Who Could Have Won WWII?

[RN7]

I would dispute that America's contribution to WW2 was the key element in defeating Germany and Japan.
I would argue that the people who really "won" WW2 for us, were the Chinese.

The Chinese held up many thousands of Japanese troops, troops that would have been available to advance Japanese agendas in the Pacific. Troops that would have been free to tie up half the Soviet forces and keep them from being used against Germany.

I just can't agree with this statement. Germany was by far the most powerful Axis state, and what about the contribution of the Soviets to Allied victory. Also the Soviets didn't have half their army in the Far East for the duration of the war, they only redeployed large forces to Asia after the defeat of Germany.

The Pacific War was a sideshow in WW2 compared with the war in Europe, although it may not have felt that way to those who fought in it. China could barely arm its own army, and it made little headway against Japanese forces who occupied China for the duration of the war. The Japanese Army was also inferior in material, technology and tactics to the German Army, and its largest army in China was simply bulldozed by the Soviets in the last few weeks of the war.

[RN7]

Interestingly enough, this is the line the old USSR managed to sell the West hook, line and sinker during WW2 and during the following Cold War through to the late 1980s.

On the contrary Western history emphasise the importance of the Anglo-American contribution to defeat of the Axis, and overlooks the importance of the Soviet war effort.

If you read more recent economic histories of the Soviet War Effort, especially (of course) by Western economists and historians you will find that it is now widely accepted amongst specialist circles that -

* Lend Lease was the enabler of the Soviet War effort. No ifs, no buts, no ands, no maybes.

Yet the United States supplied the Soviet Union with 10,982 million dollars worth of Lend Lease while the British Commonwealth received 31,387 million dollars worth of Lend Lease

* Whole segments of the Soviet War Economy simply produced only a fraction of what the Red Army required, and the bulk was actually provided by the Allies ... and this was in key areas (for example, something like 60% of all explosives produced in the USSR was produced from precursors shipped there from the west ... 100% of Soviet Rolling Stock, Rail and Locomotive requirements during 42-45 were provided by the allies ... most of the telephone wire [and all of the waterproof stuff] for field phones was produced by the allies ... 80% of all Tank Radios were supplied by the Western Allies ... most of the Boots and Uniforms, ditto ... something like half of the field rations ... etc. etc.)

Yet the Soviets were able to produce 92,595 tanks, 105,251 anti-tank and self-propelled guns, 516,648 artillery and anti-aircraft guns, 403,300 mortars, 1,477,400 machine guns, 197,100 trucks and lorries, 63,087 fighter aircraft, 37,549 ground attack aircraft, 21,116 bomber aircraft, 17,332 transport aircraft, 4,061 training aircraft, 25 destroyers and 52 submarines, and from 1937-1945 produced 9.3% of the world's oil, 10.6% of the world's coal, 14.3% of the world's iron ore, 40.5% of the worlds manganese ore, 15.3% of the world's chrome ore, 24.5% of the world's phosphates, 26.5% of the world's wheat, 22,7% of the world's sugar beet and 15% of the world's meat all by themselves.

* The manpower that Stalin's incompetence continually wasted was only available because Lend Lease provided all the above ... if it hadn't, assuming that the Soviets could have produced it at all, or in the quantities needed, they would have had to strip men out of the army to do it ... and, indeed, had to do exactly that on at least one occasion (1942) if not more.

The Soviets unlike the Germans for example (and the Japanese) hadn't got the luxury of employing slave labour to work in its factories and mines, or like the United States who was never physically threatened in WW2 wasn't able to cherry pick its physically most able and healthy manpower for military service.

*Could the Russians have held on without US Lend Lease Probably. At much greater cost. Commonwealth LL would probably have been enough to stave off defeat ...

British Lend Lease to the Soviet Union: 7,000 aircraft, 27 warships, 5,218 tanks, 5,000 anti-tank guns, 6,900 vehicles, aircraft engines, radar sets and boots. Useful but a drop in the pan when you consider that the Soviets produced on average 25,000 tanks a year after 1942 (and better armed and armoured than what Britain supplied), 125,000 artillery guns a year on average after 1942, and over 30,000 aircraft a year after 1942.

[RN7]

Australia had an industrial base as well. Of course, our population in 1939 was, IIRC, around 7 million people.

We had an iron and steel industry and considerable engineering and production plant for a country of our size. We produced Corvettes, Fighter Bombers, Fighters, Tanks almost all of our small arms (Rifles, SMGs, Machineguns etc.) and ammunition.

No, we didn't have the same level of industrialisation as Canada, but that was mostly because of the small population.

The Kiwis, on the other hand, had virtually nothing, and that's still the case ... look at the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Automatic_Rifle

for how hard up they were.

There was also a NZ movie some years ago about a loner in rural NZ during WW2 who refused to hand in his privately owned SMLE when the government confiscated all of them (I don't suppose there could have been more than several hundred all over NZ at the time, certainly not several thousand) because they were so short.

Phil

Australia was essentially an agricultural and mining economy in the Second World War with some small scale engineering and metal processing in its cities in the southeast strip. It still is today to a large extent. Australia did produce war material (Sentinel tanks, scout cars, rifles, training aircraft, 16 escorts) but most if it never left Australia. Practically all of its combat aircraft, warships and tanks and artillery were supplied by Britain and America.

[Raellus]

The Big Three & China, Duh!

I'll say it a third time, the Allies would not have defeated the Axis Powers without any one of the Big Three, and possibly China.

The numbers don't lie. Simply looking at war production figures, the Commonwealth did not, and almost certainly could not, out-produce the Axis. GB could not have produced enough to cover it's own losses AND supply the Soviet Union. The Soviet mechanized offensives of 1943-'45 would not have been possible without American-made trucks, tractors, and armored vehicles. Without the USN, GB did not stand any chance at regaining it's empire in Asia. The Coral Sea battle and the Guadalcanal campaign (land and sea) quite possibly saved Australia from a Japanese invasion.

A lot of the arguments that the Commonwealth could have won the war without direct American involvement smacks of fantasist jingoism. It's one thing to not like America- fair play, there- but it's another to assert that it did not play a crucial role in the Allied victory.

As an aside, I will agree that MacArthur was a total ass-hat. He and Montgomery are two of the most overrated senior generals of the Western allies. Both were egomaniacs and, at best, average field commanders. If they hadn't been such great self-promoters with allies in the press, it's hard to see how either could have risen as high as they need. It's debatable as to who was worse, but if I had to pick one of them for my team, I'd probably go with Monty. I can't think of one redeeming quality of MacArthur. The only good thing he did in his career was supervise the occupation and rebuilding of Japan. Everything else, before and after WWII, is a study in mediocrity.

[RN7]

(And, no, it is unlikely that the UK would have been crippled economically any more than she was by the demands of the Napoleonic and earlier World Wars ... historically speaking the Brits have managed to manage the economic side of their wars very well for the last 2-3 centuries at least, including WW1 and WW2)

And what of the Luftwaffe bombing campaign or the later V-2 rocket attacks on the UK

[Olefin]

I'll say it a third time, the Allies would not have defeated the Axis Powers without any one of the Big Three, and possibly China.

The numbers don't lie. Simply looking at war production figures, the Commonwealth did not, and almost certainly could not, out-produce the Axis. GB could not have produced enough to cover it's own losses AND supply the Soviet Union. The Soviet mechanized offensives of 1943-'45 would not have been possible without American-made trucks, tractors, and armored vehicles. Without the USN, GB did not stand any chance at regaining it's empire in Asia. The Coral Sea battle and the Guadalcanal campaign (land and sea) quite possibly saved Australia from a Japanese invasion.

A lot of the arguments that the Commonwealth could have won the war without direct American involvement smacks of fantasist jingoism. It's one thing to not like America- fair play, there- but it's another to assert that it did not play a crucial role in the Allied victory.

As an aside, I will agree that MacArthur was a total ass-hat. He and Montgomery are two of the most overrated senior generals of the Western allies. Both were egomaniacs and, at best, average field commanders. If they hadn't been such great self-promoters with allies in the press, it's hard to see how either could have risen as high as they need. It's debatable as to who was worse, but if I had to pick one of them for my team, I'd probably go with Monty. I can't think of one redeeming quality of MacArthur. The only good thing he did in his career was supervise the occupation and rebuilding of Japan. Everything else, before and after WWII, is a study in mediocrity.

Both of them had their total screw-ups for sure

Monty had Arnhem and letting Rommel get away and prolong the war in Africa by at least four months

MacArthur let his air force get caught on the ground in Luzon (but even if he hadnt I doubt it would have changed things much) and managed to totally screw up getting Bataan supplied correctly (that was criminal in my mind - he had almost three weeks to get food, ammo and fuel there and didnt do the job at all - properly supplied they might have held out even longer then they did and hurt the Japanese even more)

As for the Chinese - look at what happened in 44-45 to them - the Japanese are completely getting their heads handed to them in the Central and Southwest Pacific and the Chinese lose a huge chunk of China, including a lot of important US Army Air Force bases, to a Japanese offensive - yes they occupied a lot of Army troops - but frankly they were a bigger hindrance than help

As for the Soviets - keep in mind that without the US going to a war footing as to production the Soviets may not have survived the 1942 German offensive - that it took a total screw up on Hitler's part (i.e. ordering the 6th to directly assault Stalingrad and get chewed up in city fighting along with the wheel south that cost the Germans time to bag what turned out to be only about 40,000 Russians) and a lot of American supplies to give them a fighting chance to stop that offensive

once they got thru 1942 and into 43 they had the ability to turn the game around - but it was US and British help that let them do it

And keep in mind that the Japanese made a huge mistake attacking the US at all - there was very little enthusiasm for going to war over the Dutch East Indies or Malaya - a Japanese attack without hitting the US may very well have seen Roosevelt unable to get a declaration of war thru Congress

remember how anti-war the US was - the draft vote that took place after Hitler invaded Russia passed by one vote

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I just can't agree with this statement. Germany was by far the most powerful Axis state, and what about the contribution of the Soviets to Allied victory. Also the Soviets didn't have half their army in the Far East for the duration of the war, they only redeployed large forces to Asia after the defeat of Germany.

The Pacific War was a sideshow in WW2 compared with the war in Europe, although it may not have felt that way to those who fought in it. China could barely arm its own army, and it made little headway against Japanese forces who occupied China for the duration of the war. The Japanese Army was also inferior in material, technology and tactics to the German Army, and its largest army in China was simply bulldozed by the Soviets in the last few weeks of the war.

A sideshow that diverted hundreds of ships, thousands of aircraft and tens of thousands of troops away from the ETO with the Chinese resisting the Japanese for eight years suffering something in the order of 10-20 million casualties. When you decide to kill off that many people, it takes a fair bit of your time and your troops to do it.

That Soviet army that bulldozed the Japanese forces in China, the one that had benefited from all those years of fighting the Germans, what did they face The remnants of a nation on the edge of surrender. And as for half the Soviet army, I never said that half the Soviet army was deployed in Asia. What I said was "Troops that would have been free to tie up half the Soviet forces and keep them from being used against Germany.", it was a generalized statement meaning that the Soviets would have had another Front to fight on.

That poor little Chinese army managed to hold the Japanese up to the point where they both faced stalemate but in the process the Japanese invasion of China held up something like 4 million Japanese personnel. Four million.

The war in Asia began two years before the war in Europe but we're all taught that WW2 didn't start until the Germans invaded Poland.
The fact remains that if the Japanese had been able to overrun China and get to the borders of the Soviet Union in sufficient numbers, the Soviets would have had to divert troops away from the ETO.
The Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation helped to prevent that.
The vast majority of what we are taught about the war in the English speaking world is decidedly Euro- and Americano-centric with even historians paying scant attention to much of the war in Asia and specifically the Japanese campaigns against other Asian nations - as if whatever happened between Asians wasn't really important to anyone or anything.

[RN7]

A sideshow that diverted hundreds of ships, thousands of aircraft and tens of thousands of troops away from the ETO with the Chinese resisting the Japanese for eight years suffering something in the order of 10-20 million casualties. When you decide to kill off that many people, it takes a fair bit of your time and your troops to do it.

You just cannot compare the level of warfare in Asia with that in Europe. In every statistic involving manpower, material and casualties the war in Europe was far bigger excluding the use of aircraft carriers and the use of atomic bombs. Chinese military deaths in WW2 were 3-3.75 million,. This figure is less than German military losses and perhaps one third of Soviet military losses.

That Soviet army that bulldozed the Japanese forces in China, the one that had benefited from all those years of fighting the Germans, what did they face The remnants of a nation on the edge of surrender. And as for half the Soviet army, I never said that half the Soviet army was deployed in Asia. What I said was "Troops that would have been free to tie up half the Soviet forces and keep them from being used against Germany.", it was a generalized statement meaning that the Soviets would have had another Front to fight on.

The Soviet Army beat the Japanese Army at Khalkhin Gol in Manchuria in 1939 with far inferior material than what they had in 1945. As a result of this battle the Japanese signed a neutrality pact with the USSR in April 1941 and the Japanese Army lost their influence over war planning to the Japanese Navy who favoured a Pacific War against the Western powers. The Japanese Army in China was and remained the most powerful of Japan's armies for the duration of the war. Chinese forces did not and were not capable of defeating it for the duration of the Second World War. The Soviets returned to Manchuria in 1945 after the Atomic bombing of Japan and they did the same again to the Japanese Army that they did in 1939 but on a much larger scale.

That poor little Chinese army managed to hold the Japanese up to the point where they both faced stalemate but in the process the Japanese invasion of China held up something like 4 million Japanese personnel. Four million.

The Chinese Army was actually bigger on paper than the Japanese Army so I presume that the four million figure includes the total of Japanese troops who were in China from 1937-45 and not at the one time. The Chinese Army was also chronically short of all war material and weapons, had more in common with a 19th Century army than a 20th Century one, and rarely defeated the Japanese. This is some feat considering the Japanese Army was woefully under-armed and un-mechanised compared with Allied, Soviet and German forces. The fact that the Japanese Army remained intact for so long was probably largely due to the fact that the Chinese were its main opponents outside of Allied island hopping in the Pacific were logistics and terrain restricted the Allies from using modern mechanised warfare against the Japanese. The Soviet did in 1945 and guess what happened.

The war in Asia began two years before the war in Europe but we're all taught that WW2 didn't start until the Germans invaded Poland.
The fact remains that if the Japanese had been able to overrun China and get to the borders of the Soviet Union in sufficient numbers, the Soviets would have had to divert troops away from the ETO.
The Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation helped to prevent that.
The vast majority of what we are taught about the war in the English speaking world is decidedly Euro- and Americano-centric with even historians paying scant attention to much of the war in Asia and specifically the Japanese campaigns against other Asian nations - as if whatever happened between Asians wasn't really important to anyone or anything.

That would be after 1941 for America and the Soviet Union.

Also the Soviets were fighting the Japanese in China/Manchuria from 1935,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border_conflicts

Japan signed a neutrality pact with the Soviets in 1939 and by and large observed it as they did not want to go to war with the Soviets even after the Germans invaded.

Every country has their own interpretation of history.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Who said anything about comparing the level of warfare in Asia to that in Europe
It's blatantly obvious that a war in Asia with it's tropical climate, vast tracts of ocean with many scattered small land masses is going to be radically different to a war in the densely urbanized, temperate climate, singular land mass of Europe.

To relegate the war in the Pacific as nothing but a sideshow to the war in Europe ignores the strategic impact that the PTO had and further to that, it belittles or worse, denies, the strategic impact it had.

[RN7]

Who said anything about comparing the level of warfare in Asia to that in Europe
It's blatantly obvious that a war in Asia with it's tropical climate, vast tracts of ocean with many scattered small land masses is going to be radically different to a war in the densely urbanized, temperate climate, singular land mass of Europe.

To relegate the war in the Pacific as nothing but a sideshow to the war in Europe ignores the strategic impact that the PTO had and further to that, it belittles or worse, denies, the strategic impact it had.

The war in Asia not the countries were a sideshow to the warfare in Europe were the dominant Axis threat was.

Offline for a week Good luck

[Legbreaker]

The war in Asia not the countries were a sideshow to the warfare in Europe were the dominant Axis threat

Tell that to the millions of people from many, many nations who fought and died there. To imply it was nothing but a "sideshow" is downright insulting!

[Raellus]

The war in Asia not the countries were a sideshow to the warfare in Europe were the dominant Axis threat was.

Threat to who I don't understand this argument. It can only be valid from a very Eurocentric point of view.

Granted, the Japanese didn't ever really pose a serious threat to CONUS, but, without the USN to hold (and then push) them back, the rest of the Pacific world was in serious danger of Japanese conquest and domination. I'm that a vast majority of the billions of people in Asia would strenuously disagree with your "sideshow" assessment.

-

[aspqrz]

And you miss the point entirely.

The USSR was able to produce as much of pretty much anything it actually did produce because they didn't have to produce a lot of the stuff that the Allies provided to them. They could survive Butcher Stalin's squandering of their manpower and still field massive armies because they didn't have to have as many factory workers as they would have required without Lend Lease.

It is widely understood by specialists (and, afaict, never mentioned in non-specialist works) that Soviet Industry was wildly inefficient compared to Western Industry and that the fact that they were supplied by Lend Lease meant they could comb out far more now redundant workers than the Lend Lease supplies actually represented.

The fact that they produced a lot of stuff is ... nice ... but irrelevant.

And a lot of what they produced was, compared to allied stuff, crap ... they had to produce a lot of it because it wore out, broke down, or was unserviceable most of the time.

Allied Tanks, for example, were operational around 80% of the time. Russian Tanks About 30-40%. So the Russians had to field twice as many tanks as an Allied Force to simply have the same number operational.

Russian tanks wore out faster, too. T-34s typically went into battle with extra Transmissions loaded on their back deck because they were so unreliable and the MTBF of a T-34 was around 100 hours, or 250 klicks, before it required a major rebuild ... and after another 100 hours or 250 klicks it was more often than not uneconomic to repair.

A lot of Russian equipment was like that ... so if they produced a lot of it, that is not an indicator of the actual value of the stuff, or even how much of it was usable or survived the war.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Australia was essentially an agricultural and mining economy in the Second World War with some small scale engineering and metal processing in its cities in the southeast strip. It still is today to a large extent. Australia did produce war material (Sentinel tanks, scout cars, rifles, training aircraft, 16 escorts) but most if it never left Australia. Practically all of its combat aircraft, warships and tanks and artillery were supplied by Britain and America.

SMGs, Machineguns, Mortars, 25 pdr artillery. Ammunition and Artillery rounds.

Oh, and sixty Bathurst class Corvettes alone were built in Australia. Six Tribal Class Destroyers were built in Australia.

And we built RR Aero engines for a variety of, yes, imported aircraft.

However, we built around 700 Beauforts locally, too, around 400 Beaufighters, 700 odd Wirraway Trainers, 250 Boomerang Fighters etc.

Yes, not much in the greater scheme of things, but much more than most people, even most Australians, realise!

And rather more than you claimed.

Phil

[aspqrz]

I'll say it a third time ... [snip] ... A lot of the arguments that the Commonwealth could have won the war without direct American involvement smacks of fantasist jingoism.

And I'll say it again, too. There is nothing fantasist about it.

The Germans had no way of defeating the Commonwealth ... no, their U-Boat Campaign didn't ever manage it, either, and it is wishful thinking to believe it could have ... the Commonwealth could not easily have defeated the Germans, either, however, as I noted, on a historical basis, the UK has taken on powers as strong as she is/was and defeated them even if it took decades.

And the UK had an Atomic Weapons program and the werewithal to, slowly, bring it to fruition ... the Germans had none, and even their pathetic nuclear power programs were working the wrong direction.

Would a Commonwealth/Russian victory have been quick No. Would it have been easy Hell no! But there is no evidence that the Germans could have won, and the Commonwealth have that historical track record of sticking to it!

YMMV.

Phil