The Western Allies Did Not Win WWII

[Lateralus]

@Eve

We did save Europe’s ass! OK, the rest of Europe would have gotten by alright without us and won the war–but the ass of Europe was still in dire peril as late as 1944. Europe’s left elbow was not even retaken till early '45.

What would Europe be doing today without its ass, huh? Ever think of that?

Annoying Historical Myths

I take issue with this statement.

In my opinion, the Western Allies’ effort was a relatively efficient and successful one, but did not defeat Germany. They simply capitalized on the Red Army’s success in order to grab vast areas of territory for themselves.

The Soviet Union destroyed Germany. The scale of conflict on the Eastern Front was many times larger than that on the Western Front. For example, both Germany and Red Army fielded about 500 divisions total during the war. The Western Allies’ combined forces, which would be the amalgation of the American, British, and Canadian armies, did not reach more than 80 before war’s end.

It was the Eastern Front alone which determined the outcome of the entire war. The Western Allies simply waited until it was clear that the Soviets were going to run clear through Germany and conquer the rest of Europe, and invaded to prevent this.

Discuss.

[Mehitabel]

Whooosh! That was a historical myths thread. The statement was not entirely serious.

And if it makes you feel better, we learned in school about how important the Eastern Front was, but then again the teacher in that grade was a Russian refugee who remembered it firsthand. It’s not a contest. Everyone contributed, some more than others, but all were vital.

[bump]

@Lateralus

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=247801
In my opinion, the Western Allies’ effort was a relatively efficient and successful one, but did not defeat Germany. They simply capitalized on the Red Army’s success in order to grab vast areas of territory for themselves.

The Soviet Union destroyed Germany.

Hmm… that’s a bit simplistic. The Allied strategic bombing campaign had serious effects on the German industrial and fuel outputs, and that was strictly done by British and US crews.

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm is the US Strategic Bombing Survey report on the European theater bombing campaign effectivness.

A secondary effect of this campaign was the virtual destruction of the Luftwaffe, as well as the fact that they kept a great deal of the fighter aircraft in Germany as opposed to up near the front. Also, a great deal of resources were diverted to the manufacture of AA armaments.

[flight]

So, if the British stayed on their islands and the US never got involved (no bombing, no Battle of Britain), then Russia would have plowed over Germany? Hell, if Hitler had managed peace with Britain the Third Reich would probably still be in power now.

[XT]

@Lateralus

It was the Eastern Front alone which determined the outcome of the entire war. The Western Allies simply waited until it was clear that the Soviets were going to run clear through Germany and conquer the rest of Europe, and invaded to prevent this.

I disagree. Both Eastern and Western fronts played their role, as well as all 3 of the major allies. Without the bombing campaign of the Brits and the American’s it would have been a hell of a lot tougher on the Russians. Also, without lend lease from the US the Russians would have had a much tougher time of it. Stalin himself insisted the the allies open a western front as soon as they could. If he felt he was winning easily why would he do that? I’m sure he saw the exact thing you are accusing the other allies of…waiting until they knew victory was assured and then dashing in for a piece of the pie (sort of what Russia did with reguards to Japan in fact).

Personally I think you are making the exact same mistake that the folks that say the US won the war…that is you are under rating the other players. It was a team effort, and each piece was vital to final victory. MAYBE Russia COULD have beaten Germany in the end…but the body count would have been a hell of a lot higher, and a Germany free of getting the shit bombed out of it, free of the distraction of the Western Front would have been a much stronger Germany…and would have been a lot harder to defeat in the end.

-XT

[Reeder]

You have to remember that Europe was carved up at a big 3 meeting earlier. Was it Yalta?

So the future of Europe was decided well before the end of the war.

[RickJay]

@Lateralus

The Soviet Union destroyed Germany. The scale of conflict on the Eastern Front was many times larger than that on the Western Front. For example, both Germany and Red Army fielded about 500 divisions total during the war. The Western Allies’ combined forces, which would be the amalgation of the American, British, and Canadian armies, did not reach more than 80 before war’s end…

Well, there’s a variety of problems with this way of looking at it:

1. Comparing the number of divisions is not a precisely accurate way of comparing relative army strength, as one army’s division is not necessarily quite the same as another’s. In general, U.S. and British divisions were a bit larger than German or Soviet divisions. A U.S. army division was staffed by about 14,500 men; a Soviet division by about 12,000. Not that it would make up that large a difference, but don’t exaggerate it by comparing units of different size.

2. Ignoring the air war is folly. The strategic bombing campaign had a HUGE effect on Germany’s capacity for industrial output and resistance. The effect on the Luftwaffe alone was devastating, quite literally destroying it as a fighting force, and the diversion of materials huge. 25% of German artillery production had to be devoted to defending against bombers; that’s a lot of 88mm guns not aimed at Soviet tanks. Even as inaccurate as it was, Allied bombing had a hugely determental effect of German production, especially of oil.

3. The war in the West also soaked up incalculable German resources, and tens of thousands of men, fighting the war at sea, an area in which the Soviets made no substantial contribution.

4. It should be duly noted that the Soviet war effort was extensively propped up by the Western allies, most notably the United States. It is in fact quite likely the Soviets would have lost the war without Lend-Lease. The scale of assistance is staggering; 15,000 aircraft, 500,000 trucks, hundreds of thousand of tons of ammunition, guns beyond counting, raw materials in the millions of tons, radios, wire, and enough rations to feed the Red Army for a year. Much of this arrived at the USSR’s greatest moment of need, in late 1941, 1942, and early 1943.

[Dissonance]

@Lateralus

The Soviet Union destroyed Germany. The scale of conflict on the Eastern Front was many times larger than that on the Western Front. For example, both Germany and Red Army fielded about 500 divisions total during the war. The Western Allies’ combined forces, which would be the amalgation of the American, British, and Canadian armies, did not reach more than 80 before war’s end.

In addition to what RickJay wrote on the matter of comparing divisions, it was the doctrine of the Western Allies to keep divisions as close to full strength as possible by providing a steady stream of replacement personnel to them while in combat. German and Soviet doctrine did not provide for nearly as many replacements for divisions while in combat as the Western Allies did. Divisions would grow progressively weaker until they were pulled off the lines to be brought back up to strength – if they were lucky. If not, divisions would be kept on the rolls and the front lines even when reduced to shadows of themselves. For example, from Red Storm on the Reich: The Soviet March on Germany, 1945 by Christoper Duffy, “The establishment of the Soviet rifle division provided for 11,780 men, but the average was in the range of 3,000 to 7,000 troops.” The divisions of the Western Allies, on the other hand, were mostly at or near full strength when the final offensive on Germany was launched in early 1945. A number of German divisions raised very late in the war existed almost entirely on paper, never even working up past battalion strength. The Red Army was larger than the combined armies of the Western Allies at the end of the war, but not by as much as simply counting the numbers of divisions would suggest.

It was the Eastern Front alone which determined the outcome of the entire war. The Western Allies simply waited until it was clear that the Soviets were going to run clear through Germany and conquer the rest of Europe, and invaded to prevent this.

This is overstating the case a bit. The Eastern front was truly where the outcome of the war was decided, and it is where Germany bled its strength. The Western Allies weren’t sitting on their hands waiting for the Soviets to win, though. Opening a full scale second front required raising a large army and shipping it to Britain, which also required defeating the U-boats in the Atlantic. After Barbarossa and prior to the invasion at Normandy, the Western allies drove the Germans and Italians out of North Africa, invaded Sicily, and then invaded and forced the surrender of Italy, all the while fighting a war on the other side of the planet with Japan. The US brass was actually pushing to invade France in 1943 after North Africa had been conquered, while the British took the position that sufficient forces had not been build up and pushed the Mediterranean strategy that was ultimately adopted, probably wisely.

[Captain_Amazing]

The Western Allies did almost singlehandedly beat Japan, so do we get credit for that, at least?

[Martin_Hyde]

I’m not the huge WWII buff that a lot of people are, but I think I’ve read a dozen or so books so I feel comfortable in making the following assertions:

1. WWII was not exclusively the European Theater, the Japanese were also a serious threat and the United States did the vast majority of the work when it came to breaking the Japanese Empire. Thanks go out to the Brits, the Aussies, et al. who helped as best they could, but the British had most of their resources in other areas and the Aussies - while certainly helpful - were not large enough to be able to claim much credit.

2. The Eastern front would have been fundamentally different if the Western front did not exist.

If not for the Western front Hitler’s hand would have been strengthened in several ways

i) If there had never been a sustained Western front, basically Hitler never tries to invade Britain and the Western Allies simply say, “sorry” to the occupied nations of Western Europe, then Hitler would have been immeasureably stronger. The Luftwaffe would have been overall untouched.

The German Navy would be in fine shape, the German Merchant Marine would be sailing happily along with impunity.

Furthermore if the rest of the Western Allies hadn’t gotten involved there is a good chance they just simply would not have helped the Soviets vs. Germany. Without Britain herself at threat and with no prospect of warfare against Germany it is hard to say who Britain/the United States would choose to support, Fascists or Communists?

ii) To see the true effect of the Western Allies you need to look at what would have occured without them.

There would be no need for divisions stationed in Italy and Western Europe. There would be a need for a small security force to keep the French and other conquered peoples in line, but nothing like the massed troops looking warily into the Atlantic like we saw.

There would be no need for the Atlantic wall (IIRC the largest construction project in history at that time) which is a huge diversion of resources that would have been available for fighting in the East.

3. The Pacific Theater would change dramatically.

Without the United States Japan would be lord of the Pacific in short order. Indochina and China would be Japanese vassals with ease. In this case scenario Japan has nothing to fear from the United States.

Maybe in this case scenario Japan then sees no other valuable targets to gobble up other than the Soviets. Without any American pressure on Japan it is conceivable that the Japanese would have created two fronts for the Soviets to be fighting on.

Completely reversing the situation as it happened historically.

I think many people underestimate just how valuable the American blockade on metals and oil was when used against the Japanese and the Germans. The Axis had built up mighty militaries, with brilliant tactics, strategy, and leaders. They had excellent equipment and training. What both nations lacked were key natural resources that are simply vital to a war machine. That contributed so much to them losing.

To truly say the “Western Allies” did not win WWII, you have to present a scenario where they also were not “passively” fighting the Axis. Which means American oil and scrap metal would be selling regularly to the Japanese and the Germans. This would have tilted the balance of power squarely against the Soviets.

[spiralscratch]

@Martin Hyde

Without any American pressure on Japan it is conceivable that the Japanese would have created two fronts for the Soviets to be fighting on.

Maybe, but not likely.

japan tried to take part of the Soviet Union prior to WWII. They got their ass kicked. Shortly thereafter the two countries signed a nonaggression treaty. This is why the Soviet Union never declared war against Japan until the very end of WWII.

[flight]

@Martin Hyde

…Japan would be lord of the Pacific in short order. Indochina and China would be Japanese vassals with ease…

Maybe in this case scenario Japan then sees no other valuable targets to gobble up other than the Soviets. Without any American pressure on Japan it is conceivable that the Japanese would have created two fronts for the Soviets to be fighting on.

Completely reversing the situation as it happened historically.

That’s always how it happens when I am the Axis playing Axis & Aliies

[sinical_brit]

Quote Martin Hynde~:

“…Thanks go out to the Brits, the Aussies, et al. who helped as best they could, but the British had most of their resources in other areas and the Aussies - while certainly helpful - were not large enough to be able to claim much credit.”

I didnt realise we were totting up credits. On behalf of all of Europe, we thank you Martin - and the US for saving us. Sorry we could not have been more help. It was such a relief when you arrived, especially with all you guys had already done - not selling metal to the hun and everything.
Quote Gem #2 " but I think I’ve read a dozen or so books… ".
Was “How the US Saved the World Again” one of them?

Sin

[Karmagun]

@Reeder

So the future of Europe was decided well before the end of the war.

The Yalta conference was held in February 1945. That’s not ‘well before the end of the war’. That’s ‘very close to the end of the war in Europe’.

You can see from this chronology that the bulk of the fighting continued mostly on the pacific front, with the exception of the bombing of Dresden on Feb 13th, two days after the conference ended.

[smiling_bandit]

It is in fact quite likely the Soviets would have lost the war without Lend-Lease. The scale of assistance is staggering; 15,000 aircraft, 500,000 trucks, hundreds of thousand of tons of ammunition, guns beyond counting, raw materials in the millions of tons, radios, wire, and enough rations to feed the Red Army for a year. Much of this arrived at the USSR’s greatest moment of need, in late 1941, 1942, and early 1943.

This is my readong of the situation. Russian might have driven back the Germans without the direct military invasion of France and maybe, just maybe, without the extra rations, bullets, and stuff. But they would never have managed wihout the trucks to move raw materials and the factory equipment to turn it into usable goods.

japan tried to take part of the Soviet Union prior to WWII. They got their ass kicked. Shortly thereafter the two countries signed a nonaggression treaty. This is why the Soviet Union never declared war against Japan until the very end of WWII.

Not true in detail but in spirit, yes. Japan actually won their battles against the SovUnion, IIRC. However, they lost a lot of men doing it and the rewards were simply not really great. There just wasn’t much to take from Russia.

[Eolbo]

@Martin Hyde

3. The Pacific Theater would change dramatically.

Without the United States Japan would be lord of the Pacific in short order. Indochina and China would be Japanese vassals with ease. In this case scenario Japan has nothing to fear from the United States.

Maybe in this case scenario Japan then sees no other valuable targets to gobble up other than the Soviets. Without any American pressure on Japan it is conceivable that the Japanese would have created two fronts for the Soviets to be fighting on.

Just a couple of points in response. In hindsight there was little real prospect of China becoming a Japanese vassal let alone “with ease”. Put simply China was just too big and too heavily populated to be conquered by the Japan of the 1930s. China and Japan had been at fullscale war since 1937 ie for four years before the US entered the war, and despite large gains Japan proved incapable of subduing China either militarily or politically. She had bitten off more then she could chew.

As for your scenario of Japan “gobbling up” the Soviets there was zero prospect of this happening. There was widespread fighting between Japan and the Soviet Union in 1937-1939 and Japan was beaten repeatedly and decisively. The Japanese army was only lightly equipped by European standards and was greatly outclassed by Red Army artillery and armour. These defeats and the realisation that Russia was a very tough nut to crack soured the Japanese on the prospect of further war with the Soviets so much so that even the outbreak of war between Germany and Russia would not budge Japan from its neutrality. The “strike north” faction of the Japanese command favouring war with Russia had been too discredited. Instead the “strike south” faction pushing for war with the US and Britain won the argument and so Japan turned to what they imagined would be the “easier” war with the US.

[Eolbo]

@smiling bandit

Japan actually won their battles against the SovUnion, IIRC.

Actually they got crushed cf Khalkin-Gol/Nomohan. They were heavily outnumbered and totally outclassed by the Soviets.

[Queef_Sniffer]

I think one of the main reasons that “credit” for winning world war2 is limited where russia is concerned is simply for the fact that had russia not been so accomodating to Germany early on, World War 2 may not have even have happened. Russia started out as a german ALLY not as an enemy.

[XT]

Personally I think its a way to re-revise history. For the longest time the US maintained that IT (and England) had pretty much saved the day nearly single handedly. The USSR was looked on here and in Western Europe as the enemy during the cold war so its contributions were down played. Now it has swung completely the other way. A lot of folks in Europe (not counting England of course) now take it as practically gospel that Russia could have single handedly taken the Germans no sweat and that the other allies were just kind of along for the ride now. This is pure anacdote btw, but I have many friends in various parts of Europe and in the UK and this SEEMS to me to be a real attitude. Course my dozen or so friends don’t constitute a large percentage so I could be way off base here.

If my theory here isn’t simply bullshit its not an unexpected event that it should swing so. We see it all the time with reguards to history and probably all of us could spout examples. My favorites are the atomic bombing of Japan and the way the perception of Andrew Jackson has changed over time from being one of the great presidents to being a mass murderer. It swings to one extreme…then in a new time or age it swings radically back to the other. Eventually it will probably come to rest somewhere in the middle.

The reality though is that Russia probably wouldn’t have won without the other allies assistance. England certainly wouldn’t have won without the other allies assistance. And the US probably wouldn’t have even tried without the other allies, contenting itself in defeating Japan. Without the full alliance I think that there would STILL be a Greater German Riech today consisting of most of Western Europe. Russia probably wouldn’t have been defeated either and may have been able to gobble back parts of Eastern Europe before they ran out of steam due to losses more horrific than what they infact DID suffer.

-XT

[Rashak_Mani]

I’m with the “It was a Team Effort” group.

Soviets had plenty of tanks… but few Bombers. The Western Allies had the tech and aerial edge. I’ll try to cover some stuff mentioned:

• Russia received a good amount of war material and intelligence from UK & US

• Germany had loads of divisions stuck in Norway, Italy, Baltics and France on account of the western allies. As well as a good number of Aircraft and ships.

• The bombing didn’t harm the German industry as many think. Production continue to grow up until 1944 due to Albert Sheer (spelling ?). It never really dropped badly. The bombing of the oil fields in Romania was a big blow though. Reducing air and tank fuel available. Hitler never really put Germany into full war production mode and there weren’t 24 hr factories with 3 shifts like in other countries.

• US power was really important in military operations by cutting supplies severly and slowing down german units movements.

  A Final comment. If the US and UK had quit the war in 1944… then I beleive the Soviet Union would have finished Germany by itself. The Red Army was unstoppable at that time. In 1941 by itself the URSS would have failed miserably.