Hi guys, what do you think about the Nazi German strength in WWII? I believe that if USA hadn't joined the war against the germans probably at this time we will write these comments in German, don't you?
...... ummm ... may be in Japanese too! Regarding Nazy strength, are you talking of : * before or after Op Barbarosa? * are you including Italy and Japan/Axis total in this regard ??
Well, Japan was sure a great allied of Germany but because they weren't close they couldn't help each other so much. What Japanese could be proud of though was their tenacity. About the other countries, including Italy, (I'm italian) they didn't realy give a consistent help to germans. By the way I'm talking about the war as a whole and to a specific period.
Germany was strong, yet I still question if U.S. involvement in the European theater of the war was a necessity, Hitler had already cut Germany's throat by invading the Soviet Union, Japan refusing to declare war on Soviet Union only sped up the process, and the U.S. involvement quickened Germany's defeat, yet Germany was already done for due to Hitler's mismanagement. Germany had an excellent military, and good industrial capacity, yet by taking on the Soviet Union before consolidating earlier victories Germany had already acquired was a very costly mistake by Hitler.
Germany was incredibly strong in WWII but poorly managed in parts. Many of their weapons were far superior to their enemies', but there were some glareing errors. Originally in 1935 Hitler met with leaders of the national military/industrial complex to create a rationalized production plan that was to maximize weapons and units at the beginning of Hitler's War. The idea was to start the war in 1943. Naval production was set for a 1943 start. This is important because starting the war in 1939 meant Germany began without four years production of U-boats, and this cost them the war. In 1939 Germany had only 57 operational sea-going U-boats. According to Karl Doenitz (Interviewed after the war by my professor) the operational idea behind the fleet was to have 1/3 on station, 1/3 in transit to and from station, and 1/3 of the total resting, refitting, repairing. That meant only 19 operational boats at the start of the war rather than the 100 as desired by the 1935 naval plan. Winston Churchill is oft quoted the U-boats were the only weapon/unit of Germany which cause him to lose sleep. Imagine how little sleep he might have had if only Doenitz had had his 100 on-station boats destroying Britain's shipping.
Actually if USA remained completly neutral (even on the economic field) then Soviets and British would have not supplied by the USA industry thus making them weaker. In 1942 (before the USA attacked the North Africa) the leader of the Europe was Hitler, half of the territory there was owned by Germany. About the power of the soviets I strongly doubt that, apart from the massive usage of human resources, they would have managed to fight backt he germans without the help of the Allies.
The Soviets were stronger than most make them out to be, plus having to not worry about Japan at their back was the nail in the coffin for Germany. Look at their troop strengths and war production once they recovered from Hitler's Operation Barbarossa. BTW Operation Barbarossa was such a comedy of errors that it was the element of surprise and fast maneuverability that the German gains were as they were.
My father was 15-16 in 1941 and traveled from Stockholm (he was Swede) from Riga, to Leningrad to Vladivostok with Grandfather & co in the spring of 1941. Not much was remembered of the trip by Grandfather. But in the 1970s he did recall the image of hourly trains headed TOWARDS Germany from the Soviet Far East.
This is an interesting point. If anyone is interested in how history may have played out differently should Japan had attacked the Soviets, the book Rising Sun Victorious: An Alternate History of the Pacific War covers this topic and others.
They were "strong" also because of their high disponibility of human resources. Infact they were at least the double as the german were on the east front. That also might be a cause but I believe that if Germany wouldn't have been applied in other fronts or if allied like Italy was as much good as Germany was it would have defeated Russia.
Involvemennt of the US, if we consider for the end of Total War by '45 was just imposible. There were very possibilities of meeting of Mutaguchi with Rommel! And if one is thinking of the Total war, please consider that the US war effort was much much much more driven towards the PTO, rather than the ETO, by 3 Ms ie., by the man, machine and money. The Germans at the very begining were 'seemed' to be very strong because of the 3 Ps, ie., the propaganda, plan and production, that we found unmatched with the contemporary nations.
Diptasgshu, I find your thesis good but confused. Please help m to understand you. Did you really contend that the US favoured the PTO with its efforts, the 3ms? I had always heard there was a conscensis between US/UK that as Germany was the greater threat the ETO was to recieve the bulk of the 3Ms. Did you really contend the Germans had high production of material throughout the war? I find that odd as Germany did not really get put on War Production until after Albert Speer took over the Ministery of Arms Production upon the death of Todt in a plane crash (8 Feb., 1942) and reached maximum production only in late 1944, early 45.
Respecting your thoughtful words, Interrogator#6, I must admit that PAX movement was comperatively higher in the ETO-MTO-ATO within the Shorter time-frame rather than the PTO. But out of the 3 Ms, my concern is very clear regarding rest of the 2 Ms and I think there's none who could ignore the fact. I would have been more relaxed if the thread started like .... Without Russia/US, how long it would take for the capitulation of Berlin, or something like that .. ! I was confused as the thread mentioned the 'Whole War', which but ended in different times as you know, Which eventualy involved with the mighty efforts of US in the PTO. Please consider for these small but unavoidable facts that had much higher impacts in the theaters. As far as myknowledge goes, atleast 4 out of 15 US armored dvsns in the ETO by late '44 or early of '45 and one may imagine for the units in the CONUS awaiting for deployment to the PTO might be moved to ETO first. A dilema for the WD because if the Japs surrender all of a sudden, would the US send her PAX to China for supporting Ki Sek and if so, there must be another crisis should have been observed for sending extra strength for ETO. Though ki Sek required more materials for his army rather than PAX (7 dvsns of marine relocated). PAX crisis been observed (ETO) after the winter fighting. One should understand that the PAX spent 6 months in jungle required more time time to Recover since physically, psychologically they worn out from the stress and exertion (illness war common in the PTO and 13-25% of the PAX strength mostly founded unavailable in the combat). This means they required more time (money) to retrain for ETO. Casualty rates too, observed high due to more and more Isls fighting. As an exmpl, cosider Tarawa - an island less than 1sq m where 5000 Japs found kia (hand to hand and melee fighting), slightly higher than US. Recall Manila .... an entire garrison of 25000 Japs including their commander died fighting totally! So PAX from the PTO required moderate reorientation to the armored combat for ETO. And the logistics? Shifting from PTO to ETO or simply deployment mainland to PTO (mind it, from alpin to ammos) remained as a huge time taking painfull money spending process. One who is interested, if look at a glance to the US Govt defence spending from CW to WW2, 'll found that during '45 defence spending exceeded 41% of GDP, obviously the sheer part eaten by PTO - Dec '41 to Sep '45, till Burma collapsed (GF served here) though ETO closed earlier. FOR the Nazi strength, prior to the 'Air raid' was at its peak as per the flow chart and stats (as per the analising of the combat weights-armored production), significantly increased up to 300% due to the forceful undertaking and utilisation of civilian production line turned into military prod line. Worth to mention here for Al, it was the highest of all processed ores in '44 (over 470 000 met tons). Since the ETO 'halted' earlier alongwith Germany and still Japan surviving in th PTO, so there were very possib'lities of singing Kimigayo by the name of Hirohito under (imaginus) high flying Nisshoki .... instead of singing 'Das Lied der Deutsche .. '
Diptangshu, Please define your term PAX. I can not understand what it means. Do you mean it to mean Central Pacific American Expeditionary Force, the mostly NAVY/Marine thrust comanded mostly by Nimitz? One error in fact I noticed: China Army got really quite little in material support from the US. Most of American aid/effort went to the 15th US AF, and the top-heavy American command structure leadby Stillwell. Stillwell so distrusted Chang ki-Shek that he INSISTED that all American personnel be fed GI rations, rather than Chinese food. That took TONS of shipping to accomplish, tons which might have been replaced by weapons and ammo. At one point the Japanese were about to capture an airfield full of planes, personnel, and bombs. The Americans moved the first two, but were going to destroy the bombs in situ. Knowing the situation, and how hard it was to get war munitions, the Chinese bodily lifted all the material, transported it, and stored it safe from the Japanese. Horrified that the Commintern now had something, even though they were willing to give it back to the Americans, Stillwell had some covert operatives destroy (blow-up) these munitions, even if it hurt the joint war effort. At another point the head of the OSS, Donovan, visited China. He also disliked Chang ki-Shek, prefering the Communists under Mao. He also recommended starving the Comintern forces (Chang) of war material, but send it to the Communists. The Communists then fought the Commintern forces rather than the Japanese.
In my previous thread I mentioned US efforts extended upto CBI (which we already have discussed for a couple of time in the last year). What you've pointed/founded 'wrong' regarding China/kai Sek, have written as per the need of the thread as if the WD ran after to mitigate kai Sek's on going demand, then one could easily understand the 'crisis' produced either in PTO or in the ETO! I also have the report (produced by the Military History Dept-US) for the aids received by China during '37 - '45. PAX is nothing but used as Personnel Amount X (number). Thank you Interrogator# 6.
Amercan Army combat personnel in the CBI theator was ONE BATALLION: Merille's Maraders. There also was one hospital supported by Dr. Seagate, but staffed by Burmese Nurses trained by Dr. Seagate. There also was a oversized administrative ARMY HQ lead by Stillwell, Army Air Corp lead by Chennault, various Navy/Marine personnel lead by Adm. Miles (including Weather reporting units and an Oxigen manufacturing unit). The Marines, by the way, ate local food not imported foodstuffs as Stillwell insisted all US Army personnel recieve. CBI was at the tail end of a long, long supply line. Everything had to be staged through India, then get transported "Over the Hump" to Burma or China. And that meant air transport (expensive) or having to build a road (expensive) and truck convoys (expensive). Any figures of aid to China are going to be inflated because of the shear expense just to get a pound of goods to China. It would take several multiple pounds of material to transport one pound of stuff to China.
It might be well to remember that in May 1945 nearly three of every four US Army divisions deployed overseas were in Europe, something like, as I recall, 62 out of 84 divisions, give or take. That certainly does not sound like the US expending most of its efforts on the Pacific Theater. The USAAF was similarly deployed. Of course almost all the Marines and certainly all of the Marine combat divisions were in the Pacific, there were, what, maybe five?
What about the Army .... Seabees .... Air Force etcs' effort and the actual COSTs behind each and every operation that effects the GDP ... I'm not counting by heads of the PAX, ie., personnel in general - for any dicipline. Distance was the greatest factor behind this, since PTO is regarded as well as famous for its carrierborne operations. How much one may expect for aquiring 'materials' accross the Pacific for over 300 isls battle zone? Construction materials (which is nonmanagable), logistics bla bla bla had to be cary and every one knows this. An artillery piece or simply any material, 'll be costs higher and the rate hike shall be directly propotonate to the Distance you carry it! R Leonard, I expected much more infos .. for the PTO .. I don't know why you've not attached to the thread - one of the most Effective and decisive effort of the US, yeah .. the Manhattan Project! Anyway, thank you gentlemen.
I will concede that perhaps I should have checked my numbers . . . especially since they show a greater preponderance of US Army combat divisions in Europe than I had reported initially reported from memory. Looks like 69 divisions in Europe versus 21 in the Pacific . . . something over 76.6% of army ground forces. And if you think they did not travel without all the logistical wherewithal required for the job, just as those in the PTO, you would be sadly mistaken. A reference? Well, one’s own edification would make it advisable to look up US Army ground forces orders of battle for the ETO and the PTO all by one’s self. However, in the interest of collegiality, try https://archive. org/details/OrderOfBattleUsArmyEtoWw2 https://archive. org/details/OrderOfBattleUsArmyPtoWw2 Or you can go here, the US Army Combined Arms Research Library . . . the ETO US Army order of battle is in two parts The first part is here: http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p4013coll8/id/2481/rec/24 You can access the second part by clicking on the word “Next” on the upper right. Big files, so be patient And from the same repository, the US Army PTO OOB (hmmm, only one volume, not two as for the ETO: http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/2984/rec/5 And here’s a quick and dirty list: US Army Divisions in Europe: 1st Infantry, 1st Armored, 2d Infantry, 2d Armored, 2d Cavalry (Dismounted), 3d Infantry, 3d Armored, 4th Infantry, 4th Armored, 5th Infantry, 5th Armored, 6th Armored, 7th Armored, 8th Infantry, 8th Armored, 9th Infantry, 9th Armored, 10th Mtn. Infantry, 10th Armored, 11th Armored, 12th Armored, 13th Airborne Infantry, 13th Armored, 14th Armored, 16th Armored, 17th Airborne Infantry, 20th Armored, 26th Infantry (National Guard), 28th Infantry (National Guard), 29th Infantry (National Guard), 30th Infantry (National Guard), 34th Infantry (National Guard), 35th Infantry (National Guard), 36th Infantry (National Guard), 42d Infantry (National Guard), 44th Infantry (National Guard), 45th Infantry (National Guard), 63d Infantry, 65th Infantry, 66th Infantry, 69th Infantry, 70th Infantry, 71st Infantry, 75th Infantry, 76th Infantry, 78th Infantry, 79th Infantry, 80th Infantry, 82d Airborne Infantry, 83d Infantry, 84th Infantry, 85th Infantry, 86th Infantry, 87th Infantry, 88th Infantry, 89th Infantry, 90th Infantry, 91st Infantry, 92d Infantry, 94th Infantry, 95th Infantry, 97th Infantry, 99th Infantry, 100th Infantry, 101st Airborne Infantry, 102d Infantry, 103d Infantry, 104th Infantry, 106th Infantry US Army Divisions in the Pacific: Americal Division, 1st Cavalry (Dismounted), 6th Infantry, 7th Infantry, 11th Airborne Infantry, 24th Infantry, 25th Infantry, 27th Infantry (National Guard), 31st Infantry (National Guard), 32d Infantry (National Guard), 33d Infantry (National Guard), 37th Infantry, National Guard), 38th Infantry (National Guard), 40th Infantry (National Guard), 41st Infantry (National Guard), 43d Infantry (National Guard), 77th Infantry, 81st Infantry, 93d Infantry, 96th Infantry, 98th Infantry. You also might want to look at this, US Army battle casualties and nonbattle deaths in World War II. This is the final report of the adjutant general. It is also pretty massive, and comes in 4 parts that you have to retrieve individually. Again you access each succeeding part by clicking where it says “next” in the upper right. http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p4013coll8/id/130/rec/34 Now, on the other hand, since it is your presentation that the majority of the US war effort was in the Pacific, it would be nice if you had some readily verifiable sources which definitively support your claim. So, can you be forthcoming? R
