and surrendered to the Western Allies in late 1944, there would have been no formal division of territories, or at least the Soviets would have gotten a much smaller share. So there would have been little or no legal casus belli for the Soviets to go to war against the West. This would have been deeply unpopular among the Red Army and civilians at home; even in a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship like Stalin's USSR, there are limits to what people will take. Plus, economically the USSR was a wreck and could not have continued a long war without Allied aid.
Cody2 wrote:If the German Army did win a quick civil war with the SS, could the resulting Army lead government have attempted to surrender to the US/UK, but not to the USSR? After a short civil war, there would be little love between any Army lead government, and the remaining SS forces and leadership. Turning them over to the US/UK, and blaming everything all on them would be more or less acceptable I'd guess.
If the Germans surrender to the UK, I think there is little question that the Churchill would take the surrender. Functionally, the UK's position in Europe post war would be pretty much ideal in this case.
Would FDR really turn his head at running the table in Europe on the USSR? The US/UK forces would advance through Germany right up to the USSR's lines without restriction, as all of Germany surrendered? I mean, as much as FDR made nice with the USSR, completely winning the post war environment and finishing the war in Europe in mid to late 1944 is nothing to sneeze at.
You forget that Rosevelt was dumber than a box of rocks. And pace emc, I am well aware that you are a thermonuclear factory worker with a 220 I.Q., but this is not about conservative v. liberal or whatever, but about the fact that this was one of the stupidist world leaders who ever lived. The Supreme Court Justice who characterised Roosevelt as a "first rate personality and a third rate intellect" was being VERY generous regarding Roosevelt's "intellect."
Remember this was the man who knew he could "manage" the sociopath genius who ran rings around him (the guy even Htler was able to realize was "nothing but a stone cold blackmailer" back when he and Stalin were "friends") and derided Churchill (a true great man and genius whose boots in a just world Roosevelt should never been allowed to lick without being horse-whipped for temerity) as a "drunk" while pretending to be his friend." There is. Dumb, damn dumb, and Roosevelt.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.