Great Fictional World War III book (China & allies VS US & allies)

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

King_Comm said:

So basically, in Fascist countries, the government work for businesses, in China, the government is the business.

Click to expand...

Depending on the level of integration and cooperation between the two (government and business), these two statements become one and the same.

In Nazi Germany, the Nazis controlled things. They did not work for Messerschmidt, BMW, or any other. Quite the contrary. Had any one of the leaders of those companies really tried to defy the Nazis, they would have simply dissappeared and a new leader would have been installed who was true to and in conformance with the Nazis. The pretense of onwership and control only worked so long as you were in lock-step with the Nazis.

Now, that is admittedly different that most communist dogma where, in fact, the government makes no pretense and in fact is business in major areas. China, has discovered the economic achilles heal of communism where there was no incintive for business and private work and has opened up their work places and the market to much broader market economies and pressure...but they still maintain overall control. As such, IMHO, that is more of a fascist principle than a communist one.

My feeling is that a fascist regime, or any totalitarian government that adopts such market policies is much more capable of higher levels of productivity than any pure communist or marxist society. As long as such a government can maintain the support of the people and the trappings or appeal of ownership and personal incintive...they are much stronger economically...and ultimately militarily.

Which, is exactly why, IMHO, it took the rest of the world to put Nazis Germany down...and it was still a close thing.

Thanks for the comments and insights. Good dialog.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Jeff Head said:

In Nazi Germany, the Nazis controlled things. They did not work for Messerschmidt, BMW, or any other. Quite the contrary. Had any one of the leaders of those companies really tried to defy the Nazis, they would have simply dissappeared and a new leader would have been installed who was true to and in conformance with the Nazis. The pretense of onwership and control only worked so long as you were in lock-step with the Nazis.

Click to expand...

==The reason those business leaders didn't defy Nazi's was because Hitler's wars brought in so much profit, after all, Nazi's wouldn't have gotten into power without the support of those big businesses. If the Nazi's were really as powerful and all controlling as everyone thinks, they would have nationalised the economy, which would be far more efficient.

The best example would be the Soviet Union, because they have complete control over the industries, the Soviets could shift all resources to industries where it mattered most, and all weapons developed have to meet the requirement set by military commanders, so despite producing less raw materials than Germany and is technologically backward, the Soviets produced more weapons than Germany, and they were more suitable to the fighting on the eastern front than their German counterparts.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

King_Comm said:

If the Nazi's were really as powerful and all controlling as everyone thinks, they would have nationalised the economy

Click to expand...

They did, but under a more fascist economic model, while the social programs were far more socialist. But the industrialsts did not control the Nazis, they went along with them and then were in turn, afterward, controlled by them.

King_Comm said:

despite producing less raw materials than Germany and is technologically backward, the Soviets produced more weapons than Germany, and they were more suitable to the fighting on the eastern front than their German counterparts.

Click to expand...

On their own, I do not believe they actually did...but with billions coming in as a result of lend-lease and the thousands of aircraft (P-39s, A-20s, etc) and trucks and tanks augmenting their own herculean production efforts, they ended up having the numbers in theater to 1st turn the tide, and then to prevail.

Anyhow, we have gotten far off topic in this thread.

I hope if you got the chance to read it, that you enjoyed the book. If not, it is available for all SD forum members as a free, full featured adobe eBook download at the following link:

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Jeff Head said:

They did, but under a more fascist economic model, while the social programs were far more socialist. But the industrialsts did not control the Nazis, they went along with them and then were in turn, afterward, controlled by them.

On their own, I do not believe they actually did...but with billions coming in as a result of lend-lease and the thousands of aircraft (P-39s, A-20s, etc) and trucks and tanks augmenting their own herculean production efforts, they ended up having the numbers in theater to 1st turn the tide, and then to prevail.

Anyhow, we have gotten far off topic in this thread.

I hope if you got the chance to read it, that you enjoyed the book. If not, it is available for all SD forum members as a free, full featured adobe eBook download at the following link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I don't want to go into a tangent about it... but Soviet Union most certainly did outproduce the faschists. Numbers speak for themselves, here is copy of a seminal work on the subject by the redoubtable colonel Glantz who would answer some of your doubts



By no means a Soviet apologist, he generally gave postive assessment of importance of lend lease, but here is his conclusion:

"Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements, while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France’s Atlantic beaches. Thus, while the Red Army shed bulk of Allied blood, it would have shed more blood for longer without Allied assistance."

Emphasis mine. There is also important details on actual breakdown on statistics. More recent scholarship which I cannot find links online merely improves the picture we have, and it is beyond reasonable doubt that Soviet Union on her own outproduced faschist by considerable margin.

Amongst modern historiography, it is beyond doubt that the faschist industry was extremely inefficient. To name but a few examples, they did not go into a full shift gearing until 1943, they produced CIVILIAN GOODS (such as sporting rifles) up to 1944 (!), and they kept doing limited production runs and prototypings of designs that took away resources that could be used to build hundreds more of older, proven designs.

And this is without going into the massive design, doctrinal and maintenance flaws of German war machines.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Troika said:

the ultimate result would probably have been the same....

Click to expand...

This individual is not completely sure himself. Neither am I. The German offensive between 1939 and 1943 speaks for itself and speaks to their production capabilities. After that time period, Allied bombing was equally responsible for their failings. That, along with lend-lease and certainly along with Russia's productive efforts all came together to make the difference.

I do not believe that any one of the three alone would have allowed Russia to prevail...but that is my opinion.

...and, as stated earlier, it is a tangent regarding the thread so I will just let that be my last word on it.

Thanks for the dialog.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Jeff Head said:

This individual is not completely sure himself. Neither am I. The German offensive between 1939 and 1943 speaks for itself and speaks to their production capabilities. After that time period, Allied bombing was equally responsible for their failings. That, along with lend-lease and certainly along with Russia's productive efforts all came together to make the difference.

I do not believe that any one of the three alone would have allowed Russia to prevail...but that is my opinion.

...and, as stated earlier, it is a tangent regarding the thread so I will just let that be my last word on it.

Thanks for the dialog.

Click to expand...

Nobody can be sure of historical possibilities, but it is the historical concensus that Nazi Germany basically can't win the war against the Soviet Union. Wester Allies intervention basically just sealed their fate. It isn't just Glantz. Any number of reputed Western scholars agreed. Anthony Beevor, Richard Overy (neither of them exactly friends of Soviet Union), Zimke, Erickson. That is historical concensus. To belittle Soviet effort as merely one amongst three... well, I would comment, but what I would say would probably get me banned.

But this is a tangent, and I'll stop.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Troika said:

Nobody can be sure of historical possibilities, but it is the historical concensus that Nazi Germany basically can't win the war against the Soviet Union. Wester Allies intervention basically just sealed their fate. It isn't just Glantz. Any number of reputed Western scholars agreed. Anthony Beevor, Richard Overy (neither of them exactly friends of Soviet Union), Zimke, Erickson. That is historical concensus. To belittle Soviet effort as merely one amongst three... well, I would comment, but what I would say would probably get me banned.

But this is a tangent, and I'll stop.

Click to expand...

Stalins long years of "taming his military" otherwise known as killing experienced officers seemingly at random and in large numbers to instill terror had the effect of making the Russian war machine quite ineffective against an opponent like the German army. If history has one consistent lesson its that very large and political military forces tend to loose vs proper non political professional armies. Without American assistance to tip the scales Germany probably could have beaten both Brittan and the Soviet Union taken together simply by virtue of the early war production Germany did while other powers "slept".(to say nothing of tech early tech development that kept Germany ahead in some areas through the entire war) It took considerable time to replace the leadership lost in Stalins Purges and its known historical fact that the Russian Winter may have killed more Germans in some war years then Russian military action did.

If any more evidence is needed you can point to tiny Finland who managed to stop the Soviets and bog them down in fighting so badly. In the end Finland only lost a measly 12% of if country to what was then the worlds LARGEST modern combined arms force by treaty when the original Soviet aim was to conquer the ENTIRE country. Its not an easy thing to stop a country with a Military as large as the Soviet Union's but a highly disciplined professional military can sometimes stop a massive horde of solders, especially those who are more afraid of their politial officers then they are of the enemy.

The whole school of thought that industrial warfare is decided by who has the most men and guns to throw away is only half right. The old Sun Tzu ideal about the psychological/deceptive aspect of warfare was still active even the in the "brute force instead of skill" late 20th century. Even if examples were fewer and farther between in that era then any other. Perhaps only WWI trench warfare was a pure unadulterated "I have more hardware and troops so I win" sort of affair. (At least among wars in the more technologically advanced regions)

Jeffs book however talks about the possibility of running out of guided weapons to fire based on fighting a lower quality but far more numerous enemy. Too bad no story time was given to the inherent tensions that we saw in RED STORM RISING between the military officers and their politicians. Some of the foreshadowing in JEFF's book tended to make me think their would me far more and far more interesting internal politial difficulties between politburo and its military. Always remember that stateism is a chronic state of unlimited gang rule and civil war not only between the government and its people but also between different factions of the government itself. While the GIR armies could have been welded together into one whole by simple religious fantasy I don't see Chinese military leaders following the Premiere submissively during the later war years in the book when things were definitely not going well for China as they were in the earlier "year books" of this Novel. If I can pinpoint a single weakness in the story it would be this one to be sure. (still not a major weakness as the story still reads very well and some interpersonal relationships had to sacrificed to take in a book of the scope that dwarfed the fighting we read in RED STORM RISING.) Jeff warts and all you did a wonderful job of this series!

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Without American assistance to tip the scales Germany probably could have beaten both Brittan and the Soviet Union taken together simply by virtue of the early war production Germany did while other powers "slept

Click to expand...

The Russians turned back the Germans from Moscow before foreign assistance took hold. After that it was only a matter of how many years it was going to take for the Russians to completely reduce Germany.

Raptoreyes said:

If any more evidence is needed you can point to tiny Finland who

Click to expand...

In WWII the Soviets had several strengths the did not have in the Winter War: relatively talented generals, motivation and from 1942 on access to lots of experienced soldiers. In the Winter War they had none of those because the officer corps was in the midst of purges, the war had no justification and the Red Army had not fought since the early 1920s. As you have said yourself ill-motivaited conscripts are often no match for more professional soldiers no matter what the numbers are; The Finnish Army was better led and trained and had the emotional advantage of defending their homeland. This example is not vaild to use against the Red Army in WWII because they had many of the he advantages that the Finnish had in the Winter War in WWII (defending their homeland, very competent generals, and in the later years access to more professional experienced soldiers). Your claims are somewhat applicable to the Red Army before 1942, but certainly not after.

Jeffs book however talks about the possibility of running out of guided weapons to fire based on fighting a lower quality but far more numerous enemy. Too bad no story time was given to the inherent tensions that we saw in RED STORM RISING between the military officers and their politicians. Some of the foreshadowing in JEFF's book tended to make me think their would me far more and far more interesting internal politial difficulties between politburo and its military. Always remember that stateism is a chronic state of unlimited gang rule and civil war not only between the government and its people but also between different factions of the government itself. While the GIR armies could have been welded together into one whole by simple religious fantasy I don't see Chinese military leaders following the Premiere submissively during the later war years in the book when things were definitely not going well for China as they were in the earlier "year books" of this Novel. If I can pinpoint a single weakness in the story it would be this one to be sure. (still not a major weakness as the story still reads very well and some interpersonal relationships had to sacrificed to take in a book of the scope that dwarfed the fighting we read in RED STORM RISING.) Jeff warts and all you did a wonderful job of this series!

Click to expand...

The Red Army never turned on the Communist Party in the USSR, even in the 1930s when the officer corps was being destroyed. Indeed the Army tried to maintain Communist rule even at the very end in 1991. The German Army wasn't even explicitly tied to the Nazi Party and they never turned on Hitler, even when it became obvious to all that to continue the war meant to destroy Germany. The PLA is even more closely tied to the CPC than the Red Army was to the Communist Party or (certainly) the German Army to the Nazi Party. I would go as far to say that the PLA is more closely tied to the CPC than any other two ruling military and political organization in the world (except the IRGC and Iranian ruling elite, and possibly a few others). So if the Red Army and the German Army didn't turn on their rulers, why would the PLA?

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Finn McCool said:

The Russians turned back the Germans from Moscow before foreign assistance took hold. After that it was only a matter of how many years it was going to take for the Russians to completely reduce Germany.

Click to expand...

That however was more a matter of the Russian Winter killing more Germans then Russian weapons in many of the colder war months... and Russian Winters even in this warming world are VERY VERY deadly...now go back to a time when global warming was not even slightly noticeable. Russia is litrally a countrey where the oil and fuel will frease in the engine minuets after you turn it off if your foolish enough to do so outside of a heated shed.

In WWII the Soviets had several strengths the did not have in the Winter War: relatively talented generals, motivation and from 1942 on access to lots of experienced soldiers. In the Winter War they had none of those because the officer corps was in the midst of purges, the war had no justification and the Red Army had not fought since the early 1920s. As you have said yourself ill-motivaited conscripts are often no match for more professional soldiers no matter what the numbers are; The Finnish Army was better led and trained and had the emotional advantage of defending their homeland. This example is not vaild to use against the Red Army in WWII because they had many of the he advantages that the Finnish had in the Winter War in WWII (defending their homeland, very competent generals, and in the later years access to more professional experienced soldiers). Your claims are somewhat applicable to the Red Army before 1942, but certainly not after.

Click to expand...

Stalins military was still feeling the effects of his purges will into 1942. Commanding generals may have been available but officers of smaller sized units and small unit combat were a hard thing to find in good quality and numbers. The soviets were pushing officers into positions they were unqualified for in the middle ranks for quite some time.

The Winter war did not happen very long before the Germans attacked Russia. It takes many years to rebuild an officer corps decimated in a fiendish purge and Russia was not even close to rebuilding when German army units crossed the Russian border. Fortunately the Russian Winter and the lack of Warm winter clothes the German army took with them proved decisive. If you want you could with ease dig up footage of German Solders wearing civilian warm weather gear because the German army did not have sufficient cold weather gear from its own stores. The Nazis had to ask the German populace for donations of warm weather gear.

I guess the Germans figured they would have "European Russia" passivfied before winter hit. Too confident I guess. Or perhaps they figured the Russian winter would be no worse then the German winter. Either way the Germans screwed them selfs more then the Red Army did early on.

The Red Army never turned on the Communist Party in the USSR, even in the 1930s when the officer corps was being destroyed. Indeed the Army tried to maintain Communist rule even at the very end in 1991. The German Army wasn't even explicitly tied to the Nazi Party and they never turned on Hitler, even when it became obvious to all that to continue the war meant to destroy Germany. The PLA is even more closely tied to the CPC than the Red Army was to the Communist Party or (certainly) the German Army to the Nazi Party. I would go as far to say that the PLA is more closely tied to the CPC than any other two ruling military and political organization in the world (except the IRGC and Iranian ruling elite, and possibly a few others). So if the Red Army and the German Army didn't turn on their rulers, why would the PLA?

Click to expand...

Actually Von Stoffinburg (yes his name is probably miss spelled) and Erwin Romell (the desert fox and probably also mis spelled) actually helped plan the planting of the bomb that nearly killed Hitler himself (but for the unfortunate table leg that allowed him to survive the blast almost untouched. For a few days the conspirators nearly ceased control over Germany but forgot to cut Joseph Gerbils phone line and failed to kill Hitler so the plot folded and all who took part were killed.

I can't believe you forgot about that. A portion of the German army did rebel against Hitler even if it was only a few of the higher officers. Best of all it almost worked!

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Raptoreyes said:

Either way the Germans screwed them selfs more then the Red Army did early on.

Click to expand...

==I wouldn't say so, over 800,000 German soldiers were killed on the Eastern front during the 18 month from Barbarossa to right before Operation Uranus, the most difficult period during the war, compare to the 740,000 killed in western Europe, Scandinavia, North Africa, Italy, and Balkans put together over the entire war.