Cruiser133

[h=3]Naval ships[edit][/h][SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
[TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter"]
[TR]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Country[/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Aircraft carriers [SUP][10][/SUP][/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Battleships[/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Cruisers[/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Destroyers[/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Convoy escorts[/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Submarines[/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Merchant tonnage[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]United States[/TD]
[TD]22 (141)[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[TD]349[/TD]
[TD]420[/TD]
[TD]203[SUP][11][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]33,993,230[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]United Kingdom[/TD]
[TD]14 (25)[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]32[/TD]
[TD]240[/TD]
[TD]413[/TD]
[TD]167[/TD]
[TD]6,378,899[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Soviet Union[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]25[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]344[SUP][12][/SUP][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]3,742,100[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Other Commonwealth[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]60+[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]2,702,943[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Japan[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]63[/TD]
[TD]183[SUP][13][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]167[/TD]
[TD]4,152,361[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Germany[/TD]
[TD]0 [SUP][14][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]23[/TD]
[TD]1,141[SUP][11][/SUP][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italy[/TD]
[TD]0 [SUP][15][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]28[/TD]
[TD]1,469,606[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[h=3]Large Scale Civil Engineering Construction[edit][/h][TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter"]
[TR]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Country[/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Concrete bunkers and pillboxes (Tonnes)[SUP][16][/SUP][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]United Kingdom[/TD]
[TD]72,128,141[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Germany[/TD]
[TD]132,685,348[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[h=3]Materials[edit][/h][TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter"]
[TR]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Country[/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Coal [SUP][17][/SUP][/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Iron Ore[SUP][17][/SUP][/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Crude Oil[SUP][17][/SUP][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]!a[/TD]
[TD]-9999[/TD]
[TD]-9999[/TD]
[TD]-9999[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]United States[/TD]
[TD]2,149.7[/TD]
[TD]396.9[/TD]
[TD]833.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]United Kingdom[/TD]
[TD]1,441.2[/TD]
[TD]119.2[/TD]
[TD]90.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Soviet Union[/TD]
[TD]590.8[/TD]
[TD]71.3[/TD]
[TD]110.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]101.9[/TD]
[TD]3.6[/TD]
[TD]8.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Germany[/TD]
[TD]2,420.3[/TD]
[TD]240.7[/TD]
[TD]33.4 [SUP][18][/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Japan[/TD]
[TD]184.5[/TD]
[TD]21.0[/TD]
[TD]5.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italy[/TD]
[TD]16.9[/TD]
[TD]4.4[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hungary[/TD]
[TD]6.6[/TD]
[TD]14.1[/TD]
[TD]3.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Romania[/TD]
[TD]1.6[/TD]
[TD]10.8[/TD]
[TD]25.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



This chart shows the relationship in GDP between the Allied and the Axis during 1938-1945.

This table shows the relationships in Gross domestic product (GDP), between a selection of Allied and Axis countries, from 1938 to 1945, counted in billion international dollars and 1990 prices.
[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
[TH="width: 36%, align: left"]Country[/TH]
[TH="width: 8%, align: right"]1938[/TH]
[TH="width: 8%, align: right"]1939[/TH]
[TH="width: 8%, align: right"]1940[/TH]
[TH="width: 8%, align: right"]1941[/TH]
[TH="width: 8%, align: right"]1942[/TH]
[TH="width: 8%, align: right"]1943[/TH]
[TH="width: 8%, align: right"]1944[/TH]
[TH="width: 8%, align: right"]1945[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Austria[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]27[/TD]
[TD]27[/TD]
[TD]29[/TD]
[TD]27[/TD]
[TD]28[/TD]
[TD]29[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]France[SUP][1][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]186[/TD]
[TD]199[/TD]
[TD]164[/TD]
[TD]130[/TD]
[TD]116[/TD]
[TD]110[/TD]
[TD]93[/TD]
[TD]101[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Germany[/TD]
[TD]351[/TD]
[TD]384[/TD]
[TD]387[/TD]
[TD]412[/TD]
[TD]417[/TD]
[TD]426[/TD]
[TD]437[/TD]
[TD]310[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Italy[SUP][2][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]141[/TD]
[TD]151[/TD]
[TD]147[/TD]
[TD]144[/TD]
[TD]145[/TD]
[TD]137[/TD]
[TD]117[/TD]
[TD]92[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Japan[SUP][3][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]169[/TD]
[TD]184[/TD]
[TD]192[/TD]
[TD]196[/TD]
[TD]197[/TD]
[TD]194[/TD]
[TD]189[/TD]
[TD]144[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Soviet Union[SUP][4][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]359[/TD]
[TD]366[/TD]
[TD]417[/TD]
[TD]359[/TD]
[TD]274[/TD]
[TD]305[/TD]
[TD]362[/TD]
[TD]343[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]British Isles[/TD]
[TD]284[/TD]
[TD]287[/TD]
[TD]316[/TD]
[TD]344[/TD]
[TD]353[/TD]
[TD]361[/TD]
[TD]346[/TD]
[TD]331[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]USA[SUP][5][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]800[/TD]
[TD]869[/TD]
[TD]943[/TD]
[TD]1,094[/TD]
[TD]1,235[/TD]
[TD]1,399[/TD]
[TD]1,499[/TD]
[TD]1,474[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #ccddcc"]
[TD="align: left"]Allied Total:[SUP][6][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]1,629[/TD]
[TD]1,600[/TD]
[TD]1,331[/TD]
[TD]1,596[/TD]
[TD]1,862[/TD]
[TD]2,065[/TD]
[TD]2,363[/TD]
[TD]2,341[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #cccccc"]
[TD="align: left"]Axis Total:[SUP][7][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]685[/TD]
[TD]746[/TD]
[TD]845[/TD]
[TD]911[/TD]
[TD]902[/TD]
[TD]895[/TD]
[TD]826[/TD]
[TD]466[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #ffffcc"]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Do you see a trend here? I doubt it as it would take to much intellectual honesty to cut through your obvious anti-American bias.

Cruiser133

Here is another nugget I gleaned from Wikipedia. I guess we took enough time away from bombing women and children for the war effort...

The initial production target was 250 tanks per month at MAN. This was increased to 600 per month in January 1943. Despite determined efforts, this figure was never reached due to disruption by Allied bombing, manufacturing bottlenecks, and other difficulties. Production in 1943 averaged 148 per month. In 1944, it averaged 315 a month (3,777 having been built that year), peaking with 380 in July and ending around the end of March 1945, with at least 6,000 built in total. Front-line combat strength peaked on 1 September 1944 at 2,304 tanks, but that same month a record number of 692 tanks were reported lost.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Allied bombing was first directed at the common chokepoint for both Panther and Tiger production, the Maybach engine plant. This was bombed the night of 27/28 April 1944 and production was shut down for five months. A second plant had already been planned, the Auto-Union plant at Siegmar, and this came online in May 1944.[SUP][9][/SUP] Targeting of Panther factories began with a bombing raid on the DB plant on 6 August 1944, and again on the night of 23/24 August. MAN was struck on 10 September, 3 October and 19 October 1944, and then again on 3 January and 20/21 February 1945. MNH was not attacked until 14 and 28 March 1945.[SUP][10][/SUP]
In addition to interfering with tank production goals, the bombing forced a steep drop in the production of spare parts. Spare parts as a percentage of tank production dropped from 25–30 percent in 1943, to 8 percent in the fall of 1944. This only compounded the problems with reliability and numbers of operational Panthers, as tanks in the field had to be cannibalized for parts.[SUP][11]

I have also read that a large number of vehicles were not fit for duty from the factory due to sabotage from the slave labor used to produce them while the workers hid from bombing raids in caves and tunnels. So once again, stating the allied bombing effort was ineffectual by merely pointing out the increase of numbers is misleading and disingenuous.
[/SUP]

Cruiser133

Wow, what a bunch of hypocritical duplicitous non-sense. You vomit all kinds of insulting verbiage towards the allied war effort and its soldiers then throw out the moderator flag. Amazing....For your information, I went "Merica!" on you two after reading the smug self-righteous responses you both saw fit to post, so please spare me the high road retreat...Nobody "denied" the Soviets their due against the Germans but I read you doing just that to the allies. I will gladly repost your missives if needed to refresh your memory. As I stated earlier, my Grandfather fought in Patton's Third Army, so that crap you posted touched a nerve.

rivetcounter

“I know you are the product of a socialist education system” Socialism is something you have heard of and been brainwashed to fear but you have absolutely no idea what it is

Iposter didn’t state that the bombing was ineffective he stated “As to your heroic bombing efforts.....I suppose deep frying old women and children really helped the war effort. Or not” this is when British and US bomber deliberately targeted civilians in city’s like Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo to name but a few, they bombed the city with high explosive and incendiary devices this was designed to cause as much damage as possible, High explosive to take roofs from houses and the incendiary to burn the wooden buildings in Dresden the nearby factories and bridges were not targeted unlike the civilian population estimated deaths are 22, - 25,000 in this city alone it’s nothing to be proud of these attacks are undeniable war crimes, I know full well how many were murdered by Hitler and Stalin but we the allies didn’t have to try and compete with the murder.

Area bombing in the 1940’s was by any standards area bombing of factory’s was so imprecise any bomb that landed within 2 miles of the target was considered accurate and on target so when factories were bombed so were the civilian population, on many occasions the factories were hardly hit but the neighbouring town was devastated, on numerous occasions in Normandy bombers bombed their own troops and not the Germans.

All through this conversation you have constantly told us that the US is invincible and that at any time it could destroy Russia, this rhetoric you share with Hitler whom stated “you only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will tumble” he too was wrong.

wsn123

As the Russian emigrant, George Knupffer wrote in "The struggle for world power" - 1958.
http://www.amazon.com/Struggle-World.../dp/0851727034

"..... Capitalism is the father of its intended heir: Socialism.

Was it not Mr. Henry Ford's great automobile business which gave expert advice and help during a long time in order to enable the Soviets to build and work their first big mass-production plant for motor cars and tractors at Nizhny Novgorod (now Gorky)? Was it not a Mr. Campbell, who owns some 100,000 acres in Montana, U.S.A., who was Stalin's chief adviser on the formulation and execution of the collectivization of the farms in Russia, which cost the country many millions of lives and led to the moral and material ruin of the Russian peasants? Has it not been the alleged reason for recognising the Soviets that good business can be done in the USSR and that the cheap purchase of the products of slave labour can yield good profits? Indeed, has there ever been such morality, or principle, or even what would seem to be normal self-interest in the dealings of the big capitalists with the Communist Soviets?The action of Fords in the very early years of Soviet Communism has been followed more recently by Fiat and others, in building new motor car factories and others in Russia. It is the result not of Russian, but of Communist failure.

In over 50 years the system of slavery has proved to be totally inefficient and unproductive, and therefore dependent on Capitalistic subsidies and technical assistance on a huge and permanent scale.

Trade between the major countries and the USSR is such as to provide a perpetual but hidden subsidy, as there are recurring losses for the Western countries, though individual firms make very adequate profits and are usually promptly paid by the Soviets.

The ultimate real aims of Capitalism and Socialism are identical: the centralized rule of a political group, which owns all the means of production, to say nothing of controlling all money, and which thus achieves the ideal of the materialistic messianism.

It is a natural attribute of this conception of power that it must be international, worldwide. And it is not so much the case that Socialism cannot survive in one, or a few, countries. Stalin said it could, and he was right. The real trouble is that Capitalism cannot survive at all, either in one country, a group of countries, or in the whole world. If the Soviets are alleged to be sitting back now, and waiting for the collapse of Capitalism, they are right. But we must not fall into the trap of assuming that the Soviet tyranny is Capitalism's enemy and alternative; it is its product and its completion. However, as we shall see below, there are also some real struggles within the Capitalist-Socialist bloc, but they are not concerned with aims such as most normal people would wish to pursue...."

*****

Antony C. Sutton and Viktor Suvorov on Technology Transfer from the West to the Soviet Union
http://mailstar.net/sutton.html

"....One of the great proofs of this is in Viktor Suvorov's Icebreaker, in which Suvorov details Stalin's enormous preparations for war against the West to begin in 1941. Hitler attacked first only because Stalin was about to attack the West within a matter of weeks with the largest armies ever assembled in history...."

"Soviet T-34 tank was a development from a Christie M 1931 tank chassis sold to the Soviet Union by the United States".Walter Christie was an American inventor. Soviets bought Christie suspension from the U.S. Wheel Track Layer Corporation.
.....
In June 1944, W. Averell Harriman, reporting to the State Department on a discussion between Eric Johnston and Stalin, made the following significant statement:

"Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the war. He said that about two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance."

Source: U.S. State Dept. Decimal File, 033.1161 Johnston, Eric/6-3044: Telegram June 30, 1944


Other interesting books written by prof. Antony C. Sutton

WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
http://www.reformed-theology.org/htm...ion/index.html

The three (3) volume study of Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917-1965.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LR...ic_Development

WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER
http://www.reformed-theology.org/htm...eet/index.html

The Best Enemy Money Can Buy
http://www.reformed-theology.org/htm...emy/index.html

Wall Street and FDR
http://pl.scribd.com/doc/13285654/An...Street-and-FDR

scottkillingbeck

I can't stop you from doubting since I can't prove it with certainty, but the statistics on this table go against your opinion, in my opinion-

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TH]Desig-
nation
[/TH]
[TH]Type
[/TH]
[TH]Width
(in.)
[/TH]
[TH]Length
(in.)
[/TH]
[TH]Weight
(lb.)
[/TH]
[TH]Yield(s)
[/TH]
[TH]Fuzing
[/TH]
[TH]Deployment
Status
[/TH]
[TH]Comments
[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mk-I
[/TD]
[TD]Bomb
[/TD]
[TD]28
[/TD]
[TD]120
[/TD]
[TD]8,900
[/TD]
[TD]15 - 16 Kt
[/TD]
[TD]Airburst
[/TD]
[TD]Used in combat in 1945, never stockpiled; only 5 bomb assemblies completed, all retired by Nov 1950
[/TD]
[TD]Gun-assembly HEU bomb; "Little Boy" dropped on Hiroshima
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mk-II
[/TD]
[TD]Bomb
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Theoretical design, never produced
[/TD]
[TD]Low-efficiency plutonium implosion bomb
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mk-III
[/TD]
[TD]Bomb
[/TD]
[TD]60.25
[/TD]
[TD]128
[/TD]
[TD]10,300
[/TD]
[TD]18, 20-23, 37, 49 Kt
[/TD]
[TD]Airburst
[/TD]
[TD]Used in combat in 1945; mass production 4/47-4/49, 120 produced; all retired late 1950
[/TD]
[TD]Plutonium implosion bomb; "Fat Man", Model 1561; Mods 0, 1, 2
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mk-4
[/TD]
[TD]Bomb
[/TD]
[TD]60
[/TD]
[TD]128
[/TD]
[TD]10,800 - 10,900
[/TD]
[TD]1, 3.5, 8, 14, 21, 22, 31 Kt
[/TD]
[TD]Airburst
[/TD]
[TD]Entered service 3/49; produced 3/49-5/51; 550 produced (all mods);
Retired 7/52-5/53
[/TD]
[TD]Implosion fission bomb; redesigned weapon based on Mk-III Mod 1; first IFI weapon; first assembly-line produced nuclear weapon; used type C and D pits, composite Pu-HEU cores; 3 mods
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Feel free to ignore the Mk'4's and you still potentially have 119 nukes to deal with being dropped on Soviet manufacturing facilities that produce those lovely Soviet tanks (and yes I do think Soviet tanks are lovely )


Doesn't matter how slow the bomber gets there, just that it gets there, and get there some of them eventually would. How would it have stopped the Soviets? Dropped on manufacturing facilities it's going to be tough to keep making the tools of war. You have to have people and materials to make weapons of course. If your major technology and population centers keep turning into toxic wastelands one after the other, it's going to be really tough to keep making war at some point.

Well, the U.S. made upwards of 120 more prior to 1950... Could the Soviet Union absorb 119 nuclear hits and still exist? Yes. How about exist AND continue to be in a position to win a war against the U.S. and her Allies? Can't prove it, but I don't think so personally.

I believe Stalin did know, and it did bother him, and the Soviets kicked butt at getting their Nuclear program functional long before U.S. analysts predicted they would in fact.

I don't think the U.S. command would drop nukes on front line Soviet troops. Most the Soviet armor was probably already parked on European soil that the U.S. would not nuke. They would, however, drop them on industrial centers and supply sources within the Soviet Union itself. With drastically reduced production and supply it gets tough to replace lost tanks and supply the ones you have. Not to mention trying to move supplies to the front though a nuclear wasteland....

Even if Soviet armies overran all of Europe it would be tough to hold it when the motherland's industrial capability would be systematically erased city by city.

Again, sentiment NOT being that the U.S. or Americans are somehow "superior" to any other country, just that I don't think the U.S. and her allies could have been beaten by the Soviet Union in a war immediately following the end of hostilities with Nazi Germany. We're all human after all.

Thank goodness we never really had to find out. I believe there would have been more loss of life in that type of theoretical war than there ever was in the cold war.

Panther G

So it was perfectly acceptable for Germany to want and to try and bomb London into ash. The German started all of it and he got what he deserved.

lposter

ScottKillingBeck seems like a reasonable man and hasn't yet mentioned "Johnny Taliban" so I'll bite.

Essentially there are two scenarios:

1. Allied-Soviet war in and around 1945 but not after 1947. N

ukes don't play a role (there aren't enough and no means of delivery). 11 million men at arms and nearing 30000 top of the range tanks, with supply lines of about 3 days by train from the tank factories of the Urals. Against 4.5 million men, considerably less tanks and supply lines taking probably a week to 10 days by sea. Even with air superiority ...... its not going to be a long fight. Especially when the Soviets pour down through Finnmark and then are in a position to strike Britain. T

he Soviets had between 17000 and 25000 operational combat aircraft at the end of 1945, The RAF had about 9200 (all types including transport) in all theatres and the US had 11000 aircraft in the D-Day landings of all types. If we assume that US figures held at that number in Europe (and I know they didn't) until 1945....then the Soviet airforce in terms of numbers is either on a par or slightly ahead. Admittedly of a different type - although Soviet flexibility would probably have fixed that in short order. So I don't think this fabled air superiority of the allies would have played much of a role at all.

2. Allied-Soviet war sometime after 1947 but before 1950 or thereabouts.

American doctrine in this period is well outlined - its contained in the Pincher, Broiler and Crankshaft plans among others. And you are right....these plans did call for attacks on industrial capacity. But in the Harmon report of 1949 which outlined the maximum nuclear attack possible on 70 targets in the USSR, even assuming that all 70 were successful, maximum figures were for an elimination of 30% of Soviet industrial capacity. Whether this is enough to beat the Soviets or not is arguable but given the fact that they lost considerably more than this in the first year of WWII.....evidence suggests that they could survive quite well. And I haven't even begun to factor in whether or not the US would have the stomach for nuking the Soviet military industrial slave complexes that would have sprung up throughout occupied Europe.

That the Soviets didn't really worry too much about nuclear anything in the few years after WWII is clearly shown by their actions...they risked conflict a number of times including their refusal to get out of Iran, various belligerent acts in relation to occupied countries, etc etc. which don't indicate an inclination to reign in their forces and just wait til they had their own bombs.

In 1947, before they had nuclear bombs, lectures at the US air war college were giving the message that a strategic attack by Soviet forces on the US would likely succeed. This went against official doctrine and "frightened the public" so the lecturer, Anderson, was fired. But his views were supported in various reports and articles that were published between 1948 and 1949 and in these was the seed of official US nuclear policy with respect to the USSR for the next thirty years - and it was not focussed on preemptive strikes. So even in the early post war years and even before the Soviets got the bomb.....the US was, at certain levels, not sure they could even win a nuclear war with the Soviets.

If war had broken out in 1946....the nuclear option was limited. There were simply not enough weapons.


In 1945 the US had 6 warheads. They had 11 by 1946 and 32 by 1947. That is not that many and most of these, if not all, were small as they had to be carried by plane. Even with 100% success, in 1947 and going by Japanese destruction data, that equates to about 1500 sq km that could be eliminated. It really isn't that much when you consider the size of the Soviet Union at the time.

Plus, if the Soviets won the land battle and occupied Europe, any long range bombers the US could send to damage industrial USSR assets had a horribly long flight over a lot of hostile territory full of hostile Soviet aircraft on their way to the depths of Siberia and the Urals. That's a different kind of air war to bombing cities in Germany from air bases in Devon. Even US opinion at the time was that such bombing missions were essentially suicide missions and how long the US could keep going with that is debateable.

Even if a war that started in 1946 progressed to a nuclear conflict with the Soviets occupying Europe and even assuming if the Soviets took a nuclear hammering in the early years....I still reckon it would have ended up as a stalemate across the Atlantic and the Pacific.

No matter how the figures are juggled, the Soviets were likely to kick the Allies out of Europe if war started in 1946 and even if it started later....they may have taken a beating in the first few years but eventually would have come around and give a beating of their own.

lets not forget .......this is a nation that dropped a nuclear weapon over the heads of a 45000 strong Soviet army while Zhukov watched from a bunker. Just to check that their troops could operate under nuclear attack.

I see no scenario where the Soviets just lose.......but I see many scenarios where they win.

Even nuclear war throughout the 80s and 90s...I reckon the Soviets would have "won" to the extent that's possible. Simply because they were building hardened bunkers to house whole populations while US doctrine centred largely around duck and cover and what ever kind of bunker you could build in your back yard.


My favourite alternative reality version being the one where it is the Soviets who get hold of Von Braun and Co. and not the US. In which case I think the world would probably be a very different place.

p

Old MSgt

HEY YOU GUYS!!! I've been reading all the posts on this topic here since it started and it IS very informative and thought provoking in the 'what if' scenarios. But to HOTLY debate the political mind sets back then along with comparing the manufacturing of each country AND the war weary attitudes of over 70+ years ago... this is getting VERY DEEP.

If I were alive back in WWII then I would have probably been just a common 'foot soldier' (preferably a TANKER where I'd have probably got KILLED!) for what ever country that was home to me. At that time I would have just wanted to Do My Duty for my Home Land and HOPEFULLY make it out ALIVE to go HOME when the war was over, knowing I did my best.

I thought hard about getting in to this 'Dog Fight' but right now I'm AFRAID to mention a good WWII book I've read OR even a funny Beetle Baily cartoon I just saw!

All you guys discussing this topic are a LOT more intelligent of what the 'Powers' were doing back then, but remember: I'd have just been a 'foot soldier' in the cause. What happened happened back then at THAT TIME in history. Everybody on this topic is talking about the 'Big Picture' that the lowly military member didn't really care about. You all know a LOT more about the politics and world stage and the 'Big Picture' than me.

We're here to talk about and share our R/C tank building info, pictures, and tank histories.

Mike (A retired old enlisted man who just enjoys his tanks up a peaceful holler in Kentucky)

(P.S: And any one of ya with strong convictions on this topic can take the FIRST swing at me if we ever meet! LOL!)

Panther G

There is one thing I'm fairly certain of and this is just my opinion again which means nothing. If the soviets thought they could have won a conflict with the US, they would have fought one. They took everything they where sure they could and stayed away from what they couldn't.

lposter

Thats a fair point to make but it should be viewed in the wider context:

1. Even if the Soviets thought they could win against the Allies in 1946, Stalin was, as always, more focussed on the priority threat .... that from his own party/army/people. He was aware that WWI had precipitated revolution when it went on too long.

2. While the west and in particular Hollywood seems to think all fighting stopped on VE day...it didnt. It raged on in Ukraine, Belarus and other places for months after. Between various nationalist groups, other armed factions, the NKVD/Red Army and so on. While not on the intensity of 1944, Stalin was now sitting on a bunch of territory where other factions were conducting armed resistance. Whilst he may have thought he could ultimately win against the Allies, Soviet paranoia about the threat within would probably have pushed pacifying/suppressing Ukrainian and Belarussian nationalists and various Bulgarian/Romanian/Hungarian/Estonian/Latvian groupings to the front of his mind.

3. While he could maybe have conducted another couple of years war against the Allies...even Stalin must have realised that such an extension of the conflict on a similar scale to what had taken place for the previous 4 years would have been a burden for the USSR for many years to come. He had just expanded his borders, had risen from red neck revolutionary to world statesman in less than a decade and had just purged his society of most of the people who could have toppled him. Resting on his laurels and consolidating must have seemed attractive.

4. Prevailing opinion in the West is that WWi ended, then there was peace, and then there was WWII. THis has been pushed by Hollywood and books and TV for years. For Eastern Europe there was no real break between WWI and WWII...the latter was simply an extension of the former against new (and some old) enemies. The Polish -Soviet war raged for nearly three years, the Russian civil war took a few years, the Latvian Liberation War, the Estonian Liberation War, the Soviet Turekstan war, Sino-Soviet war and Khalkin Gol to name but a few. I imagine the Soviets were sick to the back teeth of having to fight somebody given that they had been fighting non-stop since the revolution.

5. There is no real evidence anywhere that Stalin backed down from a fight when he felt he "couldnt win" or whatever. He had just been soundly thrashed for two years by the Germans and could have pleaded for peace. There was no sign he would win against Germany. He could have sued for peace and retained a rump of his country because the stated German aim (and the limit of their abilities in terms of being overlords) was control of the land up to the Ural mountains. But he didnt. Even on the ropes and fighting a battle he had all chances of losing...he didnt back down.

But it may be a mistake to confuse "not needing/wanting to" with "not being able to".

Assuming that the Soviets/Russian cannot or could not do something is a mistake that has been engrained in Western thinking for centuries. If you read any history of 1812 - a world power leads the biggest army ever seen against the Russian nation. The shocked utterances and observations of the officers in the Grand Armee almost mirror exactly those of the German officers 120 years later. "They cannot win", "we'll be home in 6 months", "they must be nearly beaten", "where are they all coming from?", "you have to kill a Russian twice", "this cannot be happening", "get me out of this hell", "where did it all go wrong".

History keeps repeating itself and for some reason the lessons are not learned. The French thought they could win through strength of numbers and quality etc etc. And didnt. The Germans thought they could win through quality and technology. And didnt.

The Allies thought they could win through self confidence and swagger. And they probably wouldnt.

It was actually Churchill who started the bombing of civilians in WWII. Hitler was bombing the crap out of dock yards, air fields radar installations. Directive NUmber 17 clearly states:

The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces... The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population

While there were mistakes (attacks on airfields near London), Churchill directed an attack on Berlin calculating that Hitler would be pissed and start bombing London. Churchill gambled that that would steel the resolve of the British and take the heat off the airfields which were on the brink of being wrecked forever. He kept attacking civilian targets in Berlin until Hitler rescinded Directive 17 and gave Goring free reign to do what he wanted.

So actually, civilian terror bombing on a large scale over Britain was really initiated by Winston Churchill. But you dont read too much about that in Western histories of the war I guess.
p

Panther G

You make some very valid points Iposter. But what about Warsaw? That was long before Churchill bombed Berlin, and that was retaliation for a stray German bomber bombing London.Hitler wanted London all for himself. He even had plans for the royal palace for his residency. There are many many facts and details that influenced the out come of the war and no one can really say what would happen in any given situation. I do think that Stalin had a man power crisis by 1945/46 so I'm not entirely sure he could have sustained operations against the West allies but we will never know thank god because cooler heads prevailed.

no12skyline

To condense points your points 1 through 5, to the comment, "But it may be a mistake to confuse "not needing/wanting to" with "not being able to". ", I have to say this points to a flagging resolve. Not on the part of Stalin, hell no, we know he had no scruples about it, but on the part of the collective Soviet people. It actually points to possible morale or even economic issues to keep an economy in "Total War" status for that length of time.

You had originally argued that the Soviets had the numbers and the production capacity to enter and win a conflict with the Western Allies and now you're suggesting (rightly) that numbers don't always matter. I'm glad you're coming around to it. When you line up TF16 of the Battle of Midway against the Japanese's Combined Fleet, on paper there was no way that the US Navy would come out on top taking four enemy flat tops for the price of one. Such battles happen all throughout history and only serve to prove that numbers are just numbers if they're not backed with intelligence, tactics, training and resolve.

In fairness I doubt the Soviets are pushovers not by a long shot, once winter rolled around, it would have been the weather that stalled the Allied war machine, just like it did the Germans. Except in Western Europe, weather isn't on the Soviets' side like it was in Stalingrad.

lposter

The resolve of teh Soviet people is irrelevant.....evidence points to them doing what they were told even unto death. And they had been living in a state of constant conflict since 1914. Whats a few more years......
This point is circular on your part. As to resolve.....without having to endure a bout of flag waving from either side.....the resolve of the Allied side must surely be called into question when put up against the resolve of the Soviets. I doubt the Allies ever had/would have had the resolve for battles such as Stalingrad or Leningrad. And yet we know the Soviets did when called upon. As to intelligence tactics and training....the Soviet generals had lots of experience in large scale tank warfare, displayed plenty of intelligence when permitted to (the last two years) and were well trained (by the Germans mainly). Uranus as an operation displays no lack of resolve, training, intelligence or tactics. Compare that to Hurtgen Forest and tell me about the intelligence or tactics of teh American side in that fiasco.

The weather might have stalled the Allied forces in the long run - distance definitely would. because once they were shoved out of Europe by a tidal wave of green armour and britain went under......how exactly were they ever going to any serious damage to teh Soviets ever again?

B-29s dont fit on aircraft carriers and the Urals (maybe Moscow too) is well outside the operational range of a B-29 flying from the states.

It was but my point specifically refers to Britain....as they point was in the context of reducing London to ash. So my point is still valid. I specifically said "So actually, civilian terror bombing on a large scale over Britain was really initiated by Winston Churchill"

p

Tanque

Well what military might , bluster and aggression would never be able to do the US has been able to do ( at least in most non Muslim societies ) with mind numbing "pop culture", fast food and Hollywood trash - turn entire generations of young soldiers_to_be into mush- brained simps.

Thank goodness for the Kardasians, Big Macs and " So you think you can Dance".....

Jerry

wsn123

Target: Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton
http://www.targetpatton.com/offers/offer.php?id=TPAT001

"The death of General George S. Patton is shrouded in mystery. While officially the result of an unfortunate car accident, the evidence points to a far more malevolent plot: murder...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxeT...E0263C&index=1

***

National Socialists and World Socialists in fraternal brotherhood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukUw3RHIBrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji7RcNwBBiM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_uC0wy_O90
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS89TRQsRBk

A German and a Soviet officer shaking hands at the end of the Invasion of Poland - September 1939
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sp...ojuszników.jpg


22 September 1939 in invaded Poland (Brest) - common parade of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army.
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Bu...egesparade.jpg

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Bu...riwoschein.jpg

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Ar...lna_parada.jpg

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Bu...egesparade.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lhsTMErZuc

no12skyline

There's really no point in me discussing this with you any more as you have decided reality somehow applies to the Allies but not the Soviets and can brilliantly predict an alternate future no one could prove or disprove. As such, I'm out of here - unlike you, I won't be back.

lposter

Ive decided nothing. Im engaging (not with you obviously) in debate - where people present a position, provide arguments for their points, evidence to support them and then counter any arguments against. The debaters can either choose to accept their own position or alternatively be convinced by the other.

Some people know how to debate. I guess you don't.

As to what I believe, I haven't decided yet...Im waiting for quality debate to illuminate the matter for me.

Plus I like debating myths about WWII (or more particularly the Cold War 1950 - 1960) that are presented by the western media as facts or something. Like:

The French were cowards (not at all)
The Maginot Line didn't work (nonsense)
Hitler was a good general (nope)
Hitlers Generals could have won the war (nope)
Guderian was Hitlers best tank commander (doubtful)
The British/US did most of the fighting after D-Day (nope)
Battles like St Lo, Carentan, Market Garden etc were "important" (not at all)
"Not One Step Back" meant a bullet (no it didn't)
The SS were elite (some perhaps, the rest were dregs)
Stalin had a breakdown after Barabarossa (no he didn't)

and so on......

p

Rex Ross

History is written by the victors. But it does seem to change over time. The history of WW II that was produced by Hollywood during and after WW II is a little different from what I see now on the History and Military channel. What's the truth and what's propaganda? I admit my ignorance, I really don't have a clue. The discussion presented here by all sides has made me wonder about the WW II history that I learned from John Wayne movies. Furthermore, I admit that sometimes I am conflicted about what side to root for when I see a war movie because of my heritage. I am 25% German, 25% Russian, 50% Polish, But 100% American.

I would like to continue with this, but right now I have important work that I cannot ignore. I'm building a toy tank out of plastic.

lposter

You have a a fair point there. Until I was twenty (in 1990), I thought WWII consisted of teh following:

1. Invasion of Poland by Germans
2. Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain
3. Something in the desert where the British wore short pants, Something in the jungle where the Japs shouted "Banzai" a lot.
4. A number of years of commando raids by British who called Germans "Fritzs" and all the Germans said was Schweinhund.
5. D-day.

And that was it. My Action Men (GI Joes) never came with Russian uniforms, the British uniforms always had short pants, the German ones were always standard field grey.

I never heard of the Russian front until 1991. The encyclopedias we had at home from the 80's didnt mention it.

I had never heard of the repatriation of the Cossacks, the London cages, Norwegian SS men, etc etc. etc.

And I thought I had been educated.......

p
4.

jrowe

If patton had his way the u.s would have used the same weapon that brought japan to surrender and it would be a very diffrent world today

lposter

It would ....we'd all be speaking Russian and queuing up to buy vinegar.

Speaking of the bomb though ... and fully intending to stir up a right hornets nest ....... while the bomb might have helped nudge Japan towards the surrender table, there is strong evidence that the 1.9 million soldiers, 5000 tanks and 5000 combat aircraft that the Soviets used to over run Manchuria (Japans only source of resources at that point) were the things that actually convinced the Japanese to throw in the towel. Including the fact that days after Hiroshima, the Japanese were still trying to make peace with Russia. Not the Allies.

And I'll make a couple of obersvations about that particular military action.

1. Its an invasion on a similar scale to the whole of Barbarossa and that dwarfs Overlord and that rarely gets mentioned in the conventional history of wwii.

2. The forces that participated in it could be added to the 11 million Soviet soldiers in the west and the 28000 thousand Soviet tanks in the west that constituted Soviet military might at the time.

3. For all the "fight to the death" spunk of the Japanese, the Soviets whipped a similarily sized Japanese force in Manchuria while achieving it with 10% of the casualties of the Japanese.

I guess Im really going to regret having posted that.....

p

lposter

Thought Id post this picture just out of interest (and seeing as Im going to flamed for having posted the previous post).

Here is a picture of (on the right) the Soviet Manchurian campaign - its not great but you get the idea. To the same scale on the left is Western Europe. Between the 9th and 20th of August 1945 the Soviets, far from their supply lines and against a fairly similar (but weaker in artillery/tanks) Japanese force (who I reckon can be assumed to be at least average fighters),, conquered a land mass approaching the size of Western Europe.


An operation so huge its probably approaching Barbarossa, dwarfs D-Day and the North African campaigns into insignificance, makes Bagration look like tactical manouevre and it all was achieved in less than a fortnight.

By a force that constituted less than quarter of Soviet military might at that time.

But you dont see too many films about this one......

p

scottkillingbeck

Very well stated argument against mine Iposter. I'm tempted to concede to you in many respects. Frankly your knowledge on the subject clearly dwarfs mine and I personally appreciate you sharing your point of view. I know that you have changed my perspective some with the additional knowledge you have presented. Thank you.

That being said I can't say I have completely changed my position. I've still got some unanswered arguments in my head and I think to continue the discussion would require a serious effort (on my part anyway) involving a decision on what exactly would constitute a "win", some more what-ifs to toss around, and worst of all some source checking (not implying that anyone has purposely put incorrect facts up, but sometimes one source's fact is another sources fiction!).

Maybe "U.S. propaganda" (and plain old national pride which is not a sin for any person in any country in my opinion) makes me baised enough that I just can't concede the argument regardless too!. In any case I also don't have the time and energy to devote to this argument at the moment. I've got a whole range of important projects to sort out before the snow flies.

Again- thanks to all who have contributed knowledge and for the generally professional manner in which this interesting hot topic has been debated. Even when it got a little nasty it didn't go completely downhill. That's pretty abnormal for the internet and especially on a forum that is barely, if not at all, moderated. Bravo gentlemen.

wsn123

By the way in 1939 Poland was invided by TWO occupants

- Germany - 1 September 1939
- Soviet Russia - 17 September 1939