[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

I didn't say that the Germans would have won if they had taken Moscow, but they would have had a morale victory if they did, then who knows.

As for the German percentage of combat troops, it was much higher than 50% and about 85% of German casualties on ALL fronts occured fighting the Russians.

One point that is often overlooked is the fact that Stalin was very worried about the Japanese making further advances from his Eastern flank. Which is why his better infantry and tank divisions were intilially stationed in Siberia. And when Japan made an under the table deal with Russia and switched their focus to the US via Pearl Harbour it allowed Stalin to free these divisions to fight against the Germans. Therefore its more accurate to say that Japan going off on its own tangent had the greatest effect on Hitlers plans. If Japan had sat tight the US would have been happy to stay out of the war and Hitler may well have won.

Very late in the war the Russians were advancing towards Japan. And from what I have read from the Japanese viewpoint they were more worried about the Russians attacking them than they were the two atom bombs the US dropped on them - which they well deserved btw.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but the proportions of German Army manpower engaged against the Soviets was, indeed, about half. One can quibble on the exact percentage--maybe it was 52% or 54%- but it certainly wasn't close to 85%. As for casualties, I agree that Whermacht manpower losses in the East, were probably much higher , proportionately, than 50%, but this is not surprising since the opposing forces were engaged on a ongoing basis, while the Western battles were often intermittent in nature and the campaigns were shorter in duration. I noted that the Germans sent many of their best units to the Russian front---but not all of them. And it is rewriting history to claim that home grown or collaborator forces, plus divisions composed of old men and boys, were the primary garrisons of the occupied countries. Just ask the Brits and, especially, the Canadians,who went ashore at Dieppe if they were facing pushovers. The same point can be made for Rommel's Afrika Korps and the Germans who fought in Sicily and up the Italian "Boot". Of course, there were exceptions like Yugoslavia, where the Germans did employ second rate formations, plus allied groups like the Serb royalists, the Croats, Bosnians, and Hungarian, Italian and Bulgarian forces, but this was not the case in France, Norway ,Holland, and, for the most part, in Italy. Finally, the Japanese decision to attack the U.S., Brits and Dutch wasn't part of a secret deal with Stalin. Stalin had disregarded the warnings of his spy network concerning Hitler's impending invasion. In late 1941, he finally listened to his "moles" in Japan, who told him the Japanese were moving south. That's what freed him to move those Siberian divisions west.

[Epapazian]

I didn't mention it in my last post, but an excellent book on the Russo-German conflict of 1941-1945 is "Stalingrad to Berlin: the German Defeat In the East", by Earle F. Ziemke (Dorset Press, 1968 ). This work was sponsored by The U.S.Army Center of Military History and is very well researched, full of relevant statistics and, in my view, more objective than many other books I have read on this subject.

[Berkut76]

With an exception of aircraft, Germany and its European Axis allies lost 8 out of 10 of about everything in the East. I don't know and don't want to speculate on how things turned out for the Soviets if it wasn't for Lend Lease, but in the end of the day, the Red Army fought on despite heavy losses, huge number of POWs, and without any desire to do so for Stalin.

However, it should be pointed out that without the US food and medicine, the Red Army would have starved to death. In short, in my view, the victory in Europe in WWII was paid for in the Soviet blood (2/3 of it civilian as opposed to military deaths) and the Western Allies industrial might. If it wasn't for sacrifice of the Soviet people of all nationalities in the gloomy days of 1941 - 1942, the war would have been lost.

Regards,

Sergey

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but the proportions of German Army manpower engaged against the Soviets was, indeed, about half. One can quibble on the exact percentage--maybe it was 52% or 54%- but it certainly wasn't close to 85%. As for casualties, I agree that Whermacht manpower losses in the East, were probably much higher , proportionately, than 50%, but this is not surprising since the opposing forces were engaged on a ongoing basis, while the Western battles were often intermittent in nature and the campaigns were shorter in duration. I noted that the Germans sent many of their best units to the Russian front---but not all of them. And it is rewriting history to claim that home grown or collaborator forces, plus divisions composed of old men and boys, were the primary garrisons of the occupied countries. Just ask the Brits and, especially, the Canadians,who went ashore at Dieppe if they were facing pushovers. The same point can be made for Rommel's Afrika Korps and the Germans who fought in Sicily and up the Italian "Boot". Of course, there were exceptions like Yugoslavia, where the Germans did employ second rate formations, plus allied groups like the Serb royalists, the Croats, Bosnians, and Hungarian, Italian and Bulgarian forces, but this was not the case in France, Norway ,Holland, and, for the most part, in Italy. Finally, the Japanese decision to attack the U.S., Brits and Dutch wasn't part of a secret deal with Stalin. Stalin had disregarded the warnings of his spy network concerning Hitler's impending invasion. In late 1941, he finally listened to his "moles" in Japan, who told him the Japanese were moving south. That's what freed him to move those Siberian divisions west.

Hi, I think you missed my point, which was that about 85% of German army casualities occured on the Russian Front.

Earlier in the war the Germans could spare first class troops on other fronts. However, later in the war the attrition on the Eastern Front was so great that they were obliged to use non-German units in many areas, including Normandy etc.

I have read that Stalin was aware of the Japanese intentions on Pearl Harbour, possibly from those same "moles". The fact that he kinda forgot to tell the US suggests a degree of cloak and dagger

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Hi, I think you missed my point, which was that about 85% of German army casualities occured on the Russian Front.

Earlier in the war the Germans could spare first class troops on other fronts. However, later in the war the attrition on the Eastern Front was so great that they were obliged to use non-German units in many areas, including Normandy etc.

I have read that Stalin was aware of the Japanese intentions on Pearl Harbour, possibly from those same "moles". The fact that he kinda forgot to tell the US suggests a degree of cloak and dagger

I noted your point about the high proportion of German Army casualties on the Eastern Front in my earlier reply, buy I don't know what the actual percent was. As for Normandy, yes, there were some unreliable "Russian" units there and in Italy as well. but the vast majority of the German soldiers the Western Allies fought against were reasonably decent regular army troops along with some very tough panzer and SS divisions. Imagine what Von Manstein could have done with 30-40 extra divisions like these in the Ukraine in 1943-44. You are right about Stalin's duplicity regarding the Japanese intentions to go to war with the Western Powers, however, at the time America was still neutral so he may have felt no obligation to tell us. The British, however, were already on Stalin's side in the battle against Hitler, so his failure to tell them what he knew didn't speak well for "Uncle Joe". Perhaps Stalin feared the Brits would warn the U.S. Who knows?

[Berkut76]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

The British, however, were already on Stalin's side in the battle against Hitler, so his failure to tell them what he knew didn't speak well for "Uncle Joe". Perhaps Stalin feared the Brits would warn the U.S. Who knows?

The long standing theory on why the Japanese haven't invaded Soviet Union stemmed from their massive defeat at the hands on Zhukov at Khalkin Gol in 1939. However, recently it came to light that Germans has invited a large Japanese delegation to visit Eastern Front in the Summer of 1941. As usual, German timing was off as the Japanese delegation arrived just in time to witness Wehrmacht first operational retreat (courtesy of Zhukov) on the Eastern Front near the small town Western Russian of Yelnia, which in the end cost German Army more than the Poland and Low Countries campaigns combined.

By most accounts Stalin knew that Japanese will turn their attention to South East Asia (the Brits had to be aware of it as well since their military attache in Moscow reported seeing well equipped, but poorly armed Siberian units arriving in Moscow in late fall of 1941), but there is no evidence that the Soviets knew anything about Pearl Harbor. That being said, Stalin would definitely kept his info to himself.

Regards,

Sergey

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by Berkut76

The long standing theory on why the Japanese haven't invaded Soviet Union stemmed from their massive defeat at the hands on Zhukov at Khalkin Gol in 1939. However, recently it came to light that Germans has invited a large Japanese delegation to visit Eastern Front in the Summer of 1941. As usual, German timing was off as the Japanese delegation arrived just in time to witness Wehrmacht first operational retreat (courtesy of Zhukov) on the Eastern Front near the small town Western Russian of Yelnia, which in the end cost German Army more than the Poland and Low Countries campaigns combined.

By most accounts Stalin knew that Japanese will turn their attention to South East Asia (the Brits had to be aware of it as well since their military attache in Moscow reported seeing well equipped, but poorly armed Siberian units arriving in Moscow in late fall of 1941), but there is no evidence that the Soviets knew anything about Pearl Harbor. That being said, Stalin would definitely kept his info to himself.

Regards,

Sergey

The battles fought between the Soviet forces and the Japanese during the several "incidents" along the Mongolian border have always fascinated me. The Khalkin Gol ground campaign led by Zhukov resulted in a severe drubbing of the Japanese Army, as you state, and certainly influenced its thinking regarding any future conflict with the Red Army or it's Mongolian allies. The air battles , which pitted Japan's "Nates" against Russia's !-153 and I-16 fighters as well as numerous bombers on both sides, are particularly interesting. As usual, victory claims by both opponents were grossly exaggerated, with the Japanese guilty of the wildest overstatements. Sadly, except for one book on the exploits of Japan's Army aces, there is little worthwhile to read on this subject.

[wmosner]

and the subject of this thread was...........

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by wmosner

and the subject of this thread was...........