[Smilin' Dave]

But on a manpower level, were the tables as unballanced in the favour of the Germans? I don't think so. As we saw, the Germans were vastly outnumbered by Soviet troops. Sure the Germans had the better toys in the beginning, and the better training, but the vastness of Russia and the pure number of troops the Russians could call on. And the practical enslavement of the population to Soviet State industry for war manufacturing - so, were the tables really that unballanced?

If one takes into account all Axis forces the balance against the Soviets isn't actually as one sided for the Soviets in 1941 as often claimed. Add in the better ability for Axis forces to concentrate their forces in specific theatres and the you find examples of the Axis outnumbering the defenders. It is common to dismiss the minor Axis powers as useless, but even as late as 1942 they were contributing significant resources to the war. I would also point out that in the early stages of the war the minor Axis forces might not have been much worse than common Soviet formations.

[Tailz]

Add in the better ability for Axis forces to concentrate their forces in specific theatres and the you find examples of the Axis outnumbering the defenders.

That was a German battle tactic; Rommel used it to advantage in the Desert: Local superiority. You may be outnumbered by your foe, but if you can bring superior forces to bear at each focal point of battle to outnumber your foe, then you have a better chance to win on a local level than in the big picture if you tried to fight everywhere. Also part of the idea behind Kampfgruppen.

The Germans could do this early on because of better command and control. But has the war progressed and their command structure was mashed by the Allies and meddled with by Hitler – it became harder and harder to react quickly to changing situations.

It is common to dismiss the minor Axis powers as useless, but even as late as 1942 they were contributing significant resources to the war. I would also point out that in the early stages of the war the minor Axis forces might not have been much worse than common Soviet formations.

I am in agreement, but I was not disputing such elements – but rather a short sighted view that it was poor lonely Russia, all alone in the cold with a handful of troops verse a horde of German barbarians. When in fact, as much as the Germans did amass a large army to invade Russia, the Soviets also had quite a large military presence themselves (although poorly equiped and lead). A military presence that swelled in size to overwhelm the Germans with numbers alone.

As Stalin said "Qualtity has a quality, all its own."

[Igor Antunov]

There is no doubt of course that the soviet union had a manpower advantage even against the axis as a whole. Which is why I find this germany vs soviet union 1vs1 talk ridiculous. Axis could have made headway if Japan had invaded the USSR from the east ast the same time. But when Japan tried to throw it's weight around, and promtly learned it's forces were no match on land, thereby signing a non-agression pact with the soviets.

[pugsville]

The Whole Nazi idea of war was blitzkrieg, it was not only tactics but strategy. They were totally unprepared for a real total war of attrition. This affected almost everything they did. Not perusing long term R&D in many cases. The sticking with existing designs past their use by date in that the war will be over quickly, it was part of their view that the war would be over quickly the next generation of designs can be developed after this short war is over. the lack and orginization of replacements, throughtout the war the skilled crews were run down with new units were created rather than consolidating the existing units. The lack of industrial focus early in the war.

On the other hand, I havent really looked into it but was the net contribution of allied aid to russia during the war? Was it really significant? How many tanks, planes and trucks did they receive? Other than equipment was their other significant stuff? Machine tools? As a percentage of russian military ordence in the field in the imprtant 1941-end of 1942 was it significant?

[RonPaulalways]

The Whole Nazi idea of war was blitzkrieg, it was not only tactics but strategy. They were totally unprepared for a real total war of attrition. This affected almost everything they did. Not perusing long term R&D in many cases. The sticking with existing designs past their use by date in that the war will be over quickly, it was part of their view that the war would be over quickly the next generation of designs can be developed after this short war is over. the lack and orginization of replacements, throughtout the war the skilled crews were run down with new units were created rather than consolidating the existing units. The lack of industrial focus early in the war.

Well put. The Nazi party was not willing to go to Stalin's lengths and fully mobilize the population through extreme rationing and forced labor. Hitler told Germans they could enjoy peace-time standards of living through the war. Russians on the other hand were given meager rations and long working hours, as part of a comprehensive national war production strategy.

The Nazi leadership did not have as strong a hold on power as the Soviet leadership, and was not going willing to go as far to win.

[Mister D]

Pugsville said:

On the other hand, I havent really looked into it but was the net contribution of allied aid to russia during the war? Was it really significant? How many tanks, planes and trucks did they receive? Other than equipment was their other significant stuff? Machine tools? As a percentage of russian military ordence in the field in the imprtant 1941-end of 1942 was it significant?

By far the most significant contribution Lend Lease made to the Soviet war effort was in trucks, equipment (ranging from radio parts to boots) and food. The Soviets disparaged Allied "military" aid not least because it was often inferior to Soviet military equipment. For example, the US passed on Sherman tanks to the Soviet Union where the T-34 was the standard. The Sherman was totally inferior. On the other hand, 'Soviet troops marched all the way to Berlin but they did so wearing American boots' to paraphrase a famous man. Armies aren't all about rifles, bombs and tanks. I believe Lend Lease was vital. So did Stalin: "Britain provided the time, America the money and Russia the blood. .."

As per your scenario, I personally think the Germans would have won or at least fought the Soviets to a standstill. The bloated garrisons Hitler was forced to keep in France and occupied Europe could have turned the tide in the east at any time. Moreover, these men would have been available when the Soviets were still reeling from the blows of the Wehrmacht in 1941-1942.

[Smilin' Dave]

For example, the US passed on Sherman tanks to the Soviet Union where the T-34 was the standard. The Sherman was totally inferior.

Not quite. The Shermans were often used to equip Guards tank units. This was in part because Shermans had a better operational range than the T-34, and less prone to breakdown. This made the Sherman handy to have during a breakthrough. Otherwise in rough performance terms the two were fairly close. On the other hand you have to wonder why they thought the Soviets needed yet more medium tanks instead of whatever else couldn't have loaded onto ships in its place.

[Mister D]

Not quite. The Shermans were often used to equip Guards tank units. This was in part because Shermans had a better operational range than the T-34, and less prone to breakdown. This made the Sherman handy to have during a breakthrough. Otherwise in rough performance terms the two were fairly close. On the other hand you have to wonder why they thought the Soviets needed yet more medium tanks instead of whatever else couldn't have loaded onto ships in its place.

Point conceded. I was thinking in terms of combat performance (armor thickness and slope, penetrative power of the gun etc.). The Sherman was certainly a reliable AFV. You make a good point.

Yeah, the Soviets weren't exactly short on tanks by the time LL really got rolling.

[fuser]

The Nazi leadership did not have as strong a hold on power as the Soviet leadership, and was not going willing to go as far to win.

Completely wrong...... Soviets were fighting the war for their survival unlike germans who were fighting against so called subhumans for their living space........

Nazi went as far as they could.........

[RonPaulalways]

I don't think so. The Germans knew that if they lost the war, it would be over for them. It was going to either be Germany or the Soviet Union that would be left standing. Stalin knew it which is why he began rushing industrialization in the 1930s, and German leaders had been fearing a rising Russia for decades and calling for an invasion to preempt the rise of Russia. They wouldn't have been able to co-exist given their conflicting ideologies and proximity.

[Igor Antunov]

It was 90% 1 vs 1. It takes more than 10% to tip the balance. Once blitzkrieg became untenable, germany had lost.

Hitler threw everything he had at Moscow, blitzkrieg, the whole shebang, and he couldn't take it, not that taking moscow would have changed the outcome. So he moved onto the more logical target (stalingrad) and couldn't hold it.

The soviets were moving industry to the east of the urals because they were prepared to keep fighting even if european russia in it's entirety fell to the germans. But the germans (bless their murderous little souls), ran out of steam long before the urals.

[RonPaulalways]

It was 90% 1 vs 1. It takes more than 10% to tip the balance. Once blitzkrieg became untenable, germany had lost.

Germany dedicated a vast amount of resources to the western front, and the value of the goods that Russia received through lend lease was enormous, so the 90% figure in my rough guestimation seems way off.

[Igor Antunov]

All the factors you bring up are accounted for in the remaining 10%. Just of the top of my head, i think the soviets received at least 10,000 tanks from the west near the end of the war, yet the soviets had produced over 200,000 tanks throughout the war. That's a 5% contribution in armor, and inferior handmedowns that arrived while the germans were retreating, at that.

For example people often talk of the western front when discussing the european air war, the battle of britain, etc. They then fail to even mention that the luftwaffe lost the majority of it's aircraft on the eastern front, where the largest air battles occured.

Lend lease is hugely overstated, typical US attempt to claim credit for everything. The european war isn't even discussable in this area, the germans lost to the soviet union. D-Day came late for a reason.

Then you have America taking ALL the credit for rebuilding europe, injecting around $800 billion in today's adjusted dollars into the european rebuilding effort. Yet it took tens of trillions to rebuild europe.

[Thunderhawk]

the value of the goods that Russia received through lend lease was enormous,

Covered in the last 3 pages, fundamentally different economic systems makes gdp comparisons foolish.

[RonPaulalways]

For example people often talk of the western front when discussing the european air war, the battle of britain, etc. They then fail to even mention that the luftwaffe lost the majority of it's aircraft on the eastern front, where the largest air battles occured.

Most of the bombing on German cities were carried out by the western allies, so the huge investment in anti-aircraft guns, both in production and personnel to man them, were concentrated in Western Europe. Likewise, the submarine fleet was built for the western front.

All the factors you bring up are accounted for in the remaining 10%. Just of the top of my head, i think the soviets received at least 10,000 tanks from the west near the end of the war, yet the soviets had produced over 200,000 tanks throughout the war. That's a 5% contribution in armor, and inferior handmedowns that arrived while the germans were retreating, at that.

The Soviets received $150 billion worth of supplies from the US, at a time when Soviet GDP was $274 billion a year. The Soviets lost 40% of their agricultural production to the German advance, and without the millions of tons of food from the US, could have faced starvation.

As far as tanks, it's true the Soviets built most themselves, but a war economy is dependent on logistics, and that is dependent on trucks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2 1/2 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.[citation needed]U.S. supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.

[fuser]

The Soviets received $150 billion worth of supplies from the US, at a time when Soviet GDP was $274 billion a year.

Is it so hard for you..... It seems you have just mugged up this stupid statistics although you have shown time and again that it is not the realistic measure.

one on one... Ok let's see, if Wehrmacht attacks soviet union in 1942 it would have been crushed completely.... Why because reorganisation of red army would have been completed till then... Then the two defense lines would have also been completed stalin line and molotov line which were both incomplete in 1941 giving germans a easy passage without any defensive fortification.........

Then, in 1941... Ok let's see just one example at seige of leningrad, a whole finnish army was guarding the northern front of leningrad..........This was the scale of the help german recieved from their allies which in no way was just a token of help..... A huge help they received from their allies...............

One on One even in 1941 they had no chance may be a more prolonged war, they threw everything they could get to to crush soviet union but they failed ..............

But one could easily say, if there would have been no involvement of red army, there wouldn't had been any normandy or freedom for europe........

[RonPaulalways]

One on One even in 1941 they had no chance may be a more prolonged war, they threw everything they could get to to crush soviet union but they failed

They succeeded in significantly reducing the Soviet Union's industrial production and 40% of its agricultural production. The USSR could have faced famine if not for lend-lease.

[Smilin' Dave]

They succeeded in significantly reducing the Soviet Union's industrial production and 40% of its agricultural production. The USSR could have faced famine if not for lend-lease.

As I pointed out to you way back on page two, the Soviets managed to do quite well in 1941-1942 despite these handicaps, at a time when in simple tonnage Lend Lease couldn't possibly have made an impact. It is also instructive to note that the Soviets did have famines during and immediately after the war, despite Lend Lease.

But I suppose if you missed the point then, you will just miss it all over again now.

[RonPaulalways]

It takes time for a loss of agricultural production to make itself fully felt. Without lend-lease, and with the Soviet Union down to 60% of its agricultural production, how do you think they would have done in 42-43-44?

It is also instructive to note that the Soviets did have famines during and immediately after the war, despite Lend Lease.

And without the millions of tons of food sent to them, the famines could have been much worse, to the point of seriously decreasing their war production.

[Smilin' Dave]

It takes time for a loss of agricultural production to make itself fully felt.

It becomes much more dramatic in a system famed for it's poor grain reserves, like... the Soviet Union. The Great Famine after all immediately followed a particularly bad harvest, and there were few reserves to distribute in the event. As with the famine, the Soviets seemed have avoided complete collapse by engaging in very harsh rationing.

And without the millions of tons of food sent to them, the famines could have been much worse

I think you will find those millions of tons of food were not arriving during 1941-1942. Out of interest, how do you think the Soviets solved their chronic problems with food distribution in a scenario where much of their transport infrastructure was destroyed and much of the rest diverted to the front? Never mind that the Soviets still couldn't have transported/stored all that grain properly, again being well known for their inadequete transport and strorage provisions for grain (a vital staple which can't be canned).

Just to be clear, I completely agree that Lend Lease was very important. However you are painting a picture of a Soviet Union which could not have survived at all without it... yet the evidence clearly shows this wasn't totally out of the question.