Reddit reviews Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted

> which is justified considering the U.S. is on another continent and was still feeling the effects of the Great Depression

Regarding the Crash of '29, the Great Depression had a profound effect on the entire world. A phenomenal book on the subject is Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World by Liaquat Ahamed. Ahamed's discussion is a breakdown of the events leading to the Crash of '29, largely focusing on the Paris Peace Conferences, the Treaty of Versailles (Article 232 dictated war reparations would be paid by the Central Powers to the Entente and its affiliates), the Dawes Plan, and the adherence to the Gold Standard.

This book very correctly notes the cyclical nature of the war reparations Germany was paying to England and France. In short, after Germany paid England and France, the two nations had to repay the Americans who had backed wartime trade with them. Finally, the Americans began backing the German reparations beginning in 1924. Now, that piece of debt backing was a part of the Dawes Plan, which was aimed at solving two major crises.

First: relieve the German industry. The Ruhr industrial valley was occupied by the Entente in '23 because the Germans defaulted on their industrial production in the area, so the Entente sought to occupy the industry and get things rolling. In fact, the occupation caused more harm to the economy than it did good.^1 The Dawes Plan had the Ruhr area returned to the Germans so they could work. Second: the US would back a portion of the debts to alleviate the strain on the Weimar Republic (Germany).

All of that said, no western nation survived the Crash of '29 considering the economic state of the world's major economic players (I'm avoiding the USSR in that one since the book doesn't go into their economic development under Stalin... let alone a crash). The first nation to really recover from the Great Depression was Nazi Germany under Hitler's direction (read: cabinet).

> only joining when the war came to them via Pearl Harbor.

Politically speaking, FDR was very supportive of the British and was concerned about German aggression. In August of 1941, he signed the Atlantic Charter which was directly aimed at assisting the UK, France, and other nations attacked by the Nazi government and its allies. While it wasn't a declaration of war, it was in fact a declaration of intent. This was highly coupled with the lend-lease agreements between the US and The Allies^2 which were started in March that same year. For the Axis powers, these two acts were signs that the United States might break its neutrality; These acts, coupled with the oil and trade embargoes, led the Japanese government to believe war with the United States was inevitable. That culminated in the attack at Pearl and the subsequent attacks on British, French, and Dutch colonies in the Pacific.^3

edit: struckthrough because the OP noted the lend-lease was important.

Yeah, the bit about the Lords of Finance and the depression wasn't the core, but I felt it's important for context.

> I've been told that England (Alongside Canada) and Russia won Europe single-handed, while the U.S. "didn't do much in Europe, nuked Japan and proclaimed themselves the greatest victors".

> Also, very clearly the Lend Lease act supported the Allies greatly and can possibly be considered more than enough of a contribution, but I desire to learn about the effective military aide the U.S. provided in Europe. How much of the Allied war machine was made up of U.S. soldiers during the invasions of Sicily, Italy and Normandy and the liberation of Europe?

Well, that first part is mostly wrong when it's observed superficially and very wrong when you get into it. I'll start with an adage: "The war was won with Soviet Blood and Allied (largely American) mass production." Where am I going with all of this? - the Americans had a very vital part in the economic survival of the United Kingdom (see Lend-Lease trade above). And they assisted the Soviets in production and supplies; Stalin did manage to get the production facilities deeeep into the USSR, so they could make weapons, tanks, planes, and supplies independently, but the US did send supplies and weapons - sometimes loved like the P-39 Airacobra, sometimes hated like the M3 Lee, and often needed logistics vehicles. The definitive read on the subject is Hubert Van Tuyll's Feeding the Bear: American Aid to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945. That's a great read on the contributions the US and UK gave to the Soviets after Operation Barbarossa's start in '41 because it largely focuses on the logistics and military supplies sent to Uncle Joe to help stave off the desperate situation in the USSR (I'll get to the situation in a moment).

Now, for the military contributions of the Americans and the Allies. Before I go on, I need to fix my adage: "the war was won with Soviet Blood, Allied mass production, and George Patton." For those about to crucify me for being a Patton fanatic (read: fanboy), hold your horses and get my meaning:

The Western Allies had the commanders, the time, and the luxury to prepare against Rommel's fortress Europe, Kesselring's defense of Italy, Rommel's Afrika Korp, and all the rest the Axis could throw at them in any invasion. Meanwhile, Uncle Joe and the Red Army fought tooth and nail against the veteran commanders of Army Groups North, Center, and South under Wilhelm von Leeb, Fedor von Bock, and Gerd von Rundstedt respectively - Heinz Gudarian's pioneer work in armored warfare also drove Soviet commanders against the wall. The professionally trained and deadly Wehrmacht made the Soviets pay a deadly price, hence, "Soviet blood." A great book on the military history of the Ostfront is Stolfi's Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted. The book discusses at length the strengths and flaws of the German Army in the USSR after his analysis on the political standpoint Hitler took regarding the security of Germany's borders: Hitler saw the war as a giant siege against Germany, so while the Army was on the march to Moscow, Hitler kept ordering Army Group Center into resource rich areas to secure them. But, if he had let the planners March onward, they might have taken Moscow and that could have ended the war right there. That's the situation in the USSR in '41. And here is a list of production statistics for light reading.

Encircling Moscow alone would have severally disrupted Soviet logistics to the west. Lrnd-lease through would get rerouted to Vladivostok and later Basra, severally slowing the flow at a critical time.

It possibly would have caused Soviet troops who were holding ground to the north and south to start counter attacks on AG Centers flanks, similar to the piecemeal spoiler attacks of early June and July. All of these things work for the Germans.

Without the direct support of STAVKA at Leningrad, it is quite possible that the Germans take the city before '42. This not only frees AG North but the Finns as well.

Taking, or even encircling Moscow might be enough to get Japan to consider reneging on the non-agression pact. This kind of pressure would slow the withdrawal of the Siberia divisions. Possibly causing a less effective winter offensive.

Does Moscow win them the war, that's another question. I don't think so, but it puts the Soviets at a serious disadvantage.

Here's a good book that explores the question if your interested. I don't like some of the authors reasoning, mostly the spacial comparison of the French campaign to justify the same gains in Russia. He does a good job of exploring the question otherwise.

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Panzers-East-World-Reinterpreted/dp/0806125810