From: "David W. Levine" <dwl@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:55:38 GMT


From "David W. Levine" <dwl@watson.ibm.com>

In article <Bx7C37.Dw3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Lee Short <short@asf.com>
writes:
|>
|> From Lee Short <short@asf.com>
|>
|> In article <Bwzp2n.4M3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Herschel H Mayo writes:
|> >
|> >... Had Hitler been a master politician instead of a
|> >egomaniac, he would have declared war on Japan.
|>
|> This is an interesting idea.
|>
|> >It is very likely that the war with Britain would have been immediately
|> >stalemated, and possibly brought to a negotiated end.
|>
|> OK.
|>
|> >Stalin would have
|> >been hard pressed to continue the war when faced with the possibility of
|> >loosing his aid from the west.
|> >
|>
|> Strictly not true.  Lend-lease aid was a small part of the Soviet war
|> effort.  The simple fact of the matter is that the Wehrmacht was
|> defeated by Soviet troops, Soviet tanks, Soviet artillery, Soviet
|> blood, and Soviet determination.  Anyone who thinks that either
|> lend-lease aid *or* the Western Allies' invasion of France played a
|> part in the defeat of the Wehrmacht is deluded.  They may have saved
|> some Soviet lives and speeded up the end of the war, but they did not
|> change the final result.  It was inevitable.  Evidence provided on
|> request (i.e., my references are at home).
|>
|> By December 1941, the only factor which *might* have allowed the
|> Germans to attain a stalemate against the Soviets would have been
|> introduction of a full war economy.  That's a can o' worms I don't
|> want to get into.
|>
|>
|> Lee
|>
|> short@asf.com              The mystery of government is not how Washington
|> Lee Short                  works, but how to make it stop.  -- P.J. O'Rourke
|> Software Janitor        I speak for none of the many steps in the food chain
|> Hughes Training, Inc.         between myself and General Motors corporation.
|>

I agree with most of your argument Lee, but I don't think the picture is quite
so black and white. Clearly the key elements which allowed the Russians to
beat the Germans were Stalin's willingness to spend Russian lives and the
impressive relocation of war industries beyond the reach of German forces.
The single key weapon in the east, namely the T-34 didn't depend on lend-lease
or western assistance at all. That being said, lend-lease did provide much of
the red armies logistical tail during the decisive drives west, into poland and
then into eastern Germany. (ie without western trucks, the red army would have
been much less able to sustain it's pushes at the pace necessary to shatter
the German front rather than merely bruise it.)

The second question, namely whether the lack of a Western front would
have been
decisive, is also a little more difficult to measure. True the Western
allies never engaged either the mass of men or even the best troops of the
the Wermacht in the west, it did tie up a substantial portion of the German
army and in particular, counting in both France and Italy, quite a lot of
tanks and artillary. If one assumes that a settlement in the west would have
yielded the return of France and left Italy as an ally of Germany, one has to
ask what the war in the east would have looked like with three or four
additional
german panzer armies and a somewhat less mobile Russian army. Posit that
all the
V1s and V2s which fell on England are aimed at Russia. Posit that the Germans
gain some access to non german supplies of things like rubber (We have peace
in the west, after all) Subtract off the American and British strategic bombing
campaigns. Does the German Wermacht manage to hold off the Red Army for another
winter or two? Do the Russians have a tank which can stand up to the Panther,
Tiger and Jeag tigers, which presumably start showing up 1944 and 1945, in
larger numbers (Both due to no war in the west and no bombing?)

To be honest, I question the assumption that Hitler can put together
peace in the
West just by not siding with Japan. He's still siting on France, He's
still sitting
on the netherlands, He's still occupuying Scandanavia,  he's engaged in Africa.
You need to believe that he's willing and able to settle all of these issues,
can get Churchill to dicker with him over Poland, since after all, the reason
England and France Declare war on Germany is becuase Hitlter invaded Poland to
begin with...


David W. Levine --  dwl@watson.ibm.com  -- IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
                   -- My Opinions, IBM's hardware. --
"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your
aim" - George Santayana

Newsgroups: sci.military