Who Could Have Won WWII?

[aspqrz]

So just cite your sources RN7 and prove him wrong! Surely it can't be that hard
Isn't that what adults do when they disagree

However, I do agree aspqrz's tone has become somewhat...abrasive, but perhaps that's because he's felt like he's been bashing his head against the same brick wall trying to get you to cite your sources

Exactly.

Indeed, as long as RN7 fails to provide specific sources I will not respond to him any further as it is entirely pointless.

Phil

[RN7]

In the interest of civility and probably my better judgement I will answer your questions to the best of my ability. I was actually enjoying this debate until the tone of your comments changed. I am being polite to you and I expect you to also be polite if you reply. Criticism is fine but moderate it.

Before I answer your questions I will inform you that I am in Ireland at the moment with some of my sources. The rest of my sources are in America on my book shelf, in my attic, burned to CD or on memory key and I cannot access them until I return to America at Christmas.

I already gave you my principle source for naval statistics but you overlooked it. That is World War II a Statistical Survey by John Ellis. It's my favourite reference book and you may have it, and if you do you will know what a good source of statistics it is. Its naval statistics are not infallible but they are good. Its land, air and industrial statistics are much better in my opinion, and its national army division listings are the most complete I have seen. Some of its references are sourced from US War Department and British MOD records.

If you want statistics for US Lend Lease supplies to the Soviet Union and the British Empire and other countries then I suggest you go online and google the following: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...hip/index.html

You will find a complete and thorough listing of very item that the US shipped to other countries around the world. It's listing for the Soviet Union and British Empire is very complete.

If you want statistics on German aircraft and many other points I have argued with you over there are so many now sources online that it is pointless listing books from my memory I don't have on hand. I find it a bit tedious repeatedly going back and forth over small statistics and technical issues but I can access some of my books and a lot more if you are prepared to wait a month. But as you have used internet sites to support your argument and so have I as so much information is now online what is the point.

[aspqrz]

WW2aSS is a fine book, indeed.

For one published 22 years ago.

And even those of us who use it know it has significant inaccuracies and omissions.

Specialised sources disagree with its figures in a number of areas - merchant losses and other naval data, for example, are known to be inaccurate and flawed.

Then, of course, the books I cited are examples of more recent scholarship as well as looking beneath and beyond the figures ...

Tooze, "Wages of Destruction", 2007. The entire economy of Nazi Germany from go to whoa, its problems and limitations and why it couldn't win the war it actually fought.
Maiolo, "Cry Havoc", 2010. The economic realities behind the war plans of all the major powers and why the Germans did so well initially, but were incapable of sustaining their initial faux lead.
Miller, "U-Boats [etc.]", 2007. A comprehensive examination of the U-Boats and up to date Merchant loss figures.
Glantz, "Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War", 2005. A companion to Stumbling Colossus, more Soviet era lies exposed.
Overy, "The Bombing War", 2013. A classic by an acknowledged expert on the topic. Not everything the coffee table books tell you is, in fact, the actual truth - as Overy reveals.
Kershaw, "Fateful Choices", 2008. Examination of key decision points during WW2, not all involving the US.
Burleigh, "Moral Combat: Good and Evil in World War II", 2012. The moral underpinnings of why the allies won ... and, equally, the immorality that was at the basis of the Axis loss. And, yes, morality had a heck of a lot more to do with both than you might think at first.

And some, while older, look beneath and beyond the figures ...

Barber and Harrison, "The Soviet Home Front, 1941-5: a Social and Economic History of the USSR in World War II", 1991. Details of Soviet lies, damn lies, and statistics ... and there is a lot more in later works by the pair, individually and severally.
Overy, "Russia's War: Blood on the Snow", 1997. One of the earliest books using post-glasnost access to secret Soviet sources, and good, if dated, revelation of more Soviet era lies.
Overy, "Why the Allies Won", 1997. And not all of the reasons have to do with active US entry, believe it or not!
Glantz & House, "When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler", 1995. More information about Soviet era lies and a good history of the War in the East from a Soviet PoV.
Glantz, "Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War 2", 1998. More on Soviet era lies and the problems the Soviets faced at the beginning of the war.

There are many more, some of which offer snippets and some which are more substantive.

All of the above have information that either supports the thesis I presented or answers questions you asked or refutes claims that you made.

I won't even bother with the technical books on Warships, Combat and other Aircraft and Combat and other vehicles, as they are legion. And many of them differentiate between Combat Range and Combat Radius.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Re WW2aSS, also, the Divisional and Manpower data may be OK for the US and UK, but I am aware that there are considerable problems with its data compared to Australian, New Zealand and, I believe, Canadian and South African manpower and unit data which leads many to believe (including myself) that it may not be as reliable as you suggest for any but the major powers and, possibly, the major western allied powers

(Russian data available at the time of publication was, to be generous, wildly suspect ... I mean, Stalin managed to hide the actual population of the USSR before the war to the extent that everyone believed his figures [which is why the Germans were so surprised that they were still fighting new divisions in late 41 when they 'knew' they'd killed the entire manpower available to the Red Army a couple of times over], which gave it as only 2/3rds [or less] of what it actually was).

Phil

[RN7]

If you are talking about a what/if scenario about Britain (and Russia) fighting Germany without the US then you also have to look at other consequences of that. The Allied bombing campaign will not be as effective without the USAAC or will Allied air superiority in the West occur as it did. It will also affect naval warfare in the Atlantic and changes in real world industrial figures and German strategies are also likely.

I am still convinced the Germany had the capacity to bomb Britain. The He-177 despite its limitations could reach industrial centres in the UK from many locations in occupied Europe, unless it was flown from eastern locations in Germany such as Berlin. Also if we are talking about a war where the US is not directly involved then we also have to look at the development of other German long ranged bombers which never got off the ground in reality due to the war ending in 1945.

Did you look at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...hip/index.html

There is a lot of data about lend lease shipments to the Britain and the Commonwealth that needs to be examined.

Figures for merchant ship losses in the Atlantic don't completely match wherever you look. Some merchant ship losses data from WW2aSS may have been amalgamated with other theatres, and ships captured and damaged but not sunk may also have been included in loss figures.

Another decent site on line is.........

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsAtlanticDev.htm

........although I'm not sure about his sources.


The link I gave you for US Lend Lease figures also has very good information about the Battle of the Atlantic

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Admin-Hist/173-ArmedGuards/index.html#index

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/Ultra/SRH-009/index.html

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/index.html#contents

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-RN-II/index.html#pagev

And a great many other topics as well......

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/

Another good site about U-boats is http://uboat.net/index.html

[RN7]

Re WW2aSS, also, the Divisional and Manpower data may be OK for the US and UK, but I am aware that there are considerable problems with its data compared to Australian, New Zealand and, I believe, Canadian and South African manpower and unit data which leads many to believe (including myself) that it may not be as reliable as you suggest for any but the major powers and, possibly, the major western allied powers

(Russian data available at the time of publication was, to be generous, wildly suspect ... I mean, Stalin managed to hide the actual population of the USSR before the war to the extent that everyone believed his figures [which is why the Germans were so surprised that they were still fighting new divisions in late 41 when they 'knew' they'd killed the entire manpower available to the Red Army a couple of times over], which gave it as only 2/3rds [or less] of what it actually was).

Phil

The Soviet divisional data is flawed but its still is a good source. I have not found to many problems with the other countries with the accuracy ranging from very good to fair with a few discrepancies. Its generally a good reliable source of information.

Another source I use for military forces and industrial output for 1939/40 and the lead up to WW2 are League of Nations statistics which are extremely detailed. I have the stats for every member of the League of Nations burned on to a CD but its over in America at the moment.

[Damocles]

I can't be the only guy who thinks you are all retarded and from a farm for arguing shit that has already happened. I mean FFS, if you Google Yalta or Postsdam, you see everything you need to know about this issue. (Stalin, Roosevelt/Truman, and Churchill/Attlee-who-the-hellever).

Srrsly, you guys are pissing in the wind on this one. USA FTW.. because, if the UK or USSR could have done it on their own, they would have done it.

[RN7]

I can't be the only guy who thinks you are all retarded and from a farm for arguing shit that has already happened. I mean FFS, if you Google Yalta or Postsdam, you see everything you need to know about this issue. (Stalin, Roosevelt/Truman, and Churchill/Attlee-who-the-hellever).

Srrsly, you guys are pissing in the wind on this one. USA FTW.. because, if the UK or USSR could have done it on their own, they would have done it.

There is some wisdom to your words Damocles, there really is!

[aspqrz]

I can't be the only guy who thinks you are all retarded and from a farm for arguing shit that has already happened. I mean FFS, if you Google Yalta or Postsdam, you see everything you need to know about this issue. (Stalin, Roosevelt/Truman, and Churchill/Attlee-who-the-hellever).

Srrsly, you guys are pissing in the wind on this one. USA FTW.. because, if the UK or USSR could have done it on their own, they would have done it.

And yet you are posting on a forum devoted to a fantasy. 'Shit that never happened' in fact.

And you don't see the contradiction

Phil

[pmulcahy11b]

I think that the best thing to do with trolls is ignore them.

[unkated]

Phraseology

The problem here is in how the question was put.

"Who won WWII" has an obvious historic answer based on how history played out: the Allies.

To discuss one of the allies as winning without the rest belittles the effort of the other nations, both behind and at the front lines.

The question you want to ask was "Who Could Have Won WW2"

It is theoretical, does not deny anyone's actual effort, and can be a much calmer and reasoned discussion.

Nor does it require a single answer.

Uncle Ted

[Legbreaker]

See gentlemen, that wasn't so hard to play nice. Thank you to all involved!
And yes unkated, I agree the thread title probably did unintentionally contribute to the tone (not that it could have been foreseen).
Very happy to see that with a little step back and a deep breath we can get our shit sorted in house like grown up boys and girls.

Shall we proceed as suggested that this entire discussion be treated as one great big "what if"

In that spirit, how do you think WWII would have been different (if at all) if the Treaty of Versailles hadn't been so hard on Germany
Would it perhaps be the USSR that were the aggressors and a complete different Germany an ally against them

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I can't be the only guy who thinks you are all retarded and from a farm for arguing shit that has already happened. I mean FFS, if you Google Yalta or Postsdam, you see everything you need to know about this issue. (Stalin, Roosevelt/Truman, and Churchill/Attlee-who-the-hellever).

Srrsly, you guys are pissing in the wind on this one. USA FTW.. because, if the UK or USSR could have done it on their own, they would have done it.

Wow.
Really dude Could you be anymore insulting
If you don't like the thread then don't read it, nobody is forcing you.

You make a mighty big presumption in that the war could never have been won by the Commonwealth and the Soviet Union. Simply because the USA showed up in the final two years of the European war doesn't mean that the USA "won it".

And then you go and call anyone debating this retarded.

This just makes you look like an ignorant 'Merican peasant who doesn't really have any opinions, only prejudices.
Next you'll be telling us that the USMC has never, ever run from a battle.

[Raellus]

Warning

Guys, can we not make this about Americans versus Australians There's too much parochialism and jingoism going on here. I bowed out of this debate because it was going nowhere and getting ugly. I apologize for my contributions to that.

Since recusing myself from this "debate", I've received complaints from forumites (no one directly involved in this particular thread) about the tone of some of the posts/posters here. Please keep it civil. I stopped posting in this thread because I was finding it too hard to do so. Please apply that to yourselves as well. If you can't follow the forum guidelines, don't post.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=2961

If I receive any more complaints about this thread, I'll have to shut it down.

[RN7]

All I want to say about those who think that the British Commonwealth/Empire and the Soviets could win the war by themselves without America is that you can't ignore the elephant in the room; ie US Lend Lease.

On paper the British Commonwealth looks like it had the manpower and resources to take on the Axis with the Soviets, but did it happen The importance of US Lend Lease to the USSR is well known but a lot less is and has been said about US Lend Lease to Britain. They got over $31 billion worth of material, three times more than the Soviets. US War Department figures are all here.......http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...hip/index.html

And don't forget that the US industry supplied Britain, the USSR and other countries with this material while it was building the largest airforce and navy in history, and an army/marine force of 100 well equipped divisions. Lend Lease was an IOU ie pay it back after the war is won when you can manage it. If America stayed neutral then the British, Soviets and everyone else will be paying top dollar for all of this and America will have no obligation whatsoever of selling its best weaponry and technology to anyone.