They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Letum

I read a piece on the spending difference, but I can't remember if it was
in a book or on the net.
I'll have a look for a good source tomorrow.

The casualty split for German was roughly ~80/20% East/West, but it is
arguable that the West was more industrially intensive for the Germans.
things like the air war, submarine campaign and V-weapons don't show
up well on casualty figures.

The casualty rate alone should be enough not to discount the West as
a 'bit player'.


Ed:
Perhaps 35-45% (wild guess) of the force in the west was American.
Would an extra 5-15% have swung things in Germany's favor in the East?

pfft! Dammed if I know!

My reasoning wasn't based soley on casualties. I read (a long time ago, can't remember where) figures on tanks, planes... admittedly there were no figures on ships/subs that I can remember, but the land (and air) war in Russia dwarfed the rest by any measurement.

Anyway (and this is in response to Haplo as well) I'm not saying the other allies didn't contribute, I'm just putting things in perspective. When the superhero of the story gets a helping hand from his trusty sidekick, you don't see the damsel swooning over the sidekick after the day has been saved.

Edit:
As for the theoretical Germany vs Russia conflict, who can say? I still don't think Germany could have taken Russia. One may talk about resources and manufacturing and those things certainly matter a great deal, but they're also the "western" way of looking at things I think. Russia was already at a severe disadvantage to Germany in terms of tech and resource, but she made up for it with sheer bloody-mindedness.

Stalingrad happened because the German army was overextended and unable to press forward properly. The relieving army failed to breakthrough and reopen supply lines. 500 additional fighters and bombers, along with another field army of panzers and infantry added in to the rescue force would have easily done so, and stalingrad would not have been a German defeat. But Germany didn't have those resources, because its industrial might was reduced to rubble.

While it would be true for later in the war it wasn't at the time of Stalingrad, Britains bombing effectiveness was still developing at that time and Americas bombers didn't really strike industrial targets in Germany until a week before Stalingrad surrendered.
You are right though that the air war by the western allies did mean that germany had to allocate lots of aircraft, artillery, men and supplies to defending the home front that they could have done with on the fighting front.(I think it turned out that 70% of the Luftwaffe was just used for home defence)

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

If their performance in '45 is anything to go by; they would have
done well.
The Russian army took a slice of Japanese territory larger than
Germany, France and Spain combined in less than a month.
This wasn't a result of chucking huge force in the area either. The
majority of the soviet army remained in Europe.
Neither was it a result of the Japanese not expecting the attack.

The incredible speed of advance may not have been matched before
the fall of Germany, but they certainly would not have been on the
defensive.

Japan and mobile land warfare just wern't compatible.

I don't think it's valid to use a 1945 campaign as an indication of how an early war campaign would go.

In 1945 the Red Army was at the peak of it's ww2 military power in experience, equipment, and organization, whereas the Imperial Army in Manchuria had withered on the vine for almost half a decade. Any troops go soft just sitting around and the Japanese are no exception.

In 1940 it was a different story. The Japanese still had the military edge from their years fighting in Korea and China, their troops were veterans, their officer corps experienced and confident, their supply lines intact and their industry already on a war footing. The Red Army on the other hand was completely green, ill equipped and still recovering from the purges to their officer corps. Their industry and their fuel production on a peacetime footing.

Also, no US means no US assistance. No tankers and freighters full of war material making the Murmansk run. Once the Germans overrun the Caucasus the Russians are no more mobile than the Japanese. With the east under attack their factories and shops have nowhere to pull back to. I don't think it's unreasonable to figure they'd fold under the pressure of a two front war.

[August]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

No I'm not; it all adds up to a tiny fraction of the war between Germany and Russia. Kid yourself if you like but the facts speak for themselves: the US and all other western allies were bit players in the war against Germany.

We'll have to agree to disagree. IMO Russia without the western allies looses against the Germans even without Japan providing a second front. With it they just loose faster.

In fact I'd say that of all the WW2 allies it was the US who had the only realistic chance to beat the Germans, or more accurately, not be beaten by the Germans and that's mainly because of the difficulty inherent to mounting an invasion from across a 3000 mile ocean while still occupying their conquered territories in Europe and North Africa.

[onelifecrisis]

August, either you've misunderstood me or you've twisted my words. I didn't say Russia would still win if you take out ALL the other allies, I said Russia would still win if you leave the US out of the equation. I thought you understood that, given your posts mentioned only US operations.

[Skybird]

From Islam in Britain to "what if" scenarios in WWII - this is only possible in GT!

[Platapus]

We just need posts about Obama, Bush, 911 7/7 and we can make a complete circle.

[August]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

August, either you've misunderstood me or you've twisted my words. I didn't say Russia would still win if you take out ALL the other allies, I said Russia would still win if you leave the US out of the equation. I thought you understood that, given your posts mentioned only US operations.

Well ok but actually I think you've misunderstood me.

Yes I say that even without just the US only the Germans would still have won. Where I think we get into misunderstanding is that I also say that without the just the UK the Germans would have won too, just like without just Russia the Germans would have won.

WW2 was an allied effort and to attempt to single out one ally or another as being singlehandedly responsible for victory does a disservice to all. FWIW I don't believe that was your intention.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by August

Well ok but actually I think you've misunderstood me.

Yes I say that even without just the US only the Germans would still have won. Where I think we get into misunderstanding is that I also say that without the just the UK the Germans would have won too, just like without just Russia the Germans would have won.

WW2 was an allied effort and to attempt to single out one ally or another as being singlehandedly responsible for victory does a disservice to all. FWIW I don't believe that was your intention.

Oh, okay, then yes we can agree to disagree.

One thing I will point out, just to be clear, is that either way (German/Russian victory) Europe would IMO be a worse place today if the US had not entered the war.

[August]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Oh, okay, then yes we can agree to disagree.

One thing I will point out, just to be clear, is that either way (German/Russian victory) Europe would IMO be a worse place today if the US had not entered the war.

As the far east would have been if the Commonwealth hadn't stood by our side against the Japanese.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by August

As the far east would have been if the Commonwealth hadn't stood by our side against the Japanese.

Haha... I'm not sure whether to say "aww shucks" or "touche"

[August]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Haha... I'm not sure whether to say "aww shucks" or "touche"

Just returning the salute so to speak. America and Britain are allies for a reason.

[onelifecrisis]

Oh crap...
With the discussion seemingly over, for now, I just re-read the thread to see how much of a prat I had been this time, and realised I got NeonSamurai confused with someone else. Sorry Neon. We really need more personalised avatars on this forum.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

I don't think it's valid to use a 1945 campaign as an indication of how an early war campaign would go.

In 1945 the Red Army was at the peak of...

I wasn't!
I was thinking more mid '44.
Why would Russia attack in 1940?
The Japanese certainly could not.

The Japanese where no threat. Until, and even after, '42 they where
still having trouble in Western China against Chinese resistance that
still held plenty of territory.
This was a Chinese army with hardly a field gun or tank to speak of.

If Japan did try to attack Russia in '42, they would face a 4000+ mile
supply run across the Himalayan Foot hills, the Gobi Desert or
Siberia.
When they did get the the Russian industrial land, East of the Urals, it
would be a joke for the Russians.

[clive bradbury]

To bring things back on track, and to answer Neal's initial question:

'Isn't this treason? Why don't the British just kill these guys?'

Because in the UK at least, we can still recognise a numpty when we see one.