German vs. Russia - No England.

I suppose they forced people to vote too did they.

 

Looking at the data for the US at Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2005
only during the depths of the depresion and WWII do we see deficit spending to any great extent prior to 1960.
and then compare the those deficits to the GDP and I think you'll find Germany was in a worse postiong by quite a bit.

No not like every other major ecoomy. Germany had more loans and the reperations to consider. They also played games with their currency to lower the effect of the latter which signifcantly impacted their foreign currency reserves. For more info try Wages of Destruction

 

er yes its the 1930's we are talking about isnt it?
Thats when the Nazis were in power right durring the deepresion

Which countries didnt have loans to pay then?

 

From: Third NAZI Referendum - 1936 Remilitarization

If you want to believe Gobbels I guess that's up to you.

And of coure there's the fact that this wasn't a show of general support it rather was a referendum on whether or not they thought he had done the right thing on one particulary emotional issue.

 

How is that there is no chance USSR can win, why? USSR had unending man-power, why by the end of 1942 things would be different?

 

Because by the end of 1942 around half of Soviet manpower will be in German hands.
Making them pretty much even in manpower terms.

 

That is not strickly true, yes in terms of numerical number the Germans may become somewhat equal to the Russians, however the extra numbers still lack training, equipment and transport. Then there is the problem of Germany having to find more officers, weapons which are already in short supply, equipment, after all most of the German army infantry was in no way motorised but moved around by foot, and then extra supplies needed to fuel this new army.

The Germans would unlikely be able to sustain any more such divisions being formed, well no where to the Russian numbers anyway.

 

The lack of training, equipment and transport would be even greater on the Soviet side with no war in the West or Lend Lease.

 

The Soviets werent planning on surrender until Germany reached ****ING URALS! Hitler has more chances reaching heaven

 

The Russian forces would be fine just like they were in historical ww2. Yes they did have a bit of lend lease but look how many Tanks they built, how many small arms, trucks and planes. Most of the Russian tactics were based on the war with Germany so the war in the west is irrelevant to the Russians in terms of tactics and training.

 

The American lend and lease system was introduced in the beginning of the war to support Great Britain in their struggle with Germany. After the German assault on Russia in June 1941, the defenders got aid with this system through war material, food, fuel and other important raw materials.
From 1941 and onwards, the RKKA used extensive numbers of Lend-Lease tanks received from the USA, Canada and Great Britain. Approximately 22.800 AFVs were sent to the Soviet Union between June 22nd of 1941 to 30th of April 1944, and almost 2.000 of these were lost at sea.
In addition, the Russians got about 351.700 trucks and 78.000 Jeeps from the USA.
With this the Red Army became more movable as mobility increased.
During 1941, 487 Matilda, Valentine and Tetrarch tanks were received from Great Britain, and 182 M3A1 "Stuart", and M3 Lee medium tanks were received from the USA. In 1942, a further 2.487 tanks were received from the UK, and 3.023 tanks from the USA. The first units equipped with Valentines and Matilda IIs fought in the Staraya Russia and Valdai areas in the winter of 1941/42. Usually tank units were allotted a single type of Lend-Lease tanks to simplify logistics. An example was the 38th Tank Brigade which in 1942 had 30 Matilda II tanks, and 16 T-60 light tanks. In 1944 and 1945, the American M4A2 were the highest appreciated Lend/Lease tank, and some tank corps and mechanized corps were entirely equipped with this type. In early 1945 the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps were equipped with Shermans in all of its tank units.

Without the above the USSR will have to switch serious amounts of manpower to production rather than warfare.
Not to mention the fact they can only produce so much with the machine tool available which will mean far less tanks in order to produce more trucks to keep their forces mobile.

 

Lend lease tank numbers sent to the USSR.

Churchill (All armed with 6-pounder gun) 301 Cromwell 6 M10 Wolverine TD 52 M15A1 MGMC 100 M17 MGMC 1.000 M18 Hellcat TD 5 M24 Chaffee 2 M26 Pershing 1 M3 Lee/Grant ("Coffin for 7 brothers") 1.386 M31 ARV (M3 Medium tank chassis) 115 M3A1 "Stuart" light tank 1.676 M4 Sherman (75mm / 76mm) 2.007 / 2.095 M5 Light tank 5 Matilda Mk. II 1.084 T-48 (SU-57) Tank destroyer 650 Tetrarch 20 Valentine Bridgelayer 25 Valentine Mk. III/IV/IX/XI 2.394 (British) 1.388 (Canadian)

 

The Nazis didnt expect them to surrender.

 

Although the Soviet forces preferred their own weapon, the other donations provided the Soviet Union with a high proportion not only of its war-industrial requirements but also of its means to fight. 'Just imagine', Nikita Khrushchev later remarked, 'how we would have advanced from Stalingrad to Berlin without [American transport] them.' ; at the end of the war, the Soviet forces held 665,000 motor vehicles, of which 427,000 were Western, most of them American and a high proportion the magnificent 2 1/2 ton Dodge trucks, which effectively carried everything the Red Army needed in the field. American infustry also supplied 13 million Soviet Soldiers with their winter boots, American agriculture 5 million tons of food, sufficient to provide each Soviet soldier with half a pound of concentrated rations every day of the war. The American railroad industry supplied 2000 locomotives, 11,000 freight carriages and 540,000 tons of rails, with which the Russains laid a greater length of line than they had builty between 1928 and 1939. American supplies of high-grade petroleum were essentially to Russian production of aviation fuel, while three-quarters of Soviet consumption of copper in 1941-4 came from American sources.
Wartime Russia survived and fought on American aid.
​

-John Keegan, The Second World War

 

Then how do you expect Germany to win if they dont even hope their enemy to surrender? You know the objective of a war usually is to force the enemy to surrender to you so you can then proceed with an occupation, if not even you expect your enemy to surrender, then what is the case?

 

And the Russian T-34 alone had been produced above 64,000 units. Some how the lend lease of the allies appears to be very little compared to the production of the T-34 alone. If they had dropped that number they could easily still out produce the Germans.

 

The German plan was to push the Soviet forces back to the A-A Line then keep them at bay with air power.
They didnt expect Stalin to give in.

 

Tank production would be far lower if they had to produce their own trucks and jeeps.

 

The Germans produced 50 thousand tanks in world war 2 the Soviets about 106 thousand from 1940-45.

The Soviets lost 83 500 tanks during the war a figure that would be far higher with all German forces in the East and continued German air superiority.
This combined with lower production figures due to the demands to build trucks and because of extra Soviet land and population occupied would put the Soviets in an un-winnable position.

 

OK, I’m new to this topic, and I’m a bit lost to what the different powers do during all of this? (I’ve noticed that some members have given up on this thread…I wonder why? )

A bunch of questions for BE just to be sure (note my skepticism! )!

Britain simply remains neutral during the whole affair? They just enjoy watching the Germans go head on with the Russians and they will sit by idly?
In the (IMO) unlikely case that the Germans would get the upper hand in the conflict, do you think Britain will eventually interfere or not?
The Brits will refrain from any action while Japan invades the DEI or any other territories not belonging to the UK?

The same question for the US: will they position themselves on the side to watch how the two European landbased powers “get it on”?
And will they also just stand by while Japan is invading different territories in SE Asia?