Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby lwd » Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:47 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
Nope. The Soviets used massive quantities of artillery and ammo and pretty much preprogrammed barrages. That was there post war doctrine as well. US and British artillery was vastly more flexible and more effective on a tube by tube basis.


That´s interesting, really. Where can I find some literature on that? After all this discussion my interest on the Eastern Front has re started.

I'll see what I can find but it's been quite a while sense I read up on most of this.


Has anyone here even suggested that?


I was not refering to you, in specific, but to a general tendency, which is this thread is about. You read or hear it a lot. If my memory does not betray me when the movie "A Bridge Too Far" a female narrator refers to D Day in those terms. Or the general approach of American History on that behalf, which is only logical.

It is an oft stated thing. The problem is I can find very few people who actually believe it. Of course it could be that most of the people I talk to or correspond with are much better informed about such things than average but it could also be akin to the comments about the poor quality of American beers.
I would have put it after Stalingrad.

Stalingrad is where the Germans lost the war, you are correct.

After Stalingrad it is clear that the Germans were going to loose. However they lost earlier than that. The high water mark coming weeks or months previously.
In Kursk they made their final strategic offensive and since then the russians got the initiative.

One could make a case for the Battle of the Bulge being a strategic offensive.

.... Ike, I must reckon, not being a strategic genius was a superb Supreme Commander... only to deal with De Gaulle and Monty made him earn his salary.

Don't forget Patton, Churchill, and Roosevelt. Fortunatly the latter was inclined to back up his commanders.

Since many of their "crack units" were deployed on both fronts or even all three at one time or anther this is a rather meaningless statement.


Don´t think so, Lee. The units, their combat performance, muster and deployment over time are important. That´s why I´m asking for the relative strenghts of them by year.

The point is most of the units ended up spending some time on both fronts from what I've read.
Not saying they did but the rational above is badly flawed.


It is not, Lee. If you have six million to be taken prisioners then it´s OK. But if you claim six million and there were only 1.5 million, or 2 or 3 million, it could never happened that Ike took six million prisioners when Germany surrendered. But if you tell me that the allies took 6 million, overall, during the totality of the conflict, from 1939 to 1945, then that´s another complete different thing.

That's in part because you aren't looking at the dynamics of the situation. IE the Germans were trying to maintain their force in the West at a particular level so as troops were lost they were replaced. Furthermore troops in Germany were often not considered to be on either front so once the allies crossed into Germany itself the numbers get a bit trickier.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:29 pm

Lee:

It is an oft stated thing. The problem is I can find very few people who actually believe it. Of course it could be that most of the people I talk to or correspond with are much better informed about such things than average but it could also be akin to the comments about the poor quality of American beers.


Of course an educated inteligent and informed guy like you would never believe that. And as you put it: you relate with people that has a high knowledge.
But you are not 99% of the US population (or the 120% Costa Rican or whoever) that believed the Second World War started at Pearl Harbor and ended in Normandy. It´s incredible the amount of BS that you even see at the History Channel from time to time.

Uhmm... by the way... I like American Beers.

After Stalingrad it is clear that the Germans were going to loose. However they lost earlier than that. The high water mark coming weeks or months previously.


Glantz regarded the conventional view of the war in the East with three main turning points, as follows:

For this reason,
Stalingrad became one of three “turning points” in the war. The year before, the defeat at
Moscow indicated that Operation Barbarossa had failed and Germany could not win the
war on terms Hitler expected. The Red Army’s victory at Stalingrad proved that
Germany could not win the war on any terms. Later, in the summer of 1943, the
immense Battle of Kursk would confirm that Germany would indeed lose the war. The
only issues remaining after Kursk were, “How long would that process take, and how
much would it cost?”


One could make a case for the Battle of the Bulge being a strategic offensive.


:oops: My mistake, sorry. I meant the last offensive in the East. Which, by the way, is not enterily correct neither. The Germans attempted some local offensive at the end at the war, like in Lake Ballaton and such. But Kursk is regarded as the last important offensive the Germans performed in order to regain the initiative in the East.

Don't forget Patton, Churchill, and Roosevelt. Fortunatly the latter was inclined to back up his commanders.


But there is a HUGE difference between, let´s say Churchill and De Gaulle, or Patton and Monty. History regards Churchill as the great leader whose contribution to win the war is unvalauable. Of course the brits gave some problems to Ike, as pushing to have Monty defeated at Arnhem instead of supporting Patton´s Sarre ofensive, but on the other hand they were those that have fought alone and at so many fronts for so many time. De Gaulle was a nationalistic clown that secured French support to the overall western allied cause (and I do believe that if there was something Monty and Patton shared was their disgust for him). And well, the combat records of Monty and Patton were, at least, quite different.

The point is most of the units ended up spending some time on both fronts from what I've read.


Correct and VeenenberR made that point clear to me. My statements on that regard are not justified due to contrary and appropiate evidence on that behalf. The German crack units, including the Waffen SS panzers, were deployed in desperate modes from East to West in order to fill "gaps" achieving only a heavier attrition of them.

That's in part because you aren't looking at the dynamics of the situation. IE the Germans were trying to maintain their force in the West at a particular level so as troops were lost they were replaced. Furthermore troops in Germany were often not considered to be on either front so once the allies crossed into Germany itself the numbers get a bit trickier.


I was thinking of that the other day: when the war came directly to the German territory the way you can identify which units were where, or fighting whom, became more trickier. I also reckon the validity of your argument of the dynamic situation that was developing. However there is obviously a confusion when there is a attempt to call for all the PoWs of the western front to be evidence that they were part of the German Army up to May 1945: many, if not a great majority, were made prisioners from the all the time span of the war.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:45 pm

mkenny:

This one ?

Surrender was not a German characteristic. Their motto was "Victory or Death".

I take it that meant if they did not win they prefered die?
If not perhaps you could explain what it actualy means.


No, man, the one you are implying that is in this thread, the one we have been trying to found.

On that same thread, with all the information you have at your disposal, have you been able to produce the chart of the relative strenght of the mentioned German "crack" units from 1942, 1943 and 1944?

The total for Soviet Army/Navy Air Force numbers in 1945 was 11.5 million.

Total UK = 4,683,000

Total US = 11,646,000

The Commonwealth total should be added to the UK total

German Forces were around the 8 million in June 1944 and the Fins/Hungarians/Rumanians should be added.


Excelent information that will be added to our cultural baggage. Now, please tell us how the crew of USS Yorktown helped the soviets at, let´s say, Zhukov`s Operation Mars or in the final drive to Berlin?

And the Western Allies were fighting Japan as well................


Really? Haven´t you read my previous post:

To what purpose? They were not only very different armies with very different missions but also fighting thousands of miles away from the European Theatre. However their overall size was less than of those fighting in Europe, western and eastern. Now, some units in the Pacific fought in incredible violent scenarios, specially at the islands assaulted by the US Marine Corps, which I do believe (not sure about that, have to refresh my memory) with six divisions (only three surviving nowadays). But I do suspect a special reason, or motive in your agenda, by which I think it is better that you bring forth that information, I imagine you have the book with the chart.


I have been looking for your publications that acredited you as a challenger to Glantz, Beevor, Keegan and such group of academics but found nothing, only this in the internet. Not sure if it´s you or related:

http://www.faqs.org/copyright/mckees-ro ... le-kennys/

or this

http://www.facebook.com/people/John-M-K ... 0491378816


Warmest regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby VeenenbergR » Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:50 pm

Karl: a very comprehensive and readable series about the air war on the Eastern Front has been written from 22-6-41 to 31-12-42 in 3 volumes (more has to come) by Christer Bergström: Black Cross & Red Star. In these volumes however no figures for personel are presented, no figures for the masses of flak units used at the Eastern Front, Luftwaffe Feldt Divisions, Para's.
I judge him as the authority on air combat.

James F. Dunnigan presents the following strength's of the German Army (Wehrmacht) at the Eastern Front:

Date: Field Army East Field Army Total Armed Forces Total Cumulative losses Divisions Total Divisions

5/40 3,3 5,6 85.000 171,5
6/41: 3,3 3,8 7,2 185.000 212,5 154
1/42: 2,9 Losses 22-6-41 - 31/12/41 of about 1 million: KIA (210.000), WIA (780.000) and MIA (10.000)
3/42: 4,0 8,6 800.000 (?) 232,7
6/42: 3,1
1/43: 2,8 4,2 9,6 1.680.000 274
9/43: 2,6
1/44: 2,4
6/44: 3,1 4,0 9,1 3.280.000 315
10/44: 2,7
1/45: 2,6
4/45: 2,5 6,1 6.400.000* 305,5

* This number seems far too low for me since the KIA must be at least 3,5 million, the MIA and WIA about the same number: so accumulated losses
were at least about 10 million.

Armed Forces (Wehrmacht): Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, SS

Heer: Field Army & Replacement Army

1941 (7,2 million)
FA: 54%; RA: 16%; SS: 2%; Luftwaffe: 23%, Kriegsmarine: 5%
3,8 1,2 0,15 1,68 0,4

1944 (9,1 million)
FA: 44%; RA: 22%; SS: 6%; Luftwaffe: 19%; Kriegsmarine: 9%.
4,0 2,0 0,55 1,8 0,8

My question is: if in april 1945 the total armed forces number 6,1 million and accumulated casualies are 6,4 million the sum is 12,5 million.
If however accumulated losses were at least about 10 million in april together with the 6,1 million in the Armed Forces the total sum is about 16 miilion (still 1,5 million too few)
We already know that the Germans raised about 17,5 million troops (including Volkssturm, Hitlerjugend).

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:07 pm

VeenenbergR:

Thanks for the information. Need some time to corroborate some things but, basically, the math does not add up to me neither. Remember the warning we have on the casualties as Genda pointed out.

Warmest regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby mkenny » Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:42 pm

Why are you consulting published works that give Front totals when I posted the actual German Staff numbers several times already?
Is there some doubt as to the provenance of the German Staff figures?

Byron Angel

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Byron Angel » Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:49 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote: please tell us how the crew of USS Yorktown helped the soviets at, let´s say, Zhukov`s Operation Mars or in the final drive to Berlin?



..... After Kholkin Ghol, Japan made a ceasefire agreement with the USSR on the Mongolian and Siberian fronts that endured well into 1945. This ceasefire allowed the Soviets to withdraw large reserves from the East to fight the Germans on their European front. It can fairly be argued that it was the Japanese experience in the Kholkin Ghol affair that discouraged them from taking on the Soviets and induced them to seek territorial gains elsewhere, but that decision was taken in 1939, well before Germany's 1941 invasion of the USSR. By that time, of course, Japan was irrevocably committed to a plan of southern expansion and war against the USA. The Japanese may well have taken a different strategic course had they known of Hitler's Barbarossa plans, but, once relations with the USA took such a sour political and economic turn, the Japanese were essentially forced to deal with the USA first. They could not prosecute a war against the USSR with the US economically strangling its warmaking potential.


Byron

VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby VeenenbergR » Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:04 pm

According to THE authority on German war losses: Dr. RüdigerOvermars:

Total served & KIA and %KIA of total served
Army: 13,600,000 KIA :4,202,000 30.9%
Air Force: 2,500,000 KIA: 433,000 17.32%
Navy: 1,200,000 KIA: 138,000 11.5%
Waffen SS: 900,000 KIA: 314,000 34.9%
Volkssturm and Police: KIA: 231,000
WIA: 6,035,000 (ending up as WIA)
POW: 11,100,000 (ending up as POW)

Total served: 18,200.000 (except Volkssturm, Hitlerjugend, Police); KIA: 5,3 million (including those KIA as POW's)
Total number op POW's 11.1 million; some ending as WIA or KIA as well!!
Germany

Notes on KIA:
1. killed in action: 2,303,320;
2. died of wounds, disease or accidents: 500,165;
3 sentenced to death by court martial: 11,000;
4. suicides: 25,000;
5. unknown causes: 12,000;
6: confirmed or officially admitted POW deaths: 459,475 (USA, UK & France: 77,000; USSR: 363,000) [POW deaths includes 266,000 in the post war period after June 1945, primarily in Soviet captivity]
Soviet sources list the deaths of 474,967 of the 2,652,672 German Armed Forces POW taken in the War by Soviet forces, excluding those handed over by the Western Allies.
5. missing in action or unaccounted for after the war: 2,007,571; Dr. Rüdiger Overmans believes that “It seems entirely plausible, while not provable,that one half of the missing were killed in action,
the other half however in fact died in Soviet custody".

German surrenders 1943:: Stalingrad; 1944: Korsun, Sevastopol; Tarnopol, Minsk, Vitebsk, Bobruisk, Brody, Vilnius, Kishinev, Beograd; 1945: Warsaw, Budapest, Posen, Thorn, Königsberg, Heiligenbeil, Pillau; Gotenhafen, Halbe: all about 1 million men.

German surrenders in may 1945 to the Soviets: Army Group North in Kurland, North Norway, pockets near Danzig, Army Group Center near Prague, part of 9th and 12th Army in Brandenburg/Berlin; Units of Army Group South in Austria and the defending units of surrounded Breslau: about 1,5 million men.

IF this means that 2.303.320 + 1.000.000 MIA were KIA = 3.303.320 and 75% of all German KIA were in the EAST (and the other on all other Theatres) then KIA at the hands of the Soviets was about 2.5 million. This is including 231.000 Volkssturm, a few thousand (?) Hitlerjugend and a few thousand (?) Polizei). Wehrmacht KIA (KM, Luftwaffe, Field & Reserve Army and SS) then is derived to be around 2,2 million.


A breakdown to years according to (Feldgrau):

On Feldgrau the number served is around 18 million.

KIA & MIA all fronts

1941 (almost for 99% Eastfront losses!!)
June 1941
22,000 | 900
July 1941
51,000 | 3,200
August 1941
52,800 | 3,500
September 1941
45,300 | 2,100
October 1941
42,400 | 1,900
November 1941
28,200 | 4,600
December 1941
39,000 | 10,453

January 1942 (almost for 95% East Front losses)
44,400 | 10,100
February 1942
44,500 | 4,100
March 1942
44,900 | 3,600
April 1942
25,600 | 1,500
May 1942
29,600 | 3,600
June 1942
31,500 | 2,100
July 1942
36,000 | 3,700
August 1942
54,100 | 7,300
September 1942
44,300 | 3,400
October 1942
25,500 | 2,600
November 1942
24,900 | 12,100 (Stalingrad battles)
December 1942
38,022 | 40.500 (Stalingrad & Operation Mars)

January 1943 (90% Eastfront losses?)
37,000 | 127,596 (Stalingrad mass surrender: 108.000 and 15.000 remaining back to fight on!)
February 1943
42,000 | 15,500
March 1943
38,115 | 5,208
April 1943
15,300 | 3,500
May 1943
16,200 | 74,500 (Tunis surrenders)
June 1943
13,400 | 1,300
July 1943
57,800 | 18,300 (Kursk battles)
August 1943
58,000 | 26,400 (Sicilian campaign)
September 1943
48,788 | 21,923 (South Ukraine battles, Salerno landings)
October 1943
47,036 | 16,783 (South Ukraine battles, liberation of Kiev); German counterattack in the Aegean
November 1943
40,167 | 17,886 Liberation of Smolensk
December 1943
35,290 | 14,712

January 1944
44,500 | 22,000 Battles for the Ukraine
February 1944
41,200 | 19,544 (Korsun pocket and break out)
March 1944
44,600 | 27,600
April 1944
34,000 | 13,000
May 1944
24,400 | 22,000 (Sevastopol pocket and evacuation); Battle for Cassino; battle for Jassy
June 1944
26,000 | 32,000 (start of Bagration); Landings in Anzio: panzer battle for Targul Frumos
July 1944
59,000 | 310,000 (Minsk, Vitensk, Bobruisk and Brody pocket battles: mass surender
August 1944
64,000 | 407,640 (Kishinev and Falaise pocket battles: mass surrender); Landings in south of France
September 1944
42,400 | 67,200 (Battles for Arnhem, Aachen, East Prussia); drive to the German Borders
October 1944
46,000 | 79,200 (Battles in Eastern Hungaria, Estonia, Latvia, Hürtgen Wald); Soviet offensive in the Far North to capture Petsamo
November 1944
31,865 | 69,534 Battles for Budapest, Dukla Pass, Hürtgen Wald)

Yes and then come even more casualty rich battles:

December 1944
Battle of the Bulge (10.000 KIA), Battle for Budapest, battles for Kurland;
January 1945
Battle of the Bulge (reverse); Battle for Strassbourg, Battle for Budapest & start of the BIG Soviet Offensive in the East (100.000 KIA/MIA), Warsaw pocket, battles for Kurland
February 1945
Huge Soviet offensive clears Poland (100.000 KIA/MIA); breakout attempt of Budapest (25.000 KIA/ 5000 MIA); battles in Hungary; Battles to reach the Rhine;
Battles for Breslau (10.000 KIA) and Ostrava (20.000 KIA); battles for Kurland
March 1945
Battles to clear East Prussia and Pommerania (200.000 KIA/MIA), to cross the Rhine; to liberate the North of Italy; battle for Western Hungary; Battle for Breslau
April 1945
Battle to clear West, North and South of Germany; battle for Vienna (10.000 KIA), Breslau, Seelow (10.000 KIA), ; Berlin (22.000 KIA) and Halbe (40.000 KIA), battles for Kurland
May 1945
Battle to clear Tjecho Slovakia (178.000 KIA)

We can together try to fill this list and make a complete casualty list based on certain campaigns.
It may be evident 1945 brought frightfull losses for the Germans.

VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby VeenenbergR » Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:20 pm

mkenny: I have no single doubt about the figures you have portrayed.
Your stat about the German POWs captured by USA, Britain, USSR and France perfectly fit with my grand totals.

Note also that Yugoslavia also took 80.000 Germans as POW's in addition to the totals you mentioned.
And then a host of other countries employed German POW's: in Norway quite a lot died when clearing the extensive minefields. It even makes Germans angry, which call this murder.
Also in The Netherlands they were employed on these duties, allthough we were perhaps the most human country in the world towards enemy POW"s.

Note however that 11+ million German soldiers became POW during WWII and that 5,3 were KIA or died of other causes
and between these two grandtotals there is an certain overlap, since also many POW's (at least 1,5 million) ended up dead.
Probably 4,5 million escaped death or the fate of harsh custody ......

There was an overlap between civilian and military deaths, since many civilians were drafted into the Wehrmacht and an omnious fate....

Finally: the stats dont fit completely, not even by Herr Dr Rüdiger Overmars.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:48 pm

Byron Angel:
..... After Kholkin Ghol, Japan made a ceasefire agreement with the USSR on the Mongolian and Siberian fronts that endured well into 1945. This ceasefire allowed the Soviets to withdraw large reserves from the East to fight the Germans on their European front. It can fairly be argued that it was the Japanese experience in the Kholkin Ghol affair that discouraged them from taking on the Soviets and induced them to seek territorial gains elsewhere, but that decision was taken in 1939, well before Germany's 1941 invasion of the USSR. By that time, of course, Japan was irrevocably committed to a plan of southern expansion and war against the USA. The Japanese may well have taken a different strategic course had they known of Hitler's Barbarossa plans, but, once relations with the USA took such a sour political and economic turn, the Japanese were essentially forced to deal with the USA first. They could not prosecute a war against the USSR with the US economically strangling its warmaking potential.


Byron


That´s true, indeed. However the point I´m trying to make here is which of these resources really had weight in the fighting in the Eastern Front. We know, for a fact, that the western allied forces in Europe contributed to that, hence diverting German resources from the East.

As a matter of fact I see the relationship with the USSR from the other way around: how they helped their allies in the Pacific? They commited themselves with the Manchurian Offensive when USA already won the war there, when this (and other) actions were more a menace to the Pacific/Asian post war strategy of the US and GB.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Byron Angel

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Byron Angel » Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:21 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote: the point I´m trying to make here is which of these resources really had weight in the fighting in the Eastern Front. We know, for a fact, that the western allied forces in Europe contributed to that, hence diverting German resources from the East.



..... Having examined the matter in some detail, I'm convinced that the Soviet Union could not have defeated Germany without the massive Lend-Lease support provided by the USA. I'm not arguing that the USSR necessarily would have been conquered by Germany, but that the USSR would have been unable to achieve better than a strategic stalemate, leaving large tracts of the western USSR under German domination.

Strictly my opinion, of course.


Byron

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:42 pm

Byron;

It´s quite interesting and I have never had enough time, nor resources up to date, to really come to a conclusion of the dimensions of the Lend Lease. On one hand we know the soviets received a huge aid from USA. But on the other the soviets seemed to have erased or neglect the weight of such help. Would have the soviets been able to defeat the Germans in 1941, 1942 without the Lend Lease? Was it vital or just a "push" to help them?

Because the soviets were very able to produce their own weapondry, which we sadly know from the Cold War too. They fielded army after army after army in a way the West simply cannot have a slightest idea of the monumental power they had: T34, Moisin Nagant, Stormovichs, etc. etc. etc. This is, as the PoW count, a tricky topic.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Byron Angel

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Byron Angel » Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:08 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Byron;

It´s quite interesting and I have never had enough time, nor resources up to date, to really come to a conclusion of the dimensions of the Lend Lease. On one hand we know the soviets received a huge aid from USA. But on the other the soviets seemed to have erased or neglect the weight of such help. Would have the soviets been able to defeat the Germans in 1941, 1942 without the Lend Lease? Was it vital or just a "push" to help them?

Because the soviets were very able to produce their own weapondry, which we sadly know from the Cold War too. They fielded army after army after army in a way the West simply cannot have a slightest idea of the monumental power they had: T34, Moisin Nagant, Stormovichs, etc. etc. etc. This is, as the PoW count, a tricky topic.

Best regards,



..... It is indeed a "tricky topic", as you say. I unfortunately lost my Lend-Lease research data in a hard drive crash, but, in brief, the key was not in the number of tanks or guns or trucks or aircraft provided by Lend-Lease. Rather, it was in the stupendous amounts of industrial materials delivered. For example (IIRC), the US delivered enough steel by tonnage to build 70,000 tanks, enough food to feed the entire Soviet armed forces for four years, more than 90 pct of high octane aviation fuel, and (again IIRC) the majority of the explosives consumed by the Red Army. Over and above that, it freed for military service huge numbers of men who would otherwise have been required to mine, refine, produce, and grow those materials.


Byron

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:22 am

Byron,

From what I have been reading today it is interesting to note that, by the winter 1944 and early 1945 the soviets were no longer in position to lose any more men. What they had in excess for the initial campaign in 1941 until summer 1944, that is human resources in excess, was not the case for the last stages of the campaign against Hitler. That is why they tried to compensate with producing attrition through artillery and tactical air superiority simply because they have no more men to lose.

It´s interesting and brought up many questions, some regarding Patton´s comments at the end of the war, but that´s for another topic. The issue is that it is true that human resource exhaustion was going to be an issue for Stalin by 1944-1945.

Warmest regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby minoru genda » Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:21 am

Byron & Karl, here is a very good article about the economic factors and lend-lease. From Pipes website.

http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html
Tora! Tora! Tora!


Return to “World War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron