Oliver Stone's Untold History of America

[Zanza]

What effects did the British naval blockade have in that critical period of the war, significant or marginal?

Never heard about any effects in WW2, but that could be due to my ignorance. I don't really care much for the actual war history. 

In WW1 it led to widespread malnutrition.

[Josephus]

I find it amusing that Stone's very first episode of the "Secret history of America" is about the Soviet Union defeating German in WW2.

Wouldn't that be the secret history of German, or the USSR?

I think, though, that's the point. Sort of a "contrary to what you may have been taught, we (America) did not win this war by ourselves. There was this big bad empire, well, actually, we were friends then...there was this big empire to the east that did the brunt of the work."

[Valmy]

The Germans were not too horribly off in terms of food until the war ended, unlike WWI they had huge tracts of conquered territory they could loot for food.  For things like petroleum and other raw materials it was a much bigger problem.

[Zanza]

What effects did the British naval blockade have in that critical period of the war, significant or marginal?

Critical, IMO.

German shortages of war materials were always a huge throttle on their operations.

From the obvious (oil, steel) to the not so obvious (tungsten).

Ah, that's what you mean. I am sure it had a considerable effect on the German war effort.

[Zanza]

I find it amusing that Stone's very first episode of the "Secret history of America" is about the Soviet Union defeating German in WW2.

Wouldn't that be the secret history of German, or the USSR?

The qualifier "secret" wouldn't make sense though.

[Valmy]

I think, though, that's the point. Sort of a "contrary to what you may have been taught, we (America) did not win this war by ourselves. There was this big bad empire, well, actually, we were friends then...there was this big empire to the east that did the brunt of the work."

They have weird assumptions like this all the time.  The Korean War typically gets referred to as the "forgotten war" even though I am not sure exactly who forgot about it.

[Zanza]

The US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.

When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.

June of 1945.  Any point in time would have meant that the Soviets would still have to fight them if there wasn't a Western release valve.

A lot of the seven million POWs will in fact have fought the Russians. In the last week or two of the war, many units tried to quickly surrender to the Americans instead of the Russians.

That said, by the time the Western allies started to take many POWs, the tide in the East had already turned and eventual Soviet victory was pretty much inevitable. Yes, it could have taken longer, yes, it could have been bloodier. But the result was no longer in doubt.

Of the 5.3 million soldiers Germany lost in WW2, around 4 million will have been on the Eastern Front.

[Valmy]

The 25,000 who died during the Battle of France hurt most of all though right?

[Ed Anger]

The 25,000 who died during the Battle of France hurt most of all though right?

Hurt being a speedbump.

[Razgovory]

The US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.

When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.

June of 1945.  Any point in time would have meant that the Soviets would still have to fight them if there wasn't a Western release valve.

A lot of the seven million POWs will in fact have fought the Russians. In the last week or two of the war, many units tried to quickly surrender to the Americans instead of the Russians.

That said, by the time the Western allies started to take many POWs, the tide in the East had already turned and eventual Soviet victory was pretty much inevitable. Yes, it could have taken longer, yes, it could have been bloodier. But the result was no longer in doubt.

Of the 5.3 million soldiers Germany lost in WW2, around 4 million will have been on the Eastern Front.

The question is, would it have been inevitable if they could have thrown millions more into the fray.  That sorta changes the dynamics.  I mean, they were surrendering because they had no where else to go.  With out the West the Germans would have more manpower to focus on the East and ground to fall back to.  Not to mention they could buy resources or weapons from people without the British blockading them and they wouldn't need to waste resources on V2 rockets or defending the skies over Germany or Uboats.

[garbon]

I find it amusing that Stone's very first episode of the "Secret history of America" is about the Soviet Union defeating German in WW2.

Wouldn't that be the secret history of German, or the USSR?

I think, though, that's the point. Sort of a "contrary to what you may have been taught, we (America) did not win this war by ourselves. There was this big bad empire, well, actually, we were friends then...there was this big empire to the east that did the brunt of the work."

Who is taught the opposite? I mean certainly early on in school they don't get into all those moral shades and Russia is first good for helping us then bad - but I don't recall them pretending that Russia played a minor role.  Perhaps that was different for those in school back in the day but still a hard cry from it being a secret.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, this isn't really a secret. I don't know of many Americans (really any I've ever met) who thought it was us alone versus the Nazis in WWII and we heroically won the day. Virtually all Americans I know are at least aware a good bit of fighting happened before we even really got involved. Now, maybe the average man in the street doesn't know all the intricacies, and how big a deal the Eastern Front was, but it's not really a secret either. I mean, there have been major Hollywood films about German vs Soviet soldiers on the Eastern Front, so it's certainly not a secret. Not nearly as popular as films and stories about Normandy, Battle of the Bulge etc.

The Soviets won primarily by outlasting the Germans and avoiding a critical loss of Moscow in the initial phase of the invasion. The Soviets produce a ton of tanks and planes, more tanks than anyone I believe, but they produced virtually no trucks for example during the war and a lot of their locomotives (rail was vital to parts of the Soviet Empire) came from America too. It's a zero-sum game when talking about wartime manufacturing, so all the trucks they received from us were trucks they did not have to build at the cost of tanks. If they didn't have those trucks their ability to advance would have been significantly limited.

The Soviets also received significant amounts of petroleum from America (the world's top producer during WWII far and away), while the Germans fairly early on had fuel shortages. Take away the logistical support and the Soviets either have to build it themselves, which is difficult and takes away from other things they did make, or they simply don't have it and their movements against Germany are slower which probably means fewer Germans captured/killed in the counterattacks and Germany being able to fight on longer.

If you take away all allied assistance it's probably a very different war. "All Allied assistance" would mean, Germany can freely trade with the rest of the world, has no fear of invasion from the West from the UK or the U.S. etc. That would dramatically change things. Russia was so big and vast and had so many people I do not know that Hitler could ever conquer/tame it all. If he had none of those other concerns he probably could have captured Moscow though, which could have ended the war. (It would depend on whether Stalin politically survived the Fall of Moscow.) We could definitely end up with a superpower-sized Germany and a weakened Russia, for sure.

But yeah, the Soviets did a lot of dying in that war that we should all be grateful for, and deserve the lion's share of the credit for beating the Germans. But like DGuller said, you can get a bit facetious if you go too far the other way. I've seen that from some Russophiles on forums, making the claim that the Soviets essentially won WWII wholly by themselves.

[PDH]

The Germans would have won if they had more black counters with white printing.

[CountDeMoney]

The Germans would have won if they had more black counters with white printing.

You know it.

[Josephus]

Who is taught the opposite? I mean certainly early on in school they don't get into all those moral shades and Russia is first good for helping us then bad - but I don't recall them pretending that Russia played a minor role.  Perhaps that was different for those in school back in the day but still a hard cry from it being a secret.

Ask your average American. Perhaps those that didn't take advanced history classes in high school....you know, Republican types. Ask them how WW2 was won, and let me know how many times they mention Russia in their narrative.

edit: Hell, I know a woman, not even American, granted. A typcial, only high school educated woman, not much into reading other than cake recipes. She probably, I'm willing to bet, couldn't even tell you that Russia was in the war, let alone whose side they're on.