I think rjung is correct.
The Soviets were amassing large number of troups in reserve for the winter offensive even as German troups approached Moscow. IIRC, the German army almost collapsed during the winter 1941 summer offensive.
I think rjung is correct.
The Soviets were amassing large number of troups in reserve for the winter offensive even as German troups approached Moscow. IIRC, the German army almost collapsed during the winter 1941 offensive.
Lots of good comments here. Regarding the USSR, note that America was economically fighting Germany and Japan long before it entered the war. Without the expectation of American support, I question whether Stalin would have ever split with Hitler.
In terms of gratitude, many Americans think they are owed gratitude for the Marshall Plan, as well as the war itself.
Thought I stopped it in time to prevent double post. Sigh.
Weird how it takes 5 minutes to post but when you cancel it after 5 sec, it still posts. Makes you wonder if you can cancel your post after 10 sec instead of waiting the 5 min 
From MC Master of Ceremonies
Can you back that up MC, that by the time America became involved in actual fighting in Europe that Germany was ‘already defeated’? I thought that America and Britain opened their war in Italy in 1943 (against America’s wishes as I recall…they were asked too by the allies, to put presure on Germany so they would take some of the pressure off Russia…I could be wrong about this, I’m not a WWII buff as I said). Germany was far from defeated by 1943, and things still hung in the balance as far as I recall on the Eastern Front at that time.
It seems that if there was no America in the war, that Germany would of been able to re-allocate more resources from Western Europe (and Africa and Italy) to their fight against Russia. Not so? If Germany was ‘already defeated’ why did it take until 1945 for their final defeat then, even WITH American involvement?
Didn’t the USAF (or Army Air Corp I guess) also play a significant role in damaging Germany’s war production? I know the British did too, but without the Americans also helping, there would of been much less damage…or is that not a factor? Logistics, as I understand it, are more vital than the fighting part in some cases. What about the drain on the Lufftwaffer that the American presence in theater had? Surely those were planes that could otherwise have been used against Russia? Or was it not that big a factor?
From clairobscur
Maybe I’m mixed up. I thought the phoney war was the period between the fall of Poland and the opening of general hostilities. I thought Norway was AFTER said opening of general hostilities. Didn’t the Norway campaign happen after the fall of France? I might be totally mixed up here.
I remember reading years ago (though I don’t know how valid it is) that France/Britain COULD of launched opperations into Germany, but that the French chose not to, thinking they were safe behind their Maginot line. I don’t know how true this is, but the author of that theory seemed to think that the German Generals were very leery of fighting in France, and that it would of had a major impact on the war if the French had of done that. Probably not really relevant, but just thought I’d toss that out as there are some very knowledgeble WWII people on this thread it seems.
-XT
By 1943 the time of the Italian offensive, Germany was already in retreat on the Eastern Front. The fighting in Africa was mostly done by the British, Remember there was no real Westen Front at this time. By this time there was clearly no way back for Hitler.
Yes US bombing was important but in no way pivotal.
From December
huh? I thought that Stalin and Hitler signed a mutual non agression pact, and that Hitler (stupidly) betrayed Stalin/Russian and attacked. My understanding was that Stalin was so convinced of Hitlers intentions that he didn’t even believe the innitial reports that Germany had invaded. How does this fit with a Stalin split from Hitler (unless I’m wrong about my own ‘facts’)? It makes no sense to me…
From rjung
Again, as I said, I’m not a WWII historian. My understanding is that during Operation Barbarosa Germany basically drove the Red Army all the way back to the gates of Moscow. That Stalin was forced to bring out all his reserve Siberian troops (that would of been guarding Siberia from a possible Japanese invation, except he had made a non agression treaty with Japan), and that it was a pretty near thing indeed. As for the next summer offensive, again, it was my understanding that once again the Germans basically routed the Red Army in the field through the summer months, only to be caught by weather (again) and bogged down in attrition campaigns like Stalingrad. From everything I remember (admittedly my memory may be flawed), it was a very near thing for the Russians. If they were easily handling the Germans, why were they so worried? Why did Stalin make all kinds of consessions to have America/Britain open up multiple other fronts to take the pressure off? If they were pretty well winning, I don’t see why Stalin would even WANT to be allied with Britain/America to be honest…what was in it for him, if they didn’t really need America?
-XT
From MC Master of Ceremonies
Hm…perhaps, though I thought that Germany wan’t in retreat in Russia until mid 1944…that there was still a lot of back and forth offensives/counter offensives going on in the Eastern Front. OTOH, just because Germany couldn’t win in Russia was no guarentee that Russia would win (alone) in Germany/Western Europe. Germany had an awful lot of Industrial/technical capability, especially without America there to bust it up (I think America’s involvement in this aspect is more important than you are saying, but I really don’t have all the facts to back it up).
With no America to help the British out, I don’t see them invading and opening a Western (or Southern) front against Germany (though I conceed they probably would of held onto North Africa), just continueing to harrass the Germans with night time bombing raids. Given that, I just don’t see how Russia, again with no help from America, could possibly have fought their way through Poland, much less into Germany. In the end I think they would of HAD to of settled for an uneasy peace, with Germany remaining in control of Western Europe and probably Poland too. Which means that Britain would of either had to sue for peace too, or fight alone. So, maybe Germany doesn’t win in Russia and Britain, but they don’t lose either.
Of course, the previous bullshit was all speculation and what-if-ing. We’ll never know. I guess this debate is unresolvable, as it seems impossible to PROVE that America’s role was vital to success in the European conflict.
Personally, and on my already admittedly limited understanding of history for this period, I’d say that each element was vital to the success…no one of the three major powers for the allies was indespensible. Take away any one of them and while the war may not of been ‘lost’, it wouldn’t of been won either, and Germany would of remained supreme in Europe.
-XT
The loss of Moscow would have been a blow, but it’s very doubtful that it would have been a fatal blow to the Soviets. The Siberian troops had already begun moving from the East and were being held for use in a counteroffensive while the Germans were driving on Moscow. Soviet intelligence in Japan was particularly good and they were aware that Japan was not planning on striking them. In the 1942 summer campaign, the Germans gained a lot of ground but very few prisoners when compared to 1941 – the Soviets had learned not to waste troops when withdrawal could save them to fight again. Stalin didn’t make concession to the US/Britain in 1942, to the contrary he was screaming at them to open up a second front and they were making concessions to him for not being able to do so. For that matter, he kept it up in 1943 as well. America was pushing for an invasion in 1943, but the British wanted to pursue a Mediterranean strategy, and correctly saw that the forces needed for a full scale invasion in France wouldn’t be available until 1944.
Actually, the movement of troops from the East was made based on highly accurate intelligence reports that the Japanese planned to attack Britain and the United States, south and east, rather than going north against Russia. The Soviets had at the time probably the best intelligence network in the world. The fact that the German invasion took them by surprise was solely the fault of Stalin; he was warned again and again, but refused to believe it.
That’s more or less correct. Germany really was very close to destroying the Soviet Union. I totally, absolutely disagree that it was inevitable Germany would lose; it certainly was not. It looks that way now because we know the flow of history, but different decisions would have yielded a different result. If it was that easy to establish who would certainly win every war, the losers would never start fighting.
But, it didn’t happen. The German effort was spread out between too many objectives, and the Soviets learned their lesson; it is also apparent that Germany kept underestimating the size of Soviet reserves. The force that encircled the Sixth Army in Stalingrad came as a total surprise to Germany, and that was a BIG force, supported by substantial air assets. How you would just miss noticing dozens of divisions sitting behind a city you’re actually inside boggles the mind, but they managed to do it.
I was referencing the Phony War, If I wasn’t clear. When the Germans invaded Poland the Western frontier of Germany was almost undefended. France and GB mounted no significant offensive operations to help beleagured Poland (clairobscur tells an interesting laundry story). In part, this was due to the strategic doctrines of the time. France was ill-prepared doctrinally to use its many tanks together, much less in concert with mechanized infantry. Some cite logistical difficulties. The resulting defensive strategy was, in hindsight, obviously the wrong one.
The back and forth fighting only lasted until mid-1943, and was more in the USSR’s favor each winter. The 1943 summer offensive at Kursk failed miserably, and from August 1943 the Germans were in retreat in the East.
IMO, xtisme:
1.) The UK and the USSR would have most likely have defeated Germany without the USA’s help. Hitler insanely insisted on Operation Barbarossa even tho’ UK was still very much in the war. However, the USA’s help greatly shortened the war. The Russians’ offensives were impressive, but, as RickJay pointed out, they were greatly aided by American materiel, especially trucks. Without that help, the Red Army would not have advanced as quickly as it did in 1944.
2.) Europeans should be grateful, I think. Unfortunately, too many in the US think gratitude = slavish support for dubious policies.
4.) I think Rommel was quoted as saying the Americans were the most ignorant soldiers in the beginning, but learned quicker than the troops of other countries. Personally, I think a review of American history indicates our troops were no slouches once they had some experience under their belts.
Personally, I think there was plenty of glory to be shared among the Big Three Allies, and it is either quibbling or an academic exercise to argue which country contributed the most. Everyone alive today should be grateful for what those three militaries accomplished. As the old cliche goes, the British gave the Allies time, the Russians gave blood and the Americans gave money.
Americans shouldn’t be too upset if the French don’t like you … they don’t like anybody else either 
As a Brit I am very glad the Americans joined in our little spat. Just wish you’d come to the party earlier.
You supplied us with much needed arms/supplies but not totally out of the goodness of your hearts. We are still repaying our debts to you from the war, last I heard we were almost done, we still owe you something like £240 million (thats including about £1 billion loan to try to get us back on our feet after the war)
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds02/text/20708-03.htm
Find the section about WWII Debt.
The German retreat started at Stalingrad in Jan 1943 and the surrender of the 8th(?, forgetting all my history already, my main period is the inter-war period tho) army, which was shortly followed by a crushing defeat at Kursk, though the Germans weren’t forced out of Russia until 1944.
Don’t get me wrong I am grateful for the help of the Americans, particularly as a) most of my family are from London which suffered greatly from the blitz and b) my Grandfather and Great-Grandfather were civilian prisoners in a Japanese concentration camp.
Well, you see, the key to strangling the UK is to cut her off from her colonies. Take out Gibraltar, and not only is the Med gone, but they’ve lost one of their most important ports for escorts and to refuel at.
The US isn’t involved, so the UK is just about the only place left running escorts… and the wolfpacks can then concentrate and take them out.
Without Lend-Lease, Moscow would have been lost a lot earlier, thanks to lack of supplies and the consequential disease, maybe as much as a week or two, which gives the Germans the railheads before full winter. There’s no way the Germans could keep all of Russia, but I’m seeing a negotiated peace (Vote of no confidence in Churchill, Halifax in power) that’d last a good twenty years before the Germans moved again.
Might as well all work on the same page.
http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~ww2oh/Timeline.htm
Amusement: What the Russians got.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html
Change the “Moscow” above to Stalingrad. I think the key point here for the US was, eh, spring '43, when the UK was down to a three month food supply. Without the supplies from the States, it would have been gone.
The “phoney war” was indeed the period between the fall of Poland and the beginning of the german offensive against Belgium/Netherlands/France. But the operations in Norway took place during this period, and were actually interrupted by the collapse in France. The british and french troops evacuated Norway right after Dunkirk.
I’m not one of these knowledgeable people, so I wouldn’t know. What I wrote about the allied feeling they’re weren’t ready for an offensive and planning one for the autumn isn’t more authoritative than what you wrote. That’s what I read somewhere, nothing more.