Most of my knowledge comes the excellent world at war series. As someone mentioned, early in the war, the soviets faced the large brunt of the war, and with exception of Rommel when up against Germany's best troops. In 1941 the momentum was clearly on the German's side, and Stalin pleaded with the Allies to start a second front, but American's and Britain's knew this would results in heavy casualties, if they started ...
They faced roughly 30%, and about half as many in the eastern front. I mentioned, with a couple of notable exceptions, the most Germans best divisions remained on the Easter front, but Hitler was concerned about the western front because of it proximity to Germany, and did deploy some of his best troup to try and repel the landing, hoping for a truce with the Allies, so he could focus on the Soviets.
Totally right, those 2 reasons were my humble guesses. The 38% were ofcourse also counting the italian front. I dont know how many garrison troops there were, neither do you, it seems.
The western front was only a relief on the Soviets in the first place, they didn't barge into Europe seeking glory and eternal fame, what they did was relieving at least a portion of the Wehrmacht, SS, Panzer units and whatnot to go fight the Allies in the west. It gave the soviets the momentum they needed to end the war quickly.
@Frontjunker it's really hard to know anything for certain regarding diplomatics from WW2, since there was alot of propaganda from both sides. And i didn't really make those remarks to insult, i belive you germans have just as much right to be proud of your history as any other country here on earth. Just look at us scandinavians, vikings really where a brutal and terrible people, but we still speak of it as it was the best moment in scandinavian history. I'm glad you're proud, i love germany
@0willsy01 yea the norwegian heavy water program. the German's were definitely well on there way to haveing a nuclear weapon, i just hadent ever herd of a actual V3 rocket,. sorry for the criticism
@Fosch64 This is, what german school books tell. 1. Poland suppressed the german population in the occupied regions after WW1 allready. Poland was also very aggressive towards germany and felt safe because of its allies. 2. France decleared war with germany, so the attack was no german aggression and in the end it was successful. 3. USA supported the western allies from the very beginning. It was clear that they joined the war sooner or later.
@Xerardo84V The US didn't send in material assistance to Allies until March 1941, which is over 1 year and 6 months after the war had started. One can say they were sympathetic to the Allies but then again, I don't see how sending supplies and equipment effectively makes one an active member in the war - from that logic, I might as well say that the British and French were active combatants of the US Civil War.
@Kuner1 (cont) So it really dosent matter if Germans wouldve got Atomic Bomb some 1-2 years later than US, because they wouldve had tools to deliver it to its target.
soldiers from the western front, Though large in numbers, the soldiers in the western front were either inexperienced, or brunt out after eastern campaigns. You only have to look at the number causalities, over 10 million Soviet casualties, and just over 500,000 (including the Pacific) American casualties to gauge who faced the biggest burden. Its been said that WWII was won on Soviet blood, and American industrial might. I think that pretty accurate.
The eastern front had 80% of the german troops before the US entered the war. The number of troops on both fronts slowly evened out over the war and became roughly even towards V-E day. Also Germany is in eastern Europe so it makes sense for more troops to be in the east. Not to mention the Pacific theater, if the US didn't take on Japan the way they did, the USSR wouldn't have stood a chance. It was a group effort by the Allies.
Support from US and UK taking down Luftwaffe was a huge aid for USSR. After all, Germany's victory wasn't that far...Fully operational Luftwaffe in Kursk or Stalingrad could have made Germany's victory inevitable.
You said "military deaths" and now you mention KIA? But anyways: I just gave you 2 reasons. Furthermore I gave you a source that said that 38% of the army was on the western fronts.
... a full fledged campaign while the Germans remained strong and American war machine was still ramping up. The plan was to give the Soviets enough supplies and support to with stand and weaken the Germans, while the Americans built there army. It was a game of cat and mouse, and the American's knew they didn't want the Soviet army to come out of WWII with too much power. By the time the Allies invaded Europe the German Army was severally weaken, and second front did result in a large shift ...
@Xerardo84V Bro, im german ;) He had the choice, he could've settled with Poland...attacking france wasnt necessary, it was done to get revenge for WW1. The main reason was his theory "Nation without living space" and thats why he wanted to expand eastwards cuz its was full of communists. He also declared war to the usa unreasonable, on top of that the usa were neutral to begin with...
@SuperBomber01 That's not quite true. There was the so called "Cash & Carry-Act", which supported the western allies very early. Furthermore the USA secretly prepared the coming war by buildung military infrastructure in Africa. Additionally the "Destroyers for Bases Agreement". As a result the help from the US was not immaterial and the american leadership also wanted the war. Although the population did not - at least at first. What other choice did germany have?
@AdamSavage88 Sure the V3 were build. It were no Rocket. It were an Long Range Underground Artillery with a range of 150 km. It was able to bombard London easiely and defeat Great Britian and this way the Whole War at Western Front.
@MrBrandonXP True, economical output from the west helped USSR to go through the times when Germany would've crushed USSR if it would've been 1v1 situation.
No worry, I wasn't trying to knock you down, just stating a fact about trying to predict an outcome of a "might have been" situation. We will never know, all we can do is to guess and air opinions.
@Kuner1 There never was any real alliance between Germany and USSR. Both nations have had been hostile relationships with each others for centuries. Both, USSR and Germany knew Molotov-Ribbentrop pact wouldnt last long, it was just about who manages to attack first. USSR was nearly overrun, and Hitler actually believed Japanese would declare war on USSR same way Germany declared war on US. Agreed that US wouldve got Atomic Bomb before Germans (cont)
What a load of shyte! When the allies landed in Normandy, only 62% of the german army was on the east front. MEANING 58% were fighting in the West. The African and Italian campaigns are not something that can be compared, because they were fought in easily defended places, which is why so few germans troops were in Italy and Africa. Moreover, UK and USA fought a huge campaign in the Far East against Japan, something Russia would never have been able to.
@Kuner1 (cont) Dosent matter how many tanks, planes and artillery pieces USSR couldve had produces behind Urals, if they dont have oil to get them moving. Keypoints in D-Days success are practicly matters of luck. Hitler wasnt awaken so help wasnt sent, though it wouldve made a huge difference Whole D-day seemed to be a defeat for the Allies until one group of troops happened to find a shortcut to rear of German bunkers.
Military deaths is not an acurate way to determine how the german army was deployed.. The russians didnt like to take prisoners, and the germans probably fought more to the death on the eastern front. So death toll in itself is not good enough.
@tomchch I think it would be sad that all people speak german. The different languages of europe are a holy treasure of our ancestors. But please take a look at russia. Do you think that russia was a peaceful country at this time of our declaration? What do you think about this war against russia if it was a PREVENTIVE war? I dont want to start a big discussion, find the truth for yourselve. Greeting from an old germany, which is still living in some of us germans. Glory to all fatherlands..
yes they would have been able to fight and win against the German Army, except more Western Allies would have died and the war would have gone on much longer if the US did not drop A bombs on the Germans. In case you forgot the US was also fighting two fronts, the pacific theater was consuming tones of man power and resources, and the US was supplying the Russians and British with equipment and ammo since 1931. Germany could not fight a world war and win and Hitler knew that in 1939.
@Kuner1 (cont) but it wouldnt really have made any difference. Without Eastern Front Germany wouldve stayed as a superpower, and unlike Japan, it wouldnt allowed enemy planes just bomb cities. Theres absolutely no way US couldve dropped Atomic Bomb to Germany, because it wouldve had to be dropped from a bomber. Germans, on the other hand, already had V2 and they were building a ''New York-rocket''. We can just wonder where that wouldve been aimed at. (cont)
@Fosch64 Hitler and germany tried to do a lot of diplomacy before and during the war with the western allies und also with Poland. To no avail. Try the book: "Der Krieg der viele Väter hatte" by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof.
"Friend" It would a logical assumption that the percentage of the army not fighting on the eastern front, were fighting on the western front. It would be logical for the author to take accupations troops into account, that is not absurd. Your assumption that the 80% casulties reflect the army deployment is much more far out, if not absurd. But I got one more for you, in the East, a huge amount of troops were needed to secure supply lines against patisans, meaning the Red army didnt "fight" them
@JohQx3 Actually the Germans gave up on A-bomb research (which was conducted in Austria). Given more time and resources, they would have eventually found it, but just compare the research the US and the Germans invested in the project. Germany beaten by 1944? You seem to forget the Battle of the Bulge or the Gothic Line defense. Yes, Germany was weakened. But war is not a sport or a "fair fight". War is about winning. And to be honest, the Germans never really had a chance.
@JohQx3 You make valid points. Yes, the US could have been defeated, if the Soviet Union had been conquered. But therin lies the strategic error of the German strategy. Their entire strategy was based on thing running "as planned". It was pure insanity to assume the Soviet Union could be simply overrun and taken. Breaking the Alliance with Stalin was a suicide move. And even without the Eastern Front, the Americans would have still gotten the Atomic Bomb first.
russia lost more men in the european campaign no argument there, but its because the germans were inside their national borders. they were never inside US borders. besides everyone knows Americans were more deeply involved in the pacific campaign of WWII. you should also consider that the ENTIRE country of germany had only 30million or so citizens and was able to battle with major nations on 2-5 fronts depending on how you look at it. their troopers and equipment were superior.
@1963Austria Certainly England nor Russia couldn't have defeated Germany alone. The US would have found it impossible to land in Fortress Europe without their Bridgehead in England. But within a few years of the start of the war, American industrial output was vastly superior to Germany. A war of attrition would have suited America far more than it would Germany. Militarily the US overtook Germany by 1942. The difficulty however would always have been an invasion of Europe.
@1963Austria Yea, it would ended up being kind of a stale mate with many more causlties. Just like WW1 ended. But who knows the atrocitites that could have followed if the war lasted another year. The U.S., Germany, The Soviet Union and maybe a few other countries would race to make nuclear arms.
The russians used their tactical advantage to win as they did to the french and also the swedes. They would never won a face to face battle - they even had to get help from germany in the unholy alliance to defeat poland! The same country that kicked the red army back to moscow 20 years earlier!
@ironhorzmn Right On! How in the hell otherwise thinking people do not see what kept the ballance of power together is beyond me! They beahave, as if they had no skin in the game while sitting on the same continental plane with the most aggersive, expansionist nation on the face of the planet: Soviet Russia!
still it would have made a difference, cause they were fighting america, which also had support from Canada and Britain. All trying to push into Berlin
no they didnt, if america wasnt them on the western front, then germany would have used all its resources to fend of Russia, and with all the effort they put in to fighting america, it may have been a different turn out for what happened.
@1963Austria The US maybe. The US infantry proved to be superior in nearly every fight they had with the Wehrmacht. Germany had more advanced technology, but the US army was extremely well trained, more natural resources, complete naval superiority (aircraft carriers vs battleships), And lastly, the US won the race for the atomic bomb (thanks to german jewish scientists). This was the Nazis most fatal mistake: Their antisemitism cost Germany a large amount of brainpower.
@Frontjunker Well, germany could easly have handeld those countries at it's own, but it was he that decleard war against russia and the united states. If he finnished up the war against england and those other small little countires first before declaring war against the russians, we'd all be speaking german by now.
@JohQx3 It actually went beyond that. Since you're interested in the subject, I can recommend an interesting book for you: "Atlas Shrugged". It's a fictional novel, sort of in the way Nietzsche wrote fiction as a means to stage a philosophical discourse. Atlas Shrugged dissects the mindset of the collectivist better than any other work ever written and analyses the fundamental motivation of people like Hitler, Stalin as well as every modern leftist and religious nutbag.
those russian generals must have been realy great cannon fodder strategist, they beat 80% of the nazis like that,U.S.A could barely beat 20% cannon foderingering :P, but in all seriousness russia would'nt have won WW2 alone.
I am not dumb :o) I looked up the numbers., you try to look up your 3%. Many of the best german tanks were used in the Battle of the Bulge, and mostly all Me 262 were on the western front. I am smarter than you :o)
US? Red Army destroyed 80-90% of Wehrmacht. If US wouldve had to face whole German War machine alone, they'd swam back home. Germans lost the race for A-bomb because of Norwegian guerilla forces which sabotaged the heavy water which were ment to sent to Germany. US infantry never fought Whermacht in fair fight, always huge supermacy of practicly everything. In 1944, Germany was already destroyed. D-Day took place just to stop communism taking over whole Europe.
The russians must have felt good with the katushya ... you can trow more death and destruction over the horizon not only becouse you got more ! but also becouse you can afford it becouse your rockets and platforms are cheaper !
american and ally would never win agaisnt the german on westen front if no soviet on east. Far more supreme german engineer , experience soldier and def position
I gave you a percentage that is different from your percentage. Your answer is guessing like I did, when I gave you reasons why more germans died on the est front. What are you? A "distinguished historian" ???
Boy, you guys with your "what-if's" about WWII are both moot and boring. You guys must like staring into a mirror and talking to youselves, trying to impress the wall. LOL!
