sullster

Happy Wanderer,

Thanks for the interesting information. It is fascinating that the USSR actually partially paid for the war material sent to them.

What angers me is the leftist historical analysis which portrays the US as a greedy bloodsucker taking advantage of "poor" Europe. Europe descended by its own madness into the pits of the Twentieth Century.

I take great umbrage at the term "reparations" used by a poster. This word usually refers to money and goods forcefully extracted from a defeated enemy. The most famous example of this were the terms of the Versailles Treaty, where England and France bled Germany to compensate for their losses in WW1.

The USA did not defeat England, France and the USSR. It supported the first,help liberate the second and aided the last. And you know something, it was a bit "noble", damn it. The Third Reich didn't last for a thousand years and I like the fact that the USA helped crush the Nazi bastards.l


Amen-moses,

Yes indeed the USA got a lot out of WW2. It went from an isolationist nation with a tiny army and navy to a great power.

But, what was the alternative? An insane ideological empire spanning Europe with it's captial in Berlin,(Germania, was to become its new name)?

If the USA had never entered the war and Hitler had managed to crush the USSR, how long would it be before the Wehrmacht crossed the channel and made London a very German city? Even if the USSR managed to hang on, without the American forces for a cross channel invasion, England would have been a practise range for German weapons.

Europe does not exactly look too poor these days and you all seem to live quite well, in spite of all our extractions. As your Bard once wrote,"Methinks thou dost protest too much".

Amen-Moses

Here is a tip, read the Klemporer diaries (Victor Klemporer was a German Jew living in Dresden, he was a professor of history and kept diaries his whole life, the period of 1933-45 are published in two books and have been translated to English and the period 1946 till his death (in 1969 IIRC) covering the Soviet period are published in German) and you will see that during the perio 1941-42 Germany was in severe shit both economically and militarily. In fact as bad as things were in Britain regarding materials and food they were if anything worse in Germany.

Even without US military intervention (i.e if Japan had sued for peace in 1941 and given up it's imperial hopes for US oil) Germany would have eventually fallen. It may have taken longer and eventually ended in a form of truce (which wouldn't have helped the Jews any) but Britain (and the rest of the commonwealth) were not in any danger of defeat.

Consider that Germany was already beaten in Africa, 1000 bomber raids on German industry had already been in operation for 6 months, all Japanese and German codes had been broken and Russia was on the offensive in the eastern front BEFORE the US engaged a single axis force.

The only spanner in the works was the U-Boat force which by 1942 had been almost neutralised by the convoy systems.

Canada is the country we owe the most to because we shifted our entire aircraft production to Canada in 1941 and the good people of Canada (via war bonds and actual hands-on work) produced all those fighters and bombers that allowed bomber Harris to take the war to Germany.

Amen-Moses

Vorkosigan

you will see that during the perio 1941-42 Germany was in severe shit both economically and militarily. In fact as bad as things were in Britain regarding materials and food they were if anything worse in Germany.

Instead of diaries, you should consult a standard reference, such as Milward's War, Economy and Society: 1939-1945. Germany's caloric intake was not significantly impaired until very late in the war because of harvest fail, although the composition of the food supply changed (the amount of meat produced fell in all the Powers). There was no real difference between the two nations as far as consumption was concerned. Militarily 1942 was the high point for Germany.

Even without US military intervention (i.e if Japan had sued for peace in 1941 and given up it's imperial hopes for US oil) Germany would have eventually fallen.

This depends on what you mean. If the US had not supported the Russian war effort, Germany would have crushed the USSR and eventually defeated Britain. By 1945 Germany's technological lead over Britain was gigantic, for by that year the Germans had developed practically the entire gamut of post-WWII technology, including helicopters, surface to air missiles, guided anti-tank missiles, cruise missiles, jets, and ballistic missiles. Without US intervention Britain would have been utterly defeated.

Consider that Germany was already beaten in Africa, 1000 bomber raids on German industry had already been in operation for 6 months, all Japanese and German codes had been broken and Russia was on the offensive in the eastern front BEFORE the US engaged a single axis force.

You keep saying this, and we keep pointing out that this does not reflect history at all. El Alamein was enabled by the massive US aid lift to the UK (including large numbers of the new Shermans) -- no US, no German defeat in North Africa -- and timed to be Britain's last major victory, since US troops would land in Rommel's rear 4 days later. Stalingrad was winding up, but Germany would be pursuing offensives in Russia for another year. Both the British and the Russian victories would have been impossible without US food and equipment, so ipso facto Germany would have won the war without us.

The only spanner in the works was the U-Boat force which by 1942 had been almost neutralised by the convoy systems.

Where are you getting this from? 1942 was a disaster for the convoy systems, with some convoys losing up to 70% of their ships. U-boat production reached 30 per month against monthly losses of 21, and Allied shipping losses of more than 150 per month. By Mar of 1943, when Germany had more than 400 U-boats deployed, the Brits were considering the convoy system a failure. Not until July 1943, when the first Liberty ships came out (enabling the Allies to overcome production deficits), escort carriers were deployed, and German codes were beginning to fall, did the convoy system begin to function and the tide turn. May of '43 was the turning point, when convoy SC-130 was attacked by 33 U-boats but no ships were lost and 5 U-boats caulked.

Canada is the country we owe the most to because we shifted our entire aircraft production to Canada in 1941 and the good people of Canada (via war bonds and actual hands-on work) produced all those fighters and bombers that allowed bomber Harris to take the war to Germany.

By '44 60% of allied munitions were produced in the US. Those big Lancasters used by Harris, whether built in Canada or Britain (not all aircraft production was transferred; the big Lancasters were mostly built in Britain; only the Mark X was built in Canada -- 400 aircraft out of 7,300 Lancasters of all marks, I think), were, from the Mk III on, power by US-built engines. Later marks utilized US equipment; the final production version, for example, used US gun turrets.

Vorkosigan

Amen-Moses

I'll take it then that you haven't read the diaries?

Germany was desparately short of food, oil, coal and well virtually everything, crop failures and the results of allied bombing in 42 meant that by the end of 42 even potatoes were being rationed to a kg a week (and that was for "Aryan" families) the Klemporers were lucky in having many academic "Aryans" as friends who gave them what they could otherwise they would have starved.

Although the German war mahine was adequately supplied throughout the war (except later on the Russian front) the constant drain on the German heartland meant that the next generation of soldiers were growing up weak and malnourished.

As for the technology side the allies were as advanced in most areas and arguably more advanced in many, i.e where were the German heavy bombers? Where was their radar and sonar (always a few steps behind). The German codes had been broken before the North Africa campaign was over (and not just the Enigma although that was the most important) and its success was due to air superiority and the fact that we could pick and choose which convoys to attack (as we knew from the code breakers exactly which ones were important) so for example we would raid a convoy and only take out the oil tankers (making it look like an accidental discovery so as not to tip them off that we had broken their codes) which left Rommel in a position where he couldn't mount a counter attack even if he had wanted to.

Without the second front in the Pacific the European axis powers were doomed and once Egypt was safely in allied hands (not to mention Iran where the bulk of the supplies to Russia were landed for transport by train) allowing the Indian ocean trade routes to be made secure the war was definitely running in the favour of the allies.

Yes the industrial output of the US was important but if the US hadn't sold us the goods we would have got them from somewhere else and I'm sure that US businessmen would have fallen over themselves to build factories in South Africa, Australia, Canada or any number of other countries in order to profit from the war and I'm equally sure that the US people would have been happy to invest in such enterprises if they had been required!

Hell if Japan had not been an issue China could have easily produced the 387,000 allied trucks sent to Russia, it only takes a few months to build a truck factory.

Amen-Moses

sullster

Amen-moses,

The diary of one peson living in Germany is instructive to an degree, but to draw vast conclusions from it is fallacious. Saying that Nazi Germany would have collapsed by 1942 is the most absurd thing I have read in a while. The Germans occupied most of Europe, including the huge farm lands of the Ukraine. They were stealing everything and bringing it back to the Reich.

What you claim was happening in Germany was happening in your own country at that time. Ask your Grandparents or go read about the average caloric intake of the British. Dogs and cats were required to be killed in order to save food for humans. The German U-boats were sinking everything coming over to England. It wasn't until 1943 that the U-boats were put on the defensive and that was with the massive offensive of the US navy and air force! Your Merry old England was starving and those Goose Steppers across the channel were eating fine French cheese and swilling wine.

Are your ideas what is taught in English schools or are you just a grudge holding leftist?

I admire the English greatly. They stood up alone to the Germans and kicked their ass in the battle of Britain. Yet, to say that England could have defeated the Germans alone and that the Germans were about to collapse is delusional at worst and revisionist at best.

Vorkosigan

I'll take it then that you haven't read the diaries?

No, just the standard references.

Germany was desparately short of food, oil, coal and well virtually everything, crop failures and the results of allied bombing in 42

ROTFL. As Milward says on p. 76

• "Over the period from 1938 to 1942 the fall in real consumption was comparable to that in Britain although the German consumption started from a higher level thanks to the higher level of employment in the 1930s. The standard of living of the individual consumer was still higher than in Britain. On in 1944 did this cease to be the case...."

Germany consumers did quite well, thank you, whatever pampered Klemperer's complaints were. As any standard reference could tell you, Hitler did not make the switch from "guns" to "butter" until 1943, because he feared the widespread opposition such a move would evoke. Incidentally coal supply was a problem, because Germany chose to export so much of it to Italy. Allied bombing had almost no effect in 1942. According to the US strategic bombing survey, total German loss of production due to bombing in '42 was a whopping 2.5%. (Milward, p. 304).

Try reading standard references, Amen.

Although the German war mahine was adequately supplied throughout the war (except later on the Russian front) the constant drain on the German heartland meant that the next generation of soldiers were growing up weak and malnourished.

Try one of the standard references. The German war machine remained well-supplied until 1944; German problems lay in the distribution end rather than the production end. And the nexgt generation was not growing up weak and malnourished.

As for the technology side the allies were as advanced in most areas and arguably more advanced in many, i.e where were the German heavy bombers? Where was their radar and sonar (always a few steps behind).

Don't be silly. If the Germans had wanted, they could have built heavy bombers. Their failure to do so was obviously one of the major strategic errors of the war, due to Goring's foolishness and later, in 1944, the switch to prioritization of fighter production and the termination of the long-range bomber program. German radar was not all that inferior to British, and in so many other areas the Germans were way ahead of the allies -- where were the allied guided anti-tank missiles, the ballistic and cruise missiles, the surface-to-air missiles, the helicopters, and so on? German chemicals and optics were superior to allied, as were German metallurgical skills. Certainly there were areas of allied superiority, but across-the-board, the Germans had better stuff. This was a deliberate choice of German planners, who stressed quality since they could never hope to outproduce the US.

More importantly, Germany was superior in production technology to both Britain and the USSR. A good study of Britain's industry at war is Corelli Barnett's The Audit of War that thoroughly exposed how backward the British were in their production methods. For example, in 1943 German machine tool inventories were two-thirds greater than Britain's, and German inventories consisted of universal machines easily switched between productive functions. You mentioned Canada; but Canada's production industries were heavily dependent on imports of equipment from the US. Surely, had the US never entered, then Britain and Russia would have been crushed.

The German codes had been broken before the North Africa

Quite true. But the German failure was not technological, but organizational.

Yes the industrial output of the US was important but if the US hadn't sold us the goods we would have got them from somewhere else

:banghead: FROM WHERE! The US supplied 60% of the allied munitions! Without the US Russia and Britain were on parity with Germany in munitions production! Britain was bankrupt by 1942, and unable to pay for anything -- so private industry would not have been able to fill the gap. If anything, the actual situation would have been worse, because Russia would not been in the war by the end of 1943, gone down to the Wehrmacht, and Britain would have faced Germany alone.

Hell if Japan had not been an issue China could have easily produced the 387,000 allied trucks sent to Russia, it only takes a few months to build a truck factory.

ROTFL. Amen, China was no more capable of exporting those trucks than Chad was. Even without the Japanese, there was a Civil War that had been ongoing since the 1920s. Not to mention the problem of transportation of trucks to Russia.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I'll take it then that you haven't read the diaries?

No, just the standard references.

Germany was desparately short of food, oil, coal and well virtually everything, crop failures and the results of allied bombing in 42

ROTFL. As Milward says on p. 76

• "Over the period from 1938 to 1942 the fall in real consumption was comparable to that in Britain although the German consumption started from a higher level thanks to the higher level of employment in the 1930s. The standard of living of the individual consumer was still higher than in Britain. On in 1944 did this cease to be the case...."

Germany consumers did quite well, thank you, whatever pampered Klemperer's complaints were. As any standard reference could tell you, Hitler did not make the switch from "guns" to "butter" until 1943, because he feared the widespread opposition such a move would evoke. Incidentally coal supply was a problem, because Germany chose to export so much of it to Italy. Allied bombing had almost no effect in 1942. According to the US strategic bombing survey, total German loss of production due to bombing in '42 was a whopping 2.5%. (Milward, p. 304).

Try reading standard references, Amen.

Although the German war mahine was adequately supplied throughout the war (except later on the Russian front) the constant drain on the German heartland meant that the next generation of soldiers were growing up weak and malnourished.

Try one of the standard references. The German war machine remained well-supplied until 1944; German problems lay in the distribution end rather than the production end. And the next generation was not growing up weak and malnourished, since the German food supply, though dull, was adequate.

As for the technology side the allies were as advanced in most areas and arguably more advanced in many, i.e where were the German heavy bombers? Where was their radar and sonar (always a few steps behind).

Don't be silly. If the Germans had wanted, they could have built heavy bombers. Their failure to do so was obviously one of the major strategic errors of the war, due to Goring's foolishness and later, in 1944, the switch to prioritization of fighter production and the termination of the long-range bomber program. German radar was not all that inferior to British, and in so many other areas the Germans were way ahead of the allies -- where were the allied guided anti-tank missiles, the ballistic and cruise missiles, the surface-to-air missiles, the helicopters, and so on? The Panther was the finest production tank of the war. German chemicals and optics were superior to allied, as were German metallurgical skills. Certainly there were areas of allied superiority, but across-the-board, the Germans had better stuff. This was a deliberate choice of German planners, who stressed quality since they could never hope to outproduce the US.

More importantly, Germany was superior in production technology to both Britain and the USSR. A good study of Britain's industry at war is Corelli Barnett's The Audit of War that thoroughly exposed how backward the British were in their production methods. For example, in 1943 German machine tool inventories were two-thirds greater than Britain's, and German inventories consisted of universal machines easily switched between productive functions. You mentioned Canada; but Canada's production industries were heavily dependent on imports of equipment from the US. Surely, had the US never entered, then Britain and Russia would have been crushed.

The German codes had been broken before the North Africa

Quite true. But the German failure was not technological, but organizational.

Yes the industrial output of the US was important but if the US hadn't sold us the goods we would have got them from somewhere else

:banghead: FROM WHERE! The US supplied 60% of the allied munitions! Without the US Russia and Britain were on parity with Germany in munitions production! Britain was bankrupt by 1942, and unable to pay for anything -- so private industry would not have been able to fill the gap. If anything, the actual situation would have been worse, because Russia would not been in the war by the end of 1943, gone down to the Wehrmacht, and Britain would have faced Germany alone.

Hell if Japan had not been an issue China could have easily produced the 387,000 allied trucks sent to Russia, it only takes a few months to build a truck factory.

ROTFL. Amen, China was no more capable of exporting those trucks than Chad was. Even without the Japanese, there was a Civil War that had been ongoing since the 1920s. Not to mention the problem of transportation of trucks to Russia.

Vorkosigan

Amen-Moses

Not England, the commonwealth. If Japan had not entered the war then my scenario stands.

Read up on Enigma, by 1942 we knew exactly where every damn U-boat was, the losses from 1942-43 were in the main US losses due to them not being in a position to use the convoy system (due in main to lack of ships after Pearl).

The Soviets operated a slash and burn policy whilst retreating resulting in the Ukraine being more a sterile wasteland than the bread basket that the Germans hoped for. If we needed to we could have relied entirely on the supplies from Canada, South Africa and Australia, supplies brought by the same ships that we used for troop transport, ships that U-boats could not even catch let alone sink!

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

So good you said it twice.

If you take the Japanese out of the equation there is no reason at all why the Chinese could not have geared up to produce the trucks and tractors for Russia.

Note that I am not saying that the US business's and capital would not have been important, hell as virtually the only 1st world country on the planet that wasn't being bombed by someone they were virtually the only source of investment to draw upon but that isn't the same as the supposed charity that you seem to be claiming. In fact charity never really came into it, the war bonds made plenty of people a fair packet!

The value of the Klemporer diaries is in who he was, i.e he was a historian, he was in a very good position to evaluate the social and political position of the ordinary German citizen and his insights into the day to day life are valuable in a way that analysts thousands of miles from the situation cannot match. Until I read them I didn't realise just how bad the situation in Gemany was.

The impact on Germany of the thousand bomber raids even a year before the US became involved was not so much in the destruction of productive capabilities (although some specific raids had a huge impact by being aimed at for example the ball bearing production) but more in the effect on the actual people of Germany, no matter how Hitler spun it the ordinary people could see defeat in the air as early as 1942 and Klemporer diaries show that happening in real time.

In contrast here in Britain, however bad things got, there was never a feeling of defeatism to the same degree. This sort of on the ground record of the peoples impessions is important and is not reflected in the "standard references".

Amen-Moses

Vorkosigan

If you take the Japanese out of the equation there is no reason at all why the Chinese could not have geared up to produce the trucks and tractors for Russia.

Just the complete lack of industrial infrastructure, a road network, a stable market economy, trained workers, and an ongoing civil war. Have you ever actually studied any of this?

you seem to be claiming. In fact charity never really came into it, the war bonds made plenty of people a fair packet!

NEVER did I claim it was charity. I did say, however, that without US support Britain would have gone bankrupt. There was no question of British investment stimulating private US companies to produce munitions for Britain; the money wasn't there.

analysts thousands of miles from the situation cannot match. Until I read them I didn't realise just how bad the situation in Gemany was.

The average German was better off than the average Brit until 1944. There is no way around that simple fact. Analysis do things like analyze statistics, not whine about the days of plenty and high living that were lost. Analysts work with many different types of datasets; Klemperer with none at all.

The impact on Germany of the thousand bomber raids even a year before the US became involved was not so much in the destruction of productive capabilities (although some specific raids had a huge impact by being aimed at for example the ball bearing production) but more in the effect on the actual people of Germany, no matter how Hitler spun it the ordinary people could see defeat in the air as early as 1942 and Klemporer diaries show that happening in real time.

Neither you nor Klemperer knows what he is talking about. The US entered the war in Dec of 1941. In 1942 there were only two thousand bomber raids, one in Cologne in May, the other on Bremen in June. Total damage to Germany's economy equalled 2.5% of production, as US bombing survey shows. One man's diary cannot hope to match thousands of analysts poring over German and Allied records. The value of the 1000 plane raids was that they showed the possibilities, not that they acheived much. Nor was there much defeatism in Germany in the summer of 1942, since Hitler had an unbroken record of success at that point.

In contrast here in Britain, however bad things got, there was never a feeling of defeatism to the same degree. This sort of on the ground record of the peoples impessions is important and is not reflected in the "standard references".

Actually it, since the standard references reflect a wide range of opinions on the progress of the war. How is it you think one person's diaries can show anything but one person's uniformed opinions? You want a real view of the war, read something like Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War or Cook and Cook's oral history collection of Japan, or similar. One diarist writing in Germany is hardly in the same position as thousands of analysts collecting thousands of accounts.

For example, as actual writings from the time attest, defeatism was widespread in Britain in 1940 and 1941. Much of that was edited out of the collective memory in the postwar haze of victory. Again, see the Fussel work Wartime for a more realistic view of things; it is one of the best works on the human side of the war.

Vorkosigan