Two-Front War

The US could manage a two front war because of the nature of the two wars it was fighting and the fact that it was, and is, a rare exception in warfare: A sea power and a land power. The previous example of such a nation was Rome in the Punic Wars.

Anyway, for the Pacific War the US needed sea power and put most of their fleet there. In the Atlantic, they were facing just the German Guerre de Course of merchant raiding by U-boats. With the added advantage of having Britain, a sea power, aligned with them the naval wars the Allies faced were manageable.
The US also produced a very large land army and equipped numerous allies to a high standard. This meant they had the land power to fight a land power, Germany.

Of course, in terms of economics, the Germans were pretty much hit having a mere fraction of the economic power the Allies possessed. It is of interest to note that even in the late 30's as the US began to seriously invest in preparing for war they were virtually outspending the Germans who were pushing the limit of what they could economically afford.

 

As usual missing intentionally the point : the OP said that Stalin slaughtered Ukrainians : which is not so .There was a famine in the SU,not only in Ukraine,and I am stil waiting for someone to produce an order by Stalin to start a famine .

This order does not exist .Thus Stalin did not slaughter Ukrainians .

Case closed .

Unless for those who want to believe fables that fortify their bias .

 

that is beside the point .

 

Perhaps I have misunderstood you...

Your salient point is:

Which you reinforce with

So, I must repeat myself

 

These points did not cause famine,because these points (collectivisation,industrialisation,etc,)did not stop in 1934, they continued till 1989 and ,with the exception of 1947,there were no more famines .

If you are saying that these 8 points caused the famine, I will reply that these 8 points also prevented the return of the famine .

There were famines when the Czar ruled,and no one blamed the Czars for the famines, but when there was a famine when Stalin ruled, a lot of people (driven by ignorence and bias) claim that Stalin caused the famine .

 

Yet, conversely, Russia has gone through several droughts and natural disasters since, and yet there has been no famines since 1947. So, famines are not caused by nature alone...

You really need to read more Tolstoy. Or even contemporary newspaper reports...The Czar was blamed, and of course, he blamed his ministers. I believe we refer to this today as "passing the buck."

 

In 1938 the food situation of the average Soviet citizen was better than in 1932,and this while the agriculture policy of the Kremlin was still the same : this proves that the agricultural policy of the Kremlin did not cause bad harvests, neither did it cause good harvests .

The influence of any government on the outcome of a harvest was (is) much exaggerated.

Someone as professor Tauger,world-knwn specialist, has proved that the famine resulted directly from a poor harvest,which was the result of a complex of natural disasters .

Those who claim that Stalin ordered and caused the famine should try to answer the following questions :
why would Stalin order a famine ?

when did he order a famine ?

how was the famine policy executed ?

why did Stalin change his policy ?

when did he order to stop the famine ?

how did it happen ?

In 130 year ther were 4 big famines and in each case, the reaction was the search for a black sheep,while in reality there was no human culprit .

Irish nationalists claimed that Britain caused the great famine : now it is admitted even in Ireland that this was nonsense

Ukrainian nationalists also were looking for a scapegoat,and it was also nonsense

Indian nationalists blamed,also unjustifiedly Britain for the Bengalese famine

In Ethiopia and elsewhere the Negus was presented as the responsible for the famine of 1974,which also was unjustified .

In these 4 cases the governments did what they could to soften the results,with hindsight,they could have done better, but hindsight was a luxury which they had not at their disposal

 

Ahhh, restating the same tired arguments you used in the Ukraine thread.

Perhaps you could add something new?

 

LJAd, go back and read Stalin's ag policy speech, Dec 27, 1929 (I think the date).

I've interviewed survivors. They indicate road blocks to storage facilities. I'm not going to argue with someone whose mother starved to death to feed her daughter.

Interesting side notes, there were German POWs during WW2 that threw food over the fence to Ukrainian children who were hungry.

 

About the 2 front war :the so-called blunder of Hitler is a wrong claim :reality is that ,when Britain decided in june 1940 to continue the war with Germany, it was inevitable that this war should expand and also should become a war with the SU and the US .

Other point : the 2 front war did not start on 22 june 1941,but at the end of june 1940 .

Last point : about the role of the USMC in the war aganst Japan: while this role was important, it is wrong to present the war in the Pacific as a war between the USMC and the Japanese .

 

In regards to the first why do you think that?

In regards to the second. Why create another straw man?

 

Please explain this.

 

The 2 front war (benefiting Britain) started already on 1 september 1939 : a non committed SU would always be a potential danger for Germany and tie German resources,and the longer the war with Britain,the weaker Germany would be vis à vis the SU .


The 2 front war (benefiting the SU ) started already at the end of june 1940, when Britain decided to continue the war : between june 1940 and june 1941,Germany lost a lot of resources in the war against Britain and a lot of resources were not available for the war against the USSR .

Thus there was already a virtual 2 front war that benefited the SU before the start of Barbarossa and Stalin had no reason to complain . There was also a virtual 2 front war in the same period that was benefiting Britain and Churchill had no reason to complain .

For Germany a neutral USSR was as bad as a Britain that continued the war after the French surrender .The only possibility was a surrender of Britain, or a public Soviet commitment on the German side .

As Alexander,Hitler decided to cut the knot .

 

I am sorry I don't seem to understand the line, "when Britain decided to continue the war." Perhaps its just semantics or are you implying that Britain chose this turn of events. I think that the mass evacuation in early June 1940 was, yes, a possible declaration of a willingness to continue the fight, but being pushed out of the country was not ideal.

I can see your intention on a "virtual" two front war that may have benefited the Western Allies. Not in the actual historical sense.

 

Sorry but that doesn't qualify as a two front war. Nor was it guaranteed that the SU and Germany would go to war. Indeed had the French and British attacked the USSR as they considered it might well have driven the USSR into the axis camp. Please learn to use some logic and don't make up your own definitions of commonly used words and phrases.

 

If Britain had given up in june 1940, a war with the SU would have been unnecessary / not necessary .

For the British/German relations between june 1940/june 1941,there were 4 situations possible


A ) A hostile Britain : the OTL prove that this was very bad for Germany

B ) A neutral Britain : this also would not be good for Barbarossa

C ) A defeated and occupied Britain: this also would not be good for Barbarossa

D ) An allied Britain : only this situation would help the Germans in a war with the SU . But it was totally improbable .

For the relations with the SU,the possibilities are the same

A hostile SU was proved to be the end of Germany

A defeated and occupied SU would be a formidable obstacle for a defeat of Britain .

A neutral SU would be a obstacle for the defeat of Britain

Only an allied SU would save Germany :but this also was totally improbable

Only case D could save Germany,as this was impossible(Churchill would not join Barbarossa and Stalin would not declare war on Britain) ,there was only one alternative left : Barbarossa,hoping that this would result in the defeat of the SU and hoping that the defeat of the SU would prevent an American intervention in Europe,and hoping that this would force Britain to give up .

The German strategy was founded on hope,which was proved to be wishful-thinking .

 

Dynamo has nothing to do with this : it was the British negative answer on Hitler's peace proposal which placed Germany for an impossible situation nly if Churchill had been fired and an other PM (Hoare...) had accepted the German peace proposal,was Germany saved (in the short run:it still would lose in the long run) .

And the British answer was negative,because it would place Germany in an impossible situation .From that day on,Germany's strategic situation was getting worse,every day .And Hitler was doubting till the moment he ordered the execution of Barbarossa .

No Barbarossa and the British / US would parade Unter den Linden .

If Barbarossa succeeded there was a SMALL chance to prevent this .

If Barbarossa failed, the Soviets would parade in Berlin .

 

As usual flawed assumptions and questionable logic lead to conclusions of limited merit on the part of ljad.

 

As usual, tear down others and provide nothing.

You should spend more time adding to content rather than tearing others who provide input down. One is a lot easier than the other, btw. I've seen very little substance contributing to actual thought, facts or analysis from you.