Russia saved our asses in WWII?

[Hanny]

Germany could not match the Allies war production nor manpower resources, plain and simple.

Chris

Except that econonimst who answered that question, (Harrisonhttp://www.amazon.com/Economics-World-War-International-Macroeconomic/dp/0521785030) showed that in 42 Germany did have close to parity.

[Legio XII]

Again the basic issue here is DID the USSR contribute a significantly and pay a very heavy butcher bill to win the war that was – yes. I make no argument there.

But if the question is did the USSR save the ‘our asses’ and in the context of the original post I presume that to be the US (or maybe the US/UK). I still say no.

In particular:

I don’t really understand your argument or bringing up the non-aggression pact between Stalin and Hitler. The Germans broke the pact all by their lonesome; and in the first place the very fact the USSR agreed to it suggests they came close to loosing our asses.

So the US could simply have defended the UK, defeated Japan and watched the Hitler bog himself down in a long grinding war with the Soviets without necessarily acting.

Could Germany have overrun the UK, and launched and invasion of NA/SA in the face of a vastly superior US/UK air force and navy while holding down under incredibly brutal occupation the USSR and much or Europe – I think the answer is no. So no the USSR helped to save its own ass and is lucky the UK and USA thought that was a good thing because if Churchill and agreed to the kind of self serving non aggression pact Stalin did the world could easily have watched the public execution of Stalin by the Gestapo…

The USSR might well be considered to have saved many asses in Europe – except for the one in eastern Europe (I’m sure less than living-members of the Polish home army might a definite opinion on that or perhaps those Poles who enjoyed an all expenses paid trip to Katyn forest...) – since I allow that the US and UK might not have launched an invasion of Europe outside of Italy for many years if no Eastern front existed.




So 2/3 of German nuclear scientists were serving on the eastern front, what defeating devilish attempts by the Russians to use the periodic chart as a cipher?

Ok, I understand where you are coming from. I admit that I deviated from the original post in bringing up the possibility of no eastern front. However, the point still stands that Germany, without the Soviet Union to fight, would have been quite secure from an invasion by America and Britain, had it not mounted any further invasions.

It is also a good point as to whether operation Sea Lion would have been mounted. That I did not think of. The losses from that campaign could have just as disastrous as Operation Barbarossa, given the logistical problems, and constrained terrain in which a determined British and American Army would put up very stiff resistance.

As for the nuclear argument, I was not saying that 2/3 of German nuclear scientists were serving on the eastern front. In saying 2/3 of resources were devoted to it, I was referring to overall German industrial output devoted to the Eastern Front. (However, I did find that roughly 2 dozen nuclear scientists that had not complied with Hitler's attempts to control the Universities were sent to the Eastern Front. Quite wasteful.)

[Boyar Son]

Russia saved themselves people! wasnt GB on its own for a little, well taking out the fact that the USA was your big suppliers of war material.

Even tho we agreed on beating Hitler 1st, we always paid more attention on beating japan.

[Otsman]

Other way around actually. Hitler never wanted to conquer Britain and conquering and holding Russia was simply impossible, even if the Nazis were smart enough. If the Russians never took part than the Nazis would have more time to concentrate on other fronts. They could have broken Britain and maybe even ally with her. Without Britain as a landing ground, and with over 6 million extra Gerries and probably over 10.000 extra tanks, a transatlantic invasion would have been incredibly hard, even for the US's economic strenght.

hitler was going to completely wipe out the slavs (like the jews) and reinhabit russia with 'aryan' settlers, and russia would provide plently of grain and oil for the new germany hitler had invisioned

[alhoon]

If Hitler hadn't been defeated in Russia (mostly because he didn't listen to his generals), he would have been defeated eventually in Europe but at a greater cost. And by defeating Russia he would have a stronger argument point to peace deals.
On the other hand, you never know... perhaps the plan to assassinate him would have succeeded and Germany would have withdrawn earlier from the war.

[AlexTheGood]

Everybody saved us... I mean, if the Japs didnt attacked the Americans then the Americans wouldnt join the War. As I know Hitler withdraw many troops from the Russian Front in Stalingrad, to face the Invading army of the US, in Normandy. The German front in Stalingrad got weaker because of less troops, and because the cold Winter came after some months, so the Russians got the oppitunity to attack. Great Britain faced the Germans, in Africa, so that they dont come near to the Oil that was there...
Greeks, stopped the Germans (after the Italians) for 10 days, causing the Nazi army to come later to Africa... (if I am not wrong)

So pretty much everybody helped everybody...

[Ishoss]

Russia liberated Norway.

US rebuilt Norway.

Cheerios to both of you.

[Pious Agnost]

I think of the analogy that the Allies were like a stool each was equally important to the victory, Just like as happens with a chair, if one hadn't been there then the Aliies wouldn't have been victorious.

Some countries were notably closer to being "a stool" (Cough, France, Poland, Belgium, Cough)

[The Noble Lord]

Russians did contribute greatly to the defeat of Nazism.

[smithy17]

Another factor is that with the XXI u-boats coming out in early 1945, these technologically advanced machines would have sunk anything and everything of both the United States & UK's Royal navies.
Additionally in this case, with there being no war with Russia, the Kriegsmarine would have had more than triple the amount of resources/research to build up its u-boat, surface fleet and merchant navy. Whislt historically the Allies could have only remained at the same pace with the fact that they unlike the Germans, there is no other front that would not be taking up their resources as they did historically. So the u-boats would be sinking them quicker than they could build them, let alone losing crews etc. Plus it literaly took years to buid a naval warship, completely unlike the hastily rushed out and half welded liberty ships.

People keep bringing this new u-boat up as if it would have come along and exerted unstopable power over the allied navies for ever. I expect that methods would have been developed to deal with it relatively quickly as happened with the original u-boats when they were causing alot of damage to allied shipping.

[Pious Agnost]

I think the person who saved our asses the most in WWII would have to be Hitler, when Churchill bombed Berlin during the battle of Britain, Hitler had a tantrum and ordered that the RAF was no longer the target, but London, had he continued to fight the RAF, they would've suppressed the U.K, and been able to concentrate their resources. Of course they still wouldn't have been able to beat the Soviets, far too many soldiers, tanks, scary women civilians who are good at using farm equipment, and the Russian winter... Do leaders ever learn from past mistakes... Napolean tried a similair strategy earlier and was decimated by the Winter, Bush tried to occupy a small, religious almost-to-the-point-of-fanatiscism country, and Georgia poked 'the bear' in the ribs, :hmmm: did I get off topic in that one?

[Dr. Croccer]

hitler was going to completely wipe out the slavs (like the jews) and reinhabit russia with 'aryan' settlers, and russia would provide plently of grain and oil for the new germany hitler had invisioned

Which is still silly because the majority of Russian oil reserves are on the other end of the AA-line, with exception of the Caucasian oil reserves, which Hitler couldn't reach after Stalingrad turned against him. And they destroyed large parts of Russian infrastructure meaning that rebuilding whilst in a war economy was going to be long and hard. Also, I doubt the Russians would simply quit if Moscow was taken over and not just relocate to Siberia and use their reserves there to continue the war.

[conon394]

Hanny

Simple, because in 41 AH stopped the German nuclear program and reasigned the scientist to opther works, mainatianing only theoritical work from that period on, and german had advanced zero % more in 43 than it had achieved in 41, when AH told them, im fighting a war now and you cannot solve the problem in its timeframe. Or in other words germany had no nuclear program of any meaning after 41, and when they captured sicentist in the UK were told of the use of atomics they would not believe it as they thought it impossible.

But even before the program was spun down in the 41-42 timeframe – the program was comparatively small, scattered, lacked focus and was rife with academic infighting.

The best result Germany seems to have achieved even under the most aggressive recent positive revaluation of the Nazi effort(*) can find only a possible, maybe, equivocal success in 45, and that occurs only via desperation and the isolation of the team in question.

If German was not loosing in USSR but rather fighting some drawn out war around the Urals, it seems doubtful that the Germans would have ever increased funding or shown the desperation that may have produced some sort of test success. Moreover given the German’s seem to have felt they were not behind (the US/UK) effort I thinking the US/UK would still have had a clear window of atom monopoly.

In addition, even if RK is correct the Germans lacked a delivery/weapon track associated with the test group. His conclusion have also been questioned (of course): the 2 main points seem to be the unclear nature of what kind of device was tested, and the lack of available uranium or Plutonium to follow up or possibly even make such a test.

(for example: http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR06/Event/47959).


*Hitlers Bombe by Rainer Karlsch – Concludes one section of the Nazi program tested some kind of quasi-nuclear atomic device in March 1945.


Edit: the conference abstract is certainly correct about one thing RK’s book as not gotten much play in the English academic literature.

Also while the military did transfer control in 41/42 I don’t know that one can say there was a 2/3 drop off in support. In the most recent review of the German and Japanese programs I can find the non-military leadership seems to have maintained roughly the same support as the Military (Speer would appear to have been a supported of the programs for example). [see: Wartime Nuclear Weapons Research in Germany and Japan Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 20, Politics and Science in Wartime: Comparative International Perspectives on the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (2005), pp. 107-130]

[Hanny]

Conon


Edit: the conference abstract is certainly correct about one thing RK’s book as not gotten much play in the English academic literature.

]

Because its utter nonsense, and everyone knows that it is.http://www.thirdreich.net/German_A_Bomb.html
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/neutroni.../nuc.bomb.html

Table of Contents

• I. The History of the Atomic Bomb
  
  • A. Development (The Manhattan Project)
    B. Detonation
    
    • 1. Hiroshima
      2. Nagasaki
      3. Byproducts of atomic detonations
      4. Blast Zones
  II. Nuclear Fission/Nuclear Fusion
  
  • A. Fission (A-Bomb) & Fusion (H-Bomb)
    B. U-235, U-238 and Plutonium
  III. The Mechanism of The Bomb
  
  • A. Altimeter
    B. Air Pressure Detonator
    C. Detonating Head(s)
    D. Explosive Charge(s)
    E. Neutron Deflector
    F. Uranium & Plutonium
    G. Lead Shield
    H. Fuses
  IV. The Diagram of The Bomb
  
  • A. The Uranium Bomb
    B. The Plutonium Bomb

I. The History of the Atomic Bomb

[Ali G]

GBR saved us from both the Nazis and the Russians.

that is true. great Britain was for democracy and liberty.

[jankren]

Everybody contributed a lot in WWII. But Russia did pay much more price than anyone else. Material contribution cannot be compared with lives.

[The Noble Lord]

Everybody contributed a lot in WWII. But Russia did pay much more price than anyone else. Material contribution cannot be compared with lives.

Agreed 110%.

[conon394]

Hanny

Because its utter nonsense, and everyone knows that it is

Not totally the one thing that is reasonably well argued is that the German Military did indeed continue to fund it own nuclear research – even after 41/42.

So I guess what I was getting at

A: The German effort seems to have continued to be funded at more or less a constant effort from inception to the end of the war.

B: the German scientists always thought they were far ahead of the US and UK.

C: The German scientists never presented any argument to upscale the program, they were ahead (at least they perceived it that way) and it was a very long term project. In other words no matter how the war with Russia went the atomic program was never in a position to draw away resources from say rockets or jet development. So I don’t see any watershed even in the 41/42 period – the Germans never had an atomic weapons program that approached the Manhattan project and they never thought they needed one.

D: I brought up ‘Hitler’s Bombe’ only because even the most charitable spin allows the Germans only something like a dirty bomb with no real way to weaponize it or produce more.

So the US/UK is still in position to confront Hitler with atomic attack something he could not really respond to. I suppose you could argue that nerve gas and V rockets would balance that – but I don’t think the Germans had any real program to make that work in place at the time.

[Hanny]

Not totally the one thing that is reasonably well argued is that the German Military did indeed continue to fund it own nuclear research – even after 41/42.

Mil research was just that, what the mil had to spend, it never had heavy water in quantity, it had under 0.5% of the US $ value spent on it, and never got a working Pile.

Any time anyone posts that Germany had the bomb or was close it it, i generaly stop reading, its nonsense, as the US/UK WW2 reports on the matter clearly showed, on top of that the German wartime acounts also show they thought atomics unfeasable, hiesenberg using wrong maths to show that the problem was unsolvable, he would use this as an excuse for preventing his master from gaining a working bomb, but when held in the UK, he and the others were secretly tapped, and its clear that he and they actually did have the wrong maths and were shocked into dislbeilf when told of the use of Nukes, as they could not understand how the Allies had solved the problems.

2 or 3 years back the lattest UK Official History of code breaker and Intel was published, along with the latest relaesed wartime documents, in it it is clear Germany had no atomic research worth remarking on, post 41, after doing a lot of good work upto that point.

Maud committe in 41 aswered the initiator problem, (chain reaction and how to initiate) so the whole nazi fuse, need the plutonium, is a red herring and a waste of everyones time.

So I guess what I was getting at

A: The German effort seems to have continued to be funded at more or less a constant effort from inception to the end of the war.

More spent of V weapons, which themselves, was the equalvalent of 24000 more German air frames, sinc ethe total tonnage of V1 was equal to a single raid by 100 bombers in late 44, they are a good example of nazi force enginering beyond expected return, ie over enginered in the hope of creating an effect out of all proportion.

B: the German scientists always thought they were far ahead of the US and UK.

Nope, Hiesenberg et all were of the opinion that no bomb was possible.

C: The German scientists never presented any argument to upscale the program, they were ahead (at least they perceived it that way) and it was a very long term project. In other words no matter how the war with Russia went the atomic program was never in a position to draw away resources from say rockets or jet development. So I don’t see any watershed even in the 41/42 period – the Germans never had an atomic weapons program that approached the Manhattan project and they never thought they needed one.

AH was the problem here, if he said build it, then it goy built and he provided the means to do so, since he alone controlled, or rather had the authority to spend x and prvide w to get what he wanted, much like the 262 FB.

Atomic research in germany, was principly of the theortical nature, nothing more, when the allies sent back river water to see what radiation it had, they found none, not anywhere where the axis did research.

D: I brought up ‘Hitler’s Bombe’ only because even the most charitable spin allows the Germans only something like a dirty bomb with no real way to weaponize it or produce more.

Agreed, but ive never read any book on the subject, that would go even that far.

So the US/UK is still in position to confront Hitler with atomic attack something he could not really respond to. I suppose you could argue that nerve gas and V rockets would balance that – but I don’t think the Germans had any real program to make that work in place at the time.[/quote]

V1 hada 20% hit rate on London, which is huge traget, and amassive low hit rate to get a ton of assets, unlike the 1000 bomber raids dropping death on a industrial scale at will anywhere in europe that the allies were doing on night and day basis.

[conon394]

Hanny

I don’t think I really disagree with you here.

More or less the only quibble I have is with the original assertion by Legio XII that the war in Russia had any negative impact on the German effort toward atomic energy, or weapons or whatever.

But…

Mil research was just that, what the mil had to spend, it never had heavy water in quantity, it had under 0.5% of the US $ value spent on it, and never got a working Pile.

Any time anyone posts that Germany had the bomb or was close it it, i generaly stop reading, its nonsense, as the US/UK WW2 reports on the matter clearly showed, on top of that the German wartime acounts also show they thought atomics unfeasable, hiesenberg using wrong maths to show that the problem was unsolvable, he would use this as an excuse for preventing his master from gaining a working bomb, but when held in the UK, he and the others were secretly tapped, and its clear that he and they actually did have the wrong maths and were shocked into dislbeilf when told of the use of Nukes, as they could not understand how the Allies had solved the problems.

2 or 3 years back the lattest UK Official History of code breaker and Intel was published, along with the latest relaesed wartime documents, in it it is clear Germany had no atomic research worth remarking on, post 41, after doing a lot of good work upto that point.

Maud committe in 41 aswered the initiator problem, (chain reaction and how to initiate) so the whole nazi fuse, need the plutonium, is a red herring and a waste of everyones time.

But that is my point even the most extreme take on the evidence only gets the Germans a dirty bomb test that may or may not have gone off well. There is simply no reason to think the Germans would have ever funded a program comparable to the Manhattan project or had any chance to have a bomb by 1945.

Nope, Hiesenberg et all were of the opinion that no bomb was possible.

No, some German researchers did not feel that way, but that just goes back to the infighting that characterized the German program from beginning to end.

AH was the problem here, if he said build it, then it goy built and he provided the means to do so, since he alone controlled, or rather had the authority to spend x and prvide w to get what he wanted, much like the 262 FB.

Atomic research in Germany, was principally of the theoretical nature, nothing more, when the allies sent back river water to see what radiation it had, they found none, not anywhere where the axis did research.

I don’t think so hanny the fact is no matter what AH thought or wanted the word from his scientists was we (the Germans) are in the lead on atomic research and if a weapon could be achieved it was far in the future.