The turningpoint of WWII

[Tiwaz]

Originally posted by Rush Limbaugh@Feb 8 2005, 02:19 AM

Overall agreement is that Stalingrad turned the tide.

Germany had no means of winning the war after failures of Moscow and Stalingrad. Nothing short of act of God could have enabled Germany to take Russia at that point. Most of the men who had excellent prewar training were exhausted by war. Britain was still very much alive and Royal Navy was superior to Kriegsmarine and had ability to cut off Germany from outside world far more efficiently than U-boot fleet of Germany could isolate Britain.

Stalingrad is indeed the turning point as far as the war in the East is concerned but thats not what were arguing here. Stalingrad would not have happened without help from the US and other allies. I dont see how you can deny this.

Now, Stalingrad was very much possible with the existing Soviet forces. As I have mentioned overall the LL formed 10-15% from total Soviet production. On some subjects it was more critical. But...

Even without LL Germans would not have been able to take Stalingrad. Losses for Soviets would have been higher yes, battles perhaps prolonged for another six months but in the end Germany simply did not have the required supplies to keep up the pressure. Inevitable defeat of Germany against Soviets was not result of some superhuman capability of Soviet troops but simply inadequate resources of Germany.

German Blitzkrieg was the culmination of German military ability. Germans had to win quickly and decisively like in Poland and France or they would end up defeated in war of attrition. With Soviet Union fast victory was out of question and resulting attrition was playing against Germans more than against Soviets.

[OTZ]

Tiwaz - i am done trying to convince you. it is the same rhetoric over and over again. why is so hard for you to accept the fact that the soviets would have lost withouth lend-lease? your arguments have become so convoluted its not even funny anymore. you focus on things with little relevance - ie ambrose again! and for that matter why bring up walsh and beevor!?! they have written how many books? 3 combined? what makes them experts on anything more than stalingrad? the problem with both of their books is they lack an overall focus - try picking something up by erickson or glantz - you'll have a different view of the war.

your arguments and any "relevant" (i use the term lightly) evidence you have used are poorly chosen - they can essentially be boiled down to:

1) the germans would have lost no matter what
2) lend-lease? what lend-lease?

this isnt about the US winning the war - like rush, i am more than willing to admit that the russians bore the brunt of the war. no one should have a problem doing that. the debate is about their means of accomplishing it - something, for reasons beyond explantion, you are completely denying. c'mon guy, can you honestly be that ignorant?

[Sidus Preclarum]

Originally posted by Rush Limbaugh@Feb 7 2005, 08:42 PM
Alss no one has mentoned operation torch

err .. i did ...

and didn't most of the LL aid arrive in 1943 and after (most of the aid of 1942 being sent to the bottom of the sea by Uboots ) ?
I also read somewhere that most of the Tanks the USSR received with LL were used for training (though I have seen a cool photo of an russian tank crew posing before a sherman as being the first crew to have entered Vienna)

[OTZ]

Originally posted by Sidus Preclarum@Feb 8 2005, 09:39 AM
err .. i did ...

and didn't most of the LL aid arrive in 1943 and after (most of the aid of 1942 being sent to the bottom of the sea by Uboots ) ?
I also read somewhere that most of the Tanks the USSR received with LL were used for training (though I have seen a cool photo of an russian tank crew posing before a sherman as being the first crew to have entered Vienna)

a large portion of lend-lease did arrive in 1943 - but that is beside the point of the debate.
LL tanks were most certainly not used for training - as i mentioned the russians employed them in large quantities in their armoured and mech corps/armies.

[SilverDeath]

Depends on which front your talking about

imo, Midway was turning point for The pacific theater

On the western front, the moment Hitler switched targets of the Luftwaffe from airfields and military bases to Cities was a terrible mistake that ultimately doomed the german air force.

The Eastern front is a bit tricky, Stalingrad was an important battle between two massive armies over pretty much nothing. Trying to siphon oil from the black sea area was a very bad idea for losing an entire army division.

The turning point of the war has alot to do with America's lend lease program for the soviets. If America didn't support the soviets, there was no way they could push the germans out.

[Flanagan]

Originally posted by Justinian@Feb 7 2005, 12:28 PM
Um ... the US ... didn't ... carry out D-Day?

Without the US there wouldn't have even been a D-Day. Strange to think the US wasn't important in D-Day. Or be the cause of victory at D-Day.

"Right, we, the British, will go take Gold and Juno, I believe the Canadians are taking Sword, and the other beaches ... well ... they're going to flank us and we're going to get blown to hell by German retaliation because we're unprotected ... but ... that's life...

Let's go!"

Yes, the US had a huge amount of men and resources ready for D-Day but most of the Ships involved in the D-Day landings were British. Britain was still a navy powerhouse at that time. Who else could get 300,000 troops out of Dunkirk in such a short time? Also some of the best plans and tools were british inventions for the day. Ploto and the Mulberry harbours for examole were british made and built, which were vital in the Normandy landing and were still hugely important till the capture of Antwerp since the Germans destroyed all the port facilities in all the main ports in their retreat.


It was a joint venture between the US and the British and both equal partners. And one without other would have failed.

[drugpimp]

Originally posted by Flanagan+Feb 9 2005, 07:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Flanagan @ Feb 9 2005, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Justinian@Feb 7 2005, 12:28 PM
Um ... the US ... didn&#39;t ... carry out D-Day?

Without the US there wouldn&#39;t have even been a D-Day. Strange to think the US wasn&#39;t important in D-Day. Or be the cause of victory at D-Day.

"Right, we, the British, will go take Gold and Juno, I believe the Canadians are taking Sword, and the other beaches ... well ... they&#39;re going to flank us and we&#39;re going to get blown to hell by German retaliation because we&#39;re unprotected ... but ... that&#39;s life...

Let&#39;s go&#33;"

Yes, the US had a huge amount of men and resources ready for D-Day but most of the Ships involved in the D-Day landings were British. Britain was still a navy powerhouse at that time. Who else could get 300,000 troops out of Dunkirk in such a short time? Also some of the best plans and tools were british inventions for the day. Ploto and the Mulberry harbours for examole were british made and built, which were vital in the Normandy landing and were still hugely important till the capture of Antwerp since the Germans destroyed all the port facilities in all the main ports in their retreat.


It was a joint venture between the US and the British and both equal partners. And one without other would have failed. [/b][/quote]
I was under the assumption that a large portion of the boats involved were of US manufacture. I mean the British had a huge amount of overseas supply lines to protect. And didnt the allies even provide 50 destroyers (although obsolete) just to help the british protect its atlantic shipping lines.

Getting men out of Dunkirk (didnt it have a working harbor?) is not the same thing as an amphibious landing. I could be wrong, but wasnt the main boat used the Higgins landing craft? I am not trying to diminish British and canadian involvment during D-day, but I felt your above statment may have been misleading.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Yes, the US had a huge amount of men and resources ready for D-Day but most of the Ships involved in the D-Day landings were British. Britain was still a navy powerhouse at that time

I was under the assumption that a large portion of the boats involved were of US manufacture. I mean the British had a huge amount of overseas supply lines to protect. And didnt the allies even provide 50 destroyers (although obsolete) just to help the british protect its atlantic shipping lines.

Im afraid you have it backwards. By the time of D Day the US was supplying most of the escort vessles. The Royal Navy indeed did the yoemans work as far as the naval part of D Day was concerned.

Allied Maritime Forces Assigned to Operation Neptune
Naval Combatant Vessels 1,213
Landing Ships & Craft 4,126
Ancillary Ships & Craft 736
Merchant Ships 864
Total 6,939
The naval combat vessels were approximately 79% British & Canadian; 16½% American & 4½% other Allies.

I could be wrong, but wasnt the main boat used the Higgins landing craft?

I believe your correct here but those are landing craft and considered naval vessels.

[drugpimp]

Originally posted by Rush Limbaugh@Feb 9 2005, 07:58 PM

I was under the assumption that a large portion of the boats involved were of US manufacture. I mean the British had a huge amount of overseas supply lines to protect. And didnt the allies even provide 50 destroyers (although obsolete) just to help the british protect its atlantic shipping lines.

Im afraid you have it backwards. By the time of D Day the US was supplying most of the escort vessles. The Royal Navy indeed did the yoemans work as far as the naval part of D Day was concerned.

Allied Maritime Forces Assigned to Operation Neptune
Naval Combatant Vessels* 1,213
Landing Ships & Craft* 4,126
Ancillary Ships & Craft* 736
Merchant Ships* 864
Total* 6,939
The naval combat vessels were approximately 79% British & Canadian; 16½% American & 4½% other Allies.

I believe your correct here but those are landing craft and considered naval vessels.

I admit my error, and now feel a little bit smarter :cool

Thanks Rush

[Flanagan]

I had a book that gave a great break down on the numbers of ships both sides supplied for the invasion only thing I can find on the web is



And this link give a general break down of all the allies countries involvement in the invasion

http://solonor.com/archives/002518.html

[Justinian]

Flanagan ...

You just proved my point. :grin

[Flanagan]

Just wanted to say all the allies did a huge amount of work and a great job on D-Day.

I think I&#39;ll go off and watch "The Longest Day", where of all people, Sean Connery played an Irishman named Pvt. Flanagan, and gave out about the bag-pipes half way through the movie. Strange but true.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056197/

[Tiwaz]

Originally posted by OTZ@Feb 8 2005, 05:47 AM
Tiwaz - i am done trying to convince you. it is the same rhetoric over and over again. why is so hard for you to accept the fact that the soviets would have lost withouth lend-lease? your arguments have become so convoluted its not even funny anymore. you focus on things with little relevance - ie ambrose again&#33; and for that matter why bring up walsh and beevor&#33;?&#33; they have written how many books? 3 combined? what makes them experts on anything more than stalingrad? the problem with both of their books is they lack an overall focus - try picking something up by erickson or glantz - you&#39;ll have a different view of the war.

your arguments and any "relevant" (i use the term lightly) evidence you have used are poorly chosen - they can essentially be boiled down to:

1) the germans would have lost no matter what
2) lend-lease? what lend-lease?

this isnt about the US winning the war - like rush, i am more than willing to admit that the russians bore the brunt of the war. no one should have a problem doing that. the debate is about their means of accomplishing it - something, for reasons beyond explantion, you are completely denying. c&#39;mon guy, can you honestly be that ignorant?

I pick my readings to have wide selection not just 2 authors so their personal bias and opinions would dominate my view and then draw my own conclusions. I recommend you doing the same instead of taking Glanz&#39;s opinons as holy word of WW2.


Now, once more. CAN YOU POST HERE STATISTICS FOR ANY SINGLE YEAR WHEN USSR MOTOR POOL HAD 75% OF IT&#39;S TOTAL STRENGTH FROM LL TRUCKS?

No you can&#39;t. That 75% is relating to yearly production. 75% of new vehicles gained during the war were LL but they did not form 75% of motorpool.

Or do you honestly claim that at some point 75% of total truck motorpool was LL trucks but in last year of war Soviets suddenly produced hundreds and hundreds of thousands of trucks so that their final motorpool was 55% Soviet? Or that they suddenly lost so much LL trucks that their numbers dropped from your imaginary 75% to less than 30%?

Do you deny that overall LL formed only 10-15% of total production of Soviet Union? If you do then please post us with statistics that point the opposite. Full production of USSR and LL.

Do you claim that German forces on Barbarossa did not suffer from serious supply problems which caused severe shortages reducing operating efficiency greatly?

[OTZ]

ok, i guess i am not done.

by the end of 1943 LL had contributed 556,825 vehicles to the russian military (approx 37000 in 1942 alone.) during this same period Russian production of wheeled transport fell dramatically due to the relocation of its factories to the Urals. as a result, out of the 750,000 motor vehicles available to the russians in nov 1943, LL vehicles were approx 75%. this figure varied and only takes into consideration the total numbers that reached Russia either through murmask or persia. it does not take into consideration vehicles available to front line troops.

Or do you honestly claim that at some point 75% of total truck motorpool was LL trucks but in last year of war Soviets suddenly produced hundreds and hundreds of thousands of trucks so that their final motorpool was 55% Soviet? Or that they suddenly lost so much LL trucks that their numbers dropped from your imaginary 75% to less than 30%?

see above. and yes, as Soviet factories began to operate to a larger capacity in late 1943, and as LL began to decline the same year, russian made motor vehicles began to be more numerous than their LL counterparts.

Do you deny that overall LL formed only 10-15% of total production of Soviet Union? If you do then please post us with statistics that point the opposite. Full production of USSR and LL

i havent denied the 10-15% figure - but this has nothing to do with production. quit pretending it does. these factors are in referrence to equipment available through lend lease as compared to domestically produced. these figures do not take into consideration the amount of raw materials provided through lend lease, now do they?

even if 10-15% represented the LL contribution to the russian war effort - this is an OVERALL ratio. as i said many times - russian production grew exponentially during the war - and by 1944 LL was not a decisve factor. the war was decided in 1942/43 - when russian produciton was limited, and LL needed the most. you are using your "stats" in a far too general manner.

Do you claim that German forces on Barbarossa did not suffer from serious supply problems which caused severe shortages reducing operating efficiency greatly?

completely irrelevant to the argument.

[Tiwaz]

http://www.o5m6.de/numbers.html

There you can see that LL trucks is 429,612 according to very department of aid. Now, if we take your assumption on about 750 000 trucks available in total, number from you, LL at best would reach 57% NOT 75%. Tsk tsk. Again, 75% from production is far more realistic assumption in here.

Say, could you post those numbers on Soviet motorpool for year 1943 for example?

And since this whole discussion started from claim that USSR could not have defeated Germany without LL from USA, the incapability of German armed forces to support it&#39;s offensive is VERY relevant to this argument. They were not able to push because they didn&#39;t have resources to operate succesfully further in USSR so they had no way of winning.

So LL or no LL Germany would have lost.

[CommanderSela]

I believe the turning point of ww2 on the european front is the battle of Kursk and the failure to stop the evacuation of the BEF and some French troop at Dunkerque in 1940. Without those troops England couldn&#39;t resist an invasion. However, the germans neglect to developp long range bomber and the kriegsmarine was not ready. The nazi couldn&#39;t win a large scale war against the British empire, the french empire, USSR and USA alone. Their Italian allied were not ready for the war. Their army had doctrinal problems wich result of the materials incoherences during the war. The italian soldier was a good soldier. The alliance between Germany and Japan was not a smooth one. The japanese neglect to inform their intention to attack pearl harbour because the germans didn&#39;t informed them about barbarossa. The Japanese never accepted the defeat after midway and the high officers put the blame on germany.

[AHappyMilkCarton]

For me, the turning point of the war was when Hitler assumed total command of many military branches and operations and basically didn&#39;t listen to his generals (which were some of the best in the world at that time).

[Shawkhan]

...The Germans lost the war when they failed to take Moscow because of inexcusable delays caused by their beloved fuhrer, wasting time diverting to Kiev when they should have kept their attention on the main goal, Moscow. As with France, Moscow was the center of power and rail transportation in then U.S.S.R. Having lost it, the country would have effectively been cut in half and rendered leaderless.
...The Japanese lost the war at Midway, when they tried to execute an overly complicated plan and had their code security compromised to the extent that the U.S. could ambush their carrier forces.

[Byzantium]

The main goal of the German army in Russia was not the capture of Moscow but the destruction of her armies in the field as it had been in all their campaigns up til then.

The two biggest turning points IMO were the reverses in Russia and then the entry of America into the war in that order.

[Rapax]

Originally posted by Byzantium@Feb 22 2005, 04:48 AM
The main goal of the German army in Russia was not the capture of Moscow but the destruction of her armies in the field as it had been in all their campaigns up til then.

Which is exactly what was the mistake.