Defeat of the Luftwaffe

[pbfoot]

All of the allied nations were geared this way, but i will use the british because they were the moral heart of the allied effort. without them, the war would have ended in June 1940.

They lucked out , it was self induced ineptness, no welded armour because the riveteers threatened job action and god knows you couldn't have that . The UK's ambassador to the US prefffered the folks in Palm Beach over the government of the US , the major saviour of the UK was FDR pushing through Lend Lease other then that the UK was broke It was a close run thing and FDR instead of Churchill should be considered the saviour of the UK.Were you aware that the US policy was that anyone buying US goods who owed money to the US from the 1st war was to pay COD the last money the UK had was picked up by the USS Louisville in Simonstown SA in Dec 1940 . They then began to sell off of overseas assets to pay for the war .
Most of this is taken from a book called Blood Tears and Folly by Len Deighton

 

[Jenisch]

"... with a leader and a political party that was DELUSIONAL and RACIST.

Stalin's paranoid was not much different in my view, and this includes the great purge in the military of the USSR. And while one can praise the military actions from the Soviets, they must be analyzed in the context of the Allied effort, with effects against the Germans such as the blockade. If Stalin was alone against Hitler without the blockade and the war with the West itself, he would enter in a scenario quiet similar to the one Hitler was in my view. With of course the difference that he and his "insane" actions would literally burry his country.

In short: Hiler was an "evil" leader, but certainly not the only one. As Siegrified pointed out, Hitler had foreign relations with many peoples despite the Holocaust. While Stalin, well, we know what he did in Ukranie in 32-33 and some minorities in the USSR. He was a mass murder, and the Stalinists trying to use the excuse he was not racist is an absurd. The man didn't liked from certain peoples, and wanted to finish with them or deport them. Hitler was practically the same.

 

[tyrodtom]

I was not saying the Allies couldn't help but win, I'm saying the Nazis had problems they COULDN'T correct , they didn't see them as faults, they didn't want to correct them .

 

[Jenisch]

Ok.

But what do you think of what Stalin did? Yes, the Soviets won, but at which cost? The Russian population still suffers with low population, specially of males because of his actions. The purge of the Soviet military in a period of world crises was not worse than an action from Hitler because the Soviets managed to recover later.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Hitler was an "evil" leader, but certainly not the only one..."

Stalin was in charge of a rich country - in terms of resources; a vast country - in terms of space; and his country had launched what many people (worldwide) believed was a bold new social experiment.

The two men were holding very different 'hands' at this card table. After Kristalnacht everyone knew where the Nazis where heading. After the Ukraine starvation progrom, most media in the west made excuses for Stalin and the Soviet leadership.

There is no comparison between the two men -- other than the evil megalomania that you referred to, Jenisch.

MM

[to follow up post, Jenisch]

".... The Russian population still suffers with low population, specially of males because of his actions."

Russia has a declining Caucasian population, not because of Stalin, his purges or the war. Russian males have a declining life expectancy because of very destructive life style choices .... end of story.

 

[Tante Ju]

The British were responsible for the formation and holding together of the grand alliance.

Not really. Neither the US or the USSR were 'talked into war' by skilled British diplomats, FDR and Stalin weren't infants in politics who need a guiding hand. They had their own strategic plans which happened to coincide. Stalin wanted to export communism, and fill the vacuum in Eastern europe left after the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Just like he wasn't talked into forming a allience of convenience with Hitler in 1939, when it suited his goals, he didn't need Churchill's nonsense who did not befriend the USSR, but hostiled it until it entered the war. Similarly, FDR's mind was on hauling the US economy out of the great depression and secondly, which has been an ambition of US presidents in the last 50 years establishing the US as the dominant power of the 'Western Hemisphere' in weight of US industrial power (a situation not unlike that of the 2nd Reich under the Kaiser I must add), and taking control of sea trade and securing markets for the US industry. A newly emerging industrial power challanged the old colonial powers.

The British were hoping that the US will join (US intentions to do so were quite clear to anyone) and save their ass. But it was the US who named the price for that - we save your ass, in exchange you hand over your trading position and markets. Just read the Atlantic Charter. Britain wasn't in the position to lead or set the conditions of this 'grand alliance'.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Britain wasn't in the position to lead or set the conditions of this 'grand alliance'."

Economically speaking, Tante Ju, you're quite right of course ... but in terms of MORAL LEADERSHIP ... quite another story. Britain (and their CW partners), morally speaking, "saved their own ass" -- as you put it so colorfully.

Is that a distinction that might occur to you ... ...?

MM
Proud Canadian

 

[Tante Ju]

I am not sure what you refer to here..?

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... I am not sure what you refer to here..?"

Oh well - there are dictionaries, Tante Ju. You could look up "Moral" and " Leadership" for a start.

MM

 

[Hoju2k]

Not really. Neither the US or the USSR were 'talked into war' by skilled British diplomats, FDR and Stalin weren't infants in politics who need a guiding hand. They had their own strategic plans which happened to coincide. Stalin wanted to export communism, and fill the vacuum in Eastern europe left after the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Just like he wasn't talked into forming a allience of convenience with Hitler in 1939, when it suited his goals, he didn't need Churchill's nonsense who did not befriend the USSR, but hostiled it until it entered the war. Similarly, FDR's mind was on hauling the US economy out of the great depression and secondly, which has been an ambition of US presidents in the last 50 years establishing the US as the dominant power of the 'Western Hemisphere' in weight of US industrial power (a situation not unlike that of the 2nd Reich under the Kaiser I must add), and taking control of sea trade and securing markets for the US industry. A newly emerging industrial power challanged the old colonial powers.

The British were hoping that the US will join (US intentions to do so were quite clear to anyone) and save their ass. But it was the US who named the price for that - we save your ass, in exchange you hand over your trading position and markets. Just read the Atlantic Charter. Britain wasn't in the position to lead or set the conditions of this 'grand alliance'.

Good post. Also, its always easier to find allied for keeping the Statu quo, than for the contrary. I have some extra comments to the amazing (not a compliment) Parsifal's post:

All these comments about Germany being doomed from the start I dont agree with. In 1939 the Germans held most of the advantages, the alliers had virtully none.

Let's see: Germany found itself in war with two great powers (UK and France), that everyone knew would be eventually supported by the US, her only Ally choose to not get involved (Italy), and her economy was totally dependant on the good will of the Soviets, that, they were only waiting their chance to stab Germany in the back. That's not holding most advantages, that was an almost hopeless situation.

Their pilot training schemes didnt happen just by accident. The German efforts were much more "traditional"....essentially "hand crafted" pilots. Good quality, well trained, but too few to win the battle. Britain set up to churn aircrew out at a phenomenal rate....mass produced "woolworth" pilots that in the end learned the hard way, and eventually bested their opponents both qualitatively and quantitatively.

I would like to see some evidence on this. About the part of "eventually bested", when did that happen?? Not in 1939, not in 1940, not in 41-42...and the VVS and USAAF did more than the RAF to accomplish the defeat of the LW.

the germans, with their mania for size and technology built some of the most advanced military machines for war, but the cost, complexity and reliabiltity of many of these items left much to be desired. There are reasons why a country like Russia, with a prewar industry about 70% that of prewar germany (and then also losing about 30% of its prewar capacity to German occupation) could nevertheless outproduce the germans by factors of 2, 3, 4 to 1.

Absurd. And the USSR (never mind Russia) did not outproduce Germany during the war.

 

[parsifal]

Not really. Neither the US or the USSR were 'talked into war' by skilled British diplomats, FDR and Stalin weren't infants in politics who need a guiding hand.

T

The russians and the US were each different cases, each with vastly different starting positions, and each with vastly differnt agendas. In the case of the Russians, they entered the war as allies of the germans, with close economic ties, and a desire on the part of the Russians to co-operate in the destruction of the western powers. it was only after the german betrayal of the the Russians that the Russians could be approached by Allies. At least until the latter part of 1943, the various negotiations undertaken by the allies with the russians were overwhelmingly conducted by the British. The ofocial alliance documents, signed in June 1942, between the allies and the Russians were drawn up by mostly British diplomats, and the terms negotiated by British politicians. The british in that first six months kept the US allies fully informed of developments, but it was not the US that drove these negotiations. Basically, they didnt know how to.

Moreover, at least until 1944, the main re-supply route remained the arctic convoy route, followed by the Persian route. Both these routes were opened up, guarded and maintained by British efforts. in the case of the Arctic route, it was British warships, and by far in the majority british registered merchant ships until 1944 that provided the transport. In the case of the Persian route, it was again British controlled rolling stock, taken mostly from India, British engineers, British military forces (along with some Russian forces) , that took over Persia and opened up that supply route. Later, the Americans did provide substantial numbers of Hevy prime movers and engineers. It was also the Americans that opened up the alaskan route , but both these efforts came much later.

Similalry, the initial aid provided by the allies to the Russians were taken from British controlled stocks. There were seven major re-supply convoys undertaken in 1941. None of these were supported or carried US equipment (ther were items of lend Lease equipment, but these were drawn from British controlled stocks. US aid did not really begin to kick in all that much until 1942, and did not take a dominant position until 1944. So in both a diplomaic and material sense the Russian/Allied alliance was formed and mainained by the british for a very long time.

They had their own strategic plans which happened to coincide.

This is about as far from the truth as can be got. the Russians were in alliance with the germans. They were interested in European domnination and were playing a pretty active role in achieving that, short of active involvement. In terms of military hardware the Russians were the most heavily armed nation on earth. Stalinist foreign policy was expansionist and aggresive.

The US at the beginning of the war was essentially intraspective (inward looking) with only a passing interest in foreign relations. Their military was almost totally unprepared for war, and the country remained essentially pacifist and antiwar. Two men alsmost single handedly turned that situation around.....FDR and Churchill, but that took time, and the initiative for rearming and reassessment of the American position came from British goading not from within. The Grand Alliance, which you are so quick to dismiss did exist, and its stearing authority was controlled by an organization called the Joint Chiefs (a british initiative) which remained under British dominatioon until well into 1943. Wartime political directions also remained under british domination, with the Americans tagging along for the ride until well after the casablanca conference of mid 1943. The formation of the Atlantic Charter (the foundation of the UN, and primary objective in wartime foreign relation for the allies) was a British initiative. The "Europe First" doctrine was insisted upon by the british and agreed to by the Americans, doctrines such as "Pont Blank" the bomber offensive and many other critical foreign policy and military planning inititives were all dictated to by the british. Not that the Americans were unwilling...they were more than willing....they wanted the brits to help them learn. In terms of exchange of military tech, the Brits selflessly gave nearly all their secrets to the Americans under tizard and others. Sure there was self interst at work here, but the moral leadership (I know, you have already acknowledged to Michael you dont understand the concept of morals, but I can assure you existed at least in the Allied camp) in all the key areas of the Allied war effort remained a British dominated area until well into 1943. It was because of this and the reluctance of the british in 1942-3 to the opening of a second front that led to the abandonment of the round Up strategy ( the promised cross channel attack in 1942) that led to its abandonment. Despite the obvious huge production and manpower potentia of the Americans, throughout 1942 their ability in Europe to project remained severely limited. numbers of Fighter squadrons could be just about counted on one hand....the first bombing missions of about squadron size were not undertaken until July, in minscule proportionsd. By that stage the british had already commenced 1000 bomber raids over Germany and were gradually fighting for and winning air superiority over france (though you dispute this, with as usual no supporting evidence and without the slightest understanding of what the term "air superiority" actually means). At the torch landings, the initial US land committment was just less than a Corps, whilst the british committed the equivalent of an army, with a further army engaging the Germans from the east, and a further two armies ready in Britain for rapid action if necessary (one Canadian)

Just like he wasn't talked into forming a allience of convenience with Hitler in 1939, when it suited his goals, he didn't need Churchill's nonsense who did not befriend the USSR, but hostiled it until it entered the war.

Wrong. Stalin did enter an alliance with the germans in 1939. It was called a nonagression pact, but it went much further than that. The Russians actively assisted in military operations with the Germans in destroying Poland. if thats not a military alliance I will be a monkeys uncle. And Stalin was fooled by the germans. He actively sought military alliance with the Germans and made the cardinal error of trusting them. Which seamlessly explains Churchilss hostility toward them. Not that Churchill needed much of a modus operandi to justify his hostility. He saw Stalin for what he was, but given the closeness of the Soviets to the germans, and the fact that the british were reading that diplomatic traffic in its entirety, ther is little wonder why the British and Churchill in particular were hostile to the russians. Despit the russian duplicity with the enemy, the british made repeated attempts to warn the Russians about what was coming. The Soviets chose to ignore those warnings, besotted by Hitlers lies and their own ambition.

Similarly, FDR's mind was on hauling the US economy out of the great depression and secondly, which has been an ambition of US presidents in the last 50 years establishing the US as the dominant power of the 'Western Hemisphere' in weight of US industrial power (a situation not unlike that of the 2nd Reich under the Kaiser I must add), and taking control of sea trade and securing markets for the US industry. A newly emerging industrial power challanged the old colonial powers.

Rubbish, mostly. The US was completely disinterested in European dominance or colonialism. They advocated a rather naive policy of free trade and open door access to markets. The Amnericans had no interest in European wars or domination or foreign control. Thats was directly the reason they were prepring for war against the closed door minded Japanese.

The US did not engineer their entry into WWII on the basis that they needed the economic stimulus or were recovering from the depressiuon. The US was still recovering from the depression, but it is absolute poppycock to argue that the US prepared for war because they needed to stimulate their economy. The US drift to war pre-1941 was the product of active efforts by Churchill and FDR to contain Nazi aggression. It was fanned by the German use of unrestricted mercantile attacks on neutral shipping in the pan-American neutrality zone. this was essentially a repeat of German sea behaviour of 1917.

The British were hoping that the US will join (US intentions to do so were quite clear to anyone) and save their ass. But it was the US who named the price for that - we save your ass, in exchange you hand over your trading position and markets. Just read the Atlantic Charter. Britain wasn't in the position to lead or set the conditions of this 'grand alliance'

.

Again rubbish. i have read the Atlantic charter and it says nothing of the sort you are clainming. In the finish the Brits became the junior partner in the miltary alliance. in the finish the USA came to dominate the politics of the west and its economy, but this was not the reason for its entry into the war, nor was the british playing second fiddle to the American diplometically or militarily in 1941-2. It was the other way around in fact

 

[Jenisch]

and the VVS and USAAF did more than the RAF to accomplish the defeat of the LW.

Ah, that's an unfair judgment in my view. If not for the RAF (and overall British) resistance, perhaps the US and the USSR would not have a Luftwaffe to defeat, but rather to be defeated. This was specially the case of the Russians.

Absurd. And the USSR (never mind Russia) did not outproduce Germany during the war.

Of course it did for most of the war, check in any industrial table. Only in 1944 Germany was capable of match the Soviet production in key areas such as armored vehicles and aircraft production.

 

[Elmas]

Of course it did for most of the war, check in any industrial table. Only in 1944 Germany was capable of match the Soviet production in key areas such as armored vehicles and aircraft production.

But more than 1/3 of the everyday calories of a Red Army soldier was produced in the Midwest.....
No calories, no war.......

 

[Jenisch]

But more than 1/3 of the everyday calories of a Red Army soldier was produced in the Midwest.....
No calories, no war.......

I'm including the Lend-Lease on this.

If you want to considerate the Soviet capability without the West with the war starting like historically, I'm probably the strongest advocate here that Stalin would be in a serious situation.

 

[Hop]

About the part of "eventually bested", when did that happen?? Not in 1939, not in 1940, not in 41-42...and the VVS and USAAF did more than the RAF to accomplish the defeat of the LW.

That's an odd claim to make. The RAF probably destroyed more Luftwaffe aircraft than the USAAF and RAF victories early in the war meant losses of higher quality German pilots. Oh, and those early RAF victories came at a more critical time in the war, too.

 

[drgondog]

Hop - a.) what are your figures for RAF total destroyed, and b.) are you including aircraft destroyed on the ground or even considering aircraft lost in factories, assembly plants or Repair depots?

 

[drgondog]

Let's see: Germany found itself in war with two great powers (UK and France), that everyone knew would be eventually supported by the US, her only Ally choose to not get involved (Italy), and her economy was totally dependant on the good will of the Soviets, that, they were only waiting their chance to stab Germany in the back. That's not holding most advantages, that was an almost hopeless situation.

Hmmm, if you study American politics and Congress make up in 1940-41 you will see clearly that FDR was NOT going to be successful in expanding Lend Lease nor was he going to lead America into war. Only the Japanese succeeded where his leadership failed. The isolationist mood was far too strong in the US.

As to "Germany finding itself" at war? Did Germany just kind of 'stumble' into conflict or in fact move boldly because they believed they would prevail?

 

[pbfoot]

Who paid for the lend lease goods that went to Russia it certainly was not the UK , as they were out of money , they were flat broke as of Dec 1940 . The aircraft supplied to the USSR were for the most part delivered by the North West Staging route which was supplied by the Alaska Highway . The Alaska Highway was paid for by the US and was the second most costly project of WW2 after the Manhattan Project . The only thing that prevented the UK from being overrun was the English Channel not the RAF.

 

[stona]

The only thing that prevented the UK from being overrun was the English Channel not the RAF.

So if the RAF had been committed to France and destroyed there the UK would still have survived?
I think not.
Steve

 

[pbfoot]

So if the RAF had been committed to France and destroyed there the UK would still have survived?
I think not.
Steve

I do believe so