Why no war against Stalin?

[Bomb#20]

I don't think anyone would dispute the superiority of the P51 Mustang fighter or the F6F Hellcat. These planes were developed during the war, while Germany and Japan slogged on with planes designed in the 1030's.

I'd have to go with the "more numerous" theory.

 

[Togo]

Most US equipment was superior to what it faced, and when it wasn't superior,

Unless you have a source for this, I'm inclined to put it down to US propaganda. There was some ropey equipment pressed into service in various theatres, but the US aircraft carriers, tanks, and fighter craft were not obviously higher quality, and in many cases were of notably poorer quality than what they were facing. What they certainly were was more numerous.

it made up for the difference in numbers. There is a famous quote from a German tank commander, who said, "A Panzer was the match of ten Shermans. Unfortunately, there were always eleven Shermans."

Case in point. The Shermans were the IKEA of the tank world, tanks that could be shipped in peices for easy assembly by relatively unskilled people. As such, they were shipped in vast numbers. But they were light tanks. They were easily out armoured and outgunned by the later Panzers, and by the far heavier British tanks of the same period.

I don't think anyone would dispute the superiority of the P51 Mustang fighter or the F6F Hellcat. These planes were developed during the war, while Germany and Japan slogged on with planes designed in the 1930's.

Here's an entire page of fighter enthusiasts disputing discussing their favourite planes.
http://stephenesherman.com/discussions/best_fighter.html
Most of them dispute the superiority of the P51 Mustang fighter or the F6F Hellcat. The Me 262 (pictured in the previous post) is a fairly obvious counter-example, but there are plenty of others.

Most of the planes, on both sides, were designed in the 1930s. People in the UK love to talk about Spitfires, but most of the Battle of Britain fighting was done in Hurricanes.

As you say, though, a win is still a win. One of my favourite clues as to where that win came from comes from an economic analysis of the Battle for the Pacific, where it was pointed out that the Japanese had 10 or so aircraft carriers at the start of the war, and built 8 or so more. While the US had similar numbers at the start but built 245.

That's not superior equipment. That's just more of it.

 

[Hickdive]

The Soviet Army in May 1945 was extremely strong. So strong that Stalin almost immediately stuck it on eastbound trains in time to invade Manchuria, starting on 8th August, where it rolled up the Japanese like a carpet over an area the size of western Europe.

Stalin would probably have left the Japanese alone until after he had continued to conquer western Europe but for the fact he was well aware of the atomic bomb project.

 

[Bronzeage]

Most US equipment was superior to what it faced, and when it wasn't superior,

Unless you have a source for this, I'm inclined to put it down to US propaganda. There was some ropey equipment pressed into service in various theatres, but the US aircraft carriers, tanks, and fighter craft were not obviously higher quality, and in many cases were of notably poorer quality than what they were facing. What they certainly were was more numerous.

it made up for the difference in numbers. There is a famous quote from a German tank commander, who said, "A Panzer was the match of ten Shermans. Unfortunately, there were always eleven Shermans."

Case in point. The Shermans were the IKEA of the tank world, tanks that could be shipped in peices for easy assembly by relatively unskilled people. As such, they were shipped in vast numbers. But they were light tanks. They were easily out armoured and outgunned by the later Panzers, and by the far heavier British tanks of the same period.

I don't think anyone would dispute the superiority of the P51 Mustang fighter or the F6F Hellcat. These planes were developed during the war, while Germany and Japan slogged on with planes designed in the 1930's.

Here's an entire page of fighter enthusiasts disputing discussing their favourite planes.
http://stephenesherman.com/discussions/best_fighter.html
Most of them dispute the superiority of the P51 Mustang fighter or the F6F Hellcat. The Me 262 (pictured in the previous post) is a fairly obvious counter-example, but there are plenty of others.

Most of the planes, on both sides, were designed in the 1930s. People in the UK love to talk about Spitfires, but most of the Battle of Britain fighting was done in Hurricanes.

As you say, though, a win is still a win. One of my favourite clues as to where that win came from comes from an economic analysis of the Battle for the Pacific, where it was pointed out that the Japanese had 10 or so aircraft carriers at the start of the war, and built 8 or so more. While the US had similar numbers at the start but built 245.

That's not superior equipment. That's just more of it.

The Sptifire owes it's reputation to a blockbuster movie from the 60's. A lot of WW2 history was written as screenplays.

Fighter planes and tanks are the glamour girls of warfare, but the deciding factor is often something very mundane.

 

[Turambar]

I do not consider myself an expert in WWII history, but I read a few books and watched some documentaries. Also, I am familiar with the specs of most WWII aircraft because during my teens I was an avid scale model builder.

While it is true that many tanks and other heavy vehicles on the American side were not comparable to the German ones (or even Russian ones), American aircraft seems to have been superior in many ways. In fact, I think American aerospace industry still is the standard to beat to this day, whether civilian or military aircraft.

Bronzeage's example of the P51 is a case in point. It is one the best propeller fighter planes ever built. This is proven by the fact that only a jet fighter, the ME 262, was truly superior. But comparing a propeller fighter to a jet fighter is like comparing a VW Beetle to a Dodge Charger. And even then, there were documented cases of P51 pilots downing ME 262s.

Numbers alone do not make the difference. Had that been the case, the Japanese would have never been able to invade China, a country with 10x the population of Japan and far more natural resources.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I do not consider myself an expert in WWII history, but I read a few books and watched some documentaries. Also, I am familiar with the specs of most WWII aircraft because during my teens I was an avid scale model builder.

While it is true that many tanks and other heavy vehicles on the American side were not comparable to the German ones (or even Russian ones), American aircraft seems to have been superior in many ways. In fact, I think American aerospace industry still is the standard to beat to this day, whether civilian or military aircraft.

Bronzeage's example of the P51 is a case in point. It is one the best propeller fighter planes ever built. This is proven by the fact that only a jet fighter, the ME 262, was truly superior. But comparing a propeller fighter to a jet fighter is like comparing a VW Beetle to a Dodge Charger. And even then, there were documented cases of P51 pilots downing ME 262s.

Numbers alone do not make the difference. Had that been the case, the Japanese would have never been able to invade China, a country with 10x the population of Japan and far more natural resources.

Chuck Yeager shot down a ME-262.

The jeep was an unqualified success.

Also, in the Pacific early in the war, Amercians did well at par or weaker with the Japanese such as Coral Sea or Midway.

I'm not much of an ordnance person, though.

 

[Sarpedon]

The ME-262s had a number of drawbacks. Their need for a long runway limited where they could be deployed, and they were highly vulnerable at takeoff and landing. These two factors led to allied fighters just hanging around the few airfields they could operate from and getting them when they tried to take off or land.

it could have changed the course of the war, had it come a year earlier, when allied fighters didn't rove above Germany more or less at will.

Also, as far as China/Japan goes, I think Chinese numbers would have eventually prevailed, even if the USA had never entered the war. While Japan could more or less attack at will, they were having trouble sustaining offensives and holding territory.

 

[Bronzeage]

The ME-262s had a number of drawbacks. Their need for a long runway limited where they could be deployed, and they were highly vulnerable at takeoff and landing. These two factors led to allied fighters just hanging around the few airfields they could operate from and getting them when they tried to take off or land.

it could have changed the course of the war, had it come a year earlier, when allied fighters didn't rove above Germany more or less at will.

Also, as far as China/Japan goes, I think Chinese numbers would have eventually prevailed, even if the USA had never entered the war. While Japan could more or less attack at will, they were having trouble sustaining offensives and holding territory.

Whether Germany could have built the Me-262 in large enough numbers to match the Allies is highly doubtful. The aircraft factories and transportation system would have been under constant bombing. The Allies would have faced the choice of producing more fighter planes, or pressing design and production of their own fighter jet. The noose was already around Germany's neck and it was only a matter of time. In any case, none of this would have affected the time table for the Atomic Bomb, one piece of ordnance which no other nation could match.

If Japan had not been defeated, they would probably still occupy parts of China. Control of the entire nation was never a practical goal. They wanted important resources and strategic points and a complete pacification would have consumed more military personnel and hardware than it was worth. It's unlikely Chinese political powers could have created a military coalition which could have pushed Japan off of the mainland, without a lot of Allied assistance.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The ME-262s had a number of drawbacks. Their need for a long runway limited where they could be deployed, and they were highly vulnerable at takeoff and landing. These two factors led to allied fighters just hanging around the few airfields they could operate from and getting them when they tried to take off or land.

it could have changed the course of the war, had it come a year earlier, when allied fighters didn't rove above Germany more or less at will.

Also, as far as China/Japan goes, I think Chinese numbers would have eventually prevailed, even if the USA had never entered the war. While Japan could more or less attack at will, they were having trouble sustaining offensives and holding territory.

Whether Germany could have built the Me-262 in large enough numbers to match the Allies is highly doubtful. The aircraft factories and transportation system would have been under constant bombing. The Allies would have faced the choice of producing more fighter planes, or pressing design and production of their own fighter jet. The noose was already around Germany's neck and it was only a matter of time. In any case, none of this would have affected the time table for the Atomic Bomb, one piece of ordnance which no other nation could match.

If Japan had not been defeated, they would probably still occupy parts of China. Control of the entire nation was never a practical goal. They wanted important resources and strategic points and a complete pacification would have consumed more military personnel and hardware than it was worth. It's unlikely Chinese political powers could have created a military coalition which could have pushed Japan off of the mainland, without a lot of Allied assistance.

German war production peaked in the summer of 1944. It went quickly downhill from there.

I agree wrt to Japan. It's an interesting thought experiment, what would've happened if there had been no Pearl Harbor. The Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere might still be around.

 

[fromderinside]

The ME-262s had a number of drawbacks. Their need for a long runway limited where they could be deployed, and they were highly vulnerable at takeoff and landing. These two factors led to allied fighters just hanging around the few airfields they could operate from and getting them when they tried to take off or land.

it could have changed the course of the war, had it come a year earlier, when allied fighters didn't rove above Germany more or less at will.

Also, as far as China/Japan goes, I think Chinese numbers would have eventually prevailed, even if the USA had never entered the war. While Japan could more or less attack at will, they were having trouble sustaining offensives and holding territory.

Whether Germany could have built the Me-262 in large enough numbers to match the Allies is highly doubtful. The aircraft factories and transportation system would have been under constant bombing. The Allies would have faced the choice of producing more fighter planes, or pressing design and production of their own fighter jet. The noose was already around Germany's neck and it was only a matter of time. In any case, none of this would have affected the time table for the Atomic Bomb, one piece of ordnance which no other nation could match.

If Japan had not been defeated, they would probably still occupy parts of China. Control of the entire nation was never a practical goal. They wanted important resources and strategic points and a complete pacification would have consumed more military personnel and hardware than it was worth. It's unlikely Chinese political powers could have created a military coalition which could have pushed Japan off of the mainland, without a lot of Allied assistance.

Lest a great event theory become popular here I suggest a more rational spirit of the times approach where one can refer to history for clues about what would happen sans Pearl Harbor. see: "Japan, China, the United States and the Road to Pearl Harbor, 1937–41"

Tensions with Japan rose when the Japanese Army bombed the U.S.S. Panay as it evacuated American citizens from Nanjing, killing three. The U.S. Government, however, continued to avoid conflict and accepted an apology and indemnity from the Japanese. An uneasy truce held between the two nations into 1940.
....
After January 1940, the United States combined a strategy of increasing aid to China through larger credits and the Lend-Lease program with a gradual move towards an embargo on the trade of all militarily useful items with Japan. The Japanese Government made several decisions during these two years that exacerbated the situation. Unable or unwilling to control the military, Japan’s political leaders sought greater security by establishing the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” in August, 1940. In so doing they announced Japan’s intention to drive the Western imperialist nations from Asia.

There was going to be war with Japan. Period.

 

[Underseer]

Both the Nazis and the Soviets invaded Poland.

Why only war against the Nazis, if the Soviets were clearly also aggressors?

Because during WW2, Stalin threatened to leave the alliance if the rest of the alliance didn't let him have Poland, so the allies agreed. As far as I'm concerned, the allies betrayed Poland.

 

[Sarpedon]

Stalin also scrupulously kept his promises.

At the end of the war, Stalin and Churchill met (without representation from the USA present) and agreed on spheres of influence in Europe. Among them, it was agreed that the British Empire would have "90%" influence in Greece. This was in fact the exact opposite of the facts that existed on the ground, where Communist guerillas under Stalin's control held the bulk of the country, including Athens, and the pro-british resistance controled only the island of Euboea. Stalin ordered the guerrillas to stand down, and they did, despite Churchill pointlessly attacking them, sparking a battle and widespread massacre in Athens (pro-Churchill wankers can add this to the pile of his stupid blunders to ignore). I think this was a stupid mistake on Stalin's part: neither Churchill nor the British Empire would remain factors for long, and he basically gave up control of an entire country for the sake of making peace with a man who didn't want peace. (Churchill).

There was no war with Stalin because Stalin didn't want a war and Truman didn't want a war. Churchill wanted a war, which is why the British voters kicked his belligerent hieney out of office the minute Japan surrendered. The Churchill wankers still want to portray him as an all wise oracle, so they have to justify his unnecessary and unwanted World War Three mongering as right.

 

[bilby]

Stalin also scrupulously kept his promises.

At the end of the war, Stalin and Churchill met (without representation from the USA present) and agreed on spheres of influence in Europe. Among them, it was agreed that the British Empire would have "90%" influence in Greece. This was in fact the exact opposite of the facts that existed on the ground, where Communist guerillas under Stalin's control held the bulk of the country, including Athens, and the pro-british resistance controled only the island of Euboea. Stalin ordered the guerrillas to stand down, and they did, despite Churchill pointlessly attacking them, sparking a battle and widespread massacre in Athens (pro-Churchill wankers can add this to the pile of his stupid blunders to ignore). I think this was a stupid mistake on Stalin's part: neither Churchill nor the British Empire would remain factors for long, and he basically gave up control of an entire country for the sake of making peace with a man who didn't want peace. (Churchill).

There was no war with Stalin because Stalin didn't want a war and Truman didn't want a war. Churchill wanted a war, which is why the British voters kicked his belligerent hieney out of office the minute Japan surrendered. The Churchill wankers still want to portray him as an all wise oracle, so they have to justify his unnecessary and unwanted World War Three mongering as right.

Churchill did an excellent job of maintaining British morale, and as a result was, and remains, wildly popular with some parts of the British public. However his record as a military strategist is woeful; The British conduct of the war was one of staggering from blunder to blunder, with a tiny handful of successes that were often completely unexpected, and owed much to dumb luck, or were clearly due to errors on the part of the enemy.

The major British 'wins' were those things that had nothing much to do with Churchill - Any PM can recognise the value in breaking enemy codes, or in shooting down as many enemy planes over home territory as possible. British 'strategy' in WWII boiled down to desperate defence of the homeland - even once the Germans were massively weakened by their fighting against Russia, Britain did not try to counter-attack in the west until the Americans forced their hand; Churchill was still obsessing over his discredited WWI theory of a 'soft underbelly' of Europe, and wasting time and resources on strategically unimportant theatres such as Greece and Italy.

Stalin beat Hitler; and the Americans beat Japan; but Churchill's only contribution was not to admit defeat after Germany all-but defeated Britain. That's not a trivial thing - perhaps the likes of Chamberlain might have negotiated a peace with Hitler in 1940 or 1941, before Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union took the pressure off; but had Britain done so, it is hard to see that the eventual defeat of the Axis powers would not still have occurred. Stalin would have had a much bigger post-war say in the new structure of Europe, and probably would have pushed his sphere of influence a lot further west than he did; But while Britain did help to shorten the war, she wasn't, I suspect, necessary in order to defeat Germany. Perhaps she pinned down just enough German troops on the Atlantic Wall to prevent the taking of Moscow in 1941; but then again, probably not - the Nazi forces in France were still needed to keep down the French, and would likely have also been needed to prevent the British from getting any ideas about a renewed war.

 

[Bronzeage]

Both the Nazis and the Soviets invaded Poland.

Why only war against the Nazis, if the Soviets were clearly also aggressors?

Because during WW2, Stalin threatened to leave the alliance if the rest of the alliance didn't let him have Poland, so the allies agreed. As far as I'm concerned, the allies betrayed Poland.

It goes without saying, but what were their realistic options.

 

[Angry Floof]

Both the Nazis and the Soviets invaded Poland.

Why only war against the Nazis, if the Soviets were clearly also aggressors?

Because politics is NOT about doing what's right, or about honesty, or about fairness. It's about power and who the powers that be want to stomp on or suck up to this week.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The Soviets had two important Allies: the U.S. and Hitler.

American supplies were an immense help to the Russians.

Hitler helped in a couple of ways. First, he was too arrogant to incite a civil war, which would've meant ceding some autonomy to the Ukrainians and White Russians, among others. Second, he didn't trust his generals to fight a defensive war of maneuver. Time and again, German forces were forbidden to retreat and then surrounded.

 

[Togo]

Churchill did an excellent job of maintaining British morale, and as a result was, and remains, wildly popular with some parts of the British public. However his record as a military strategist is woeful; The British conduct of the war was one of staggering from blunder to blunder, with a tiny handful of successes that were often completely unexpected, and owed much to dumb luck, or were clearly due to errors on the part of the enemy.

The major British 'wins' were those things that had nothing much to do with Churchill - Any PM can recognise the value in breaking enemy codes, or in shooting down as many enemy planes over home territory as possible. British 'strategy' in WWII boiled down to desperate defence of the homeland - even once the Germans were massively weakened by their fighting against Russia, Britain did not try to counter-attack in the west until the Americans forced their hand; Churchill was still obsessing over his discredited WWI theory of a 'soft underbelly' of Europe, and wasting time and resources on strategically unimportant theatres such as Greece and Italy.

Stalin beat Hitler; and the Americans beat Japan; but Churchill's only contribution was not to admit defeat after Germany all-but defeated Britain. That's not a trivial thing - perhaps the likes of Chamberlain might have negotiated a peace with Hitler in 1940 or 1941, before Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union took the pressure off; but had Britain done so, it is hard to see that the eventual defeat of the Axis powers would not still have occurred. Stalin would have had a much bigger post-war say in the new structure of Europe, and probably would have pushed his sphere of influence a lot further west than he did; But while Britain did help to shorten the war, she wasn't, I suspect, necessary in order to defeat Germany. Perhaps she pinned down just enough German troops on the Atlantic Wall to prevent the taking of Moscow in 1941; but then again, probably not - the Nazi forces in France were still needed to keep down the French, and would likely have also been needed to prevent the British from getting any ideas about a renewed war.

No... I'm all for giving the churchill-fans a kicking, but that's going too far.

If 'any PM' could recognise the breaking of codes as a priority, why was it done by the British, and not the French-in-exile, the Americans, or the Russians, or even by the Germans?

The British didn't boil down to an all-out defence, which is why the fleet remained intact, British troops continued fighting in other areas, and they maintained an offensive bombing capabilkity that dwarfed what the Luftwaffe could manage.

I'm not convinced at the irrelevence of the 'soft underbelly' either. The under belly was anything but soft, but the mediterrainian front kept the more limited German material and supplies busy, and a German capture of Suez would have been a disaster. Italy and Greece weren't irrelevent either, as they provided airstrips with which to attack shipping through the Med.

And while Russian beat the majoirty of the German army, the portion dedicated to protecting western Europe was still very large. If there had been peace in the west and no possibility of invasion, which is what would have been the result of a British surrender, then they wouldn't have needed nearly so many to watch the Vichy French, and the Russian front might well have been very different.

But the biggest impact would have been trade. With Germany free to trade and import supplies, and the Russians cut off from the same, the dynamics of the war, in which Germany gradually got weaker while Russia got stronger, would have been entirely reversed. Germany could have taken as long as it wanted to conquer Russia, while Russia gradually ran out of supplies and materielle.

 

[Sarpedon]

If 'any PM' could recognise the breaking of codes as a priority, why was it done by the British, and not the French-in-exile, the Americans, or the Russians, or even by the Germans?

Actually, it was Poles who started it all. They fled to both France and Britain. Their french code breaking center was later evacuated to england.

 

[Togo]

If 'any PM' could recognise the breaking of codes as a priority, why was it done by the British, and not the French-in-exile, the Americans, or the Russians, or even by the Germans?

Actually, it was Poles who started it all. They fled to both France and Britain. Their french code breaking center was later evacuated to england.

They certainly were the first to recognise the importance of it, they were the ones who did the early daring raids to understand how the machine was put together, they were the ones who managed to steal the first enigma machine, and yes, they went to the UK via France. But the problem ended up being solved in England, the US was very much slower in their own efforts despite having their own German and Polish refugees, and in Russia mathematicians were being sent to front-line infantry units. So again, if it was something that anyone could have recognised, why didn't they?

Churchill, or rather his government, was very good at the non-military aspects of warfare. Sabotage, espionage, propaganda, keeping the populace focused, supply management, all enjoyed direct patronage by the Cabinet. That's one of the reasons why they were done so well. The fact that the retreating forces from Poland, France and so on were properly debriefed, and offered a chance to train others or go back covertly didn't just happen by itself.

 

[Sarpedon]

There's also the fact that it all started BEFORE Churchill was prime minister. I do not deny that Churchill enthusiastically supported the project. But he did not become Prime Minister until 1940.

The USA had a sophisticated code breaking department. It was hampered by a variety of factors, the largest of which was the general neglect of all things military in the interwar years. The fact that the climate for that sort of work was best in England had a variety of causes, including the Prime Minister. But the fact is that secret codes and spycraft was a longstanding interest in England. You can't give credit of this to a single, late coming leader. You CAN give him credit for supporting this work and using it to a great extent, and I do. Ignoring technological advances and mistrusting unorthodox methods were not among Churchill's faults. His faults were racism, romanticism, military amateurishness, sexism, brutality, ego, and belligerance. His strengths included work ethic, courage, charm and open mindedness, (towards certain things, anyway).