PDA

View Full Version : The role of the USSR in World War II



ivica78
12-19-2013, 03:14 PM
I recently learned the fact that many people do not understand what was the real role of the Soviet Union during World War II. For me, as, I hope, for you it is no secret that the role Soviet Union was not just big, it was a huge. Main allies, the U.S. and Britain, were amazed by abilities of the Soviet army. However, in this regard, I would like to draw a parallel with the present. In particular, the fact that people of the Western world, probably forgot that once Roosevelt and Churchill, and numerous media trumpeted to the world that the only Soviet helped to rid the world from the fascist yoke. I can not believe that now, in the age of technology, many people, even those who have access to the Internet, do not know what actually happend in time of the most terrible war of humanity. Soviet soldiers heroically turned the tide of the war, went on the offensive and hoisted the flag on the roof of the Reichstag. Heroism and sacrifice - things you must know and respect. In addition to my words i would like to quote William Rosenberg, professor of University Of Michigan: "Americans have never understood – and don’t understand now – the role of the Soviet Union in WWII. First of all for Americans the world begins with Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941). But by that time Germans have already reached Moscow. And the second notable event in the War (July 6, 1944) Battle of Normandy. And almost no one remembers that by that time the USSR have already freed its own territory and rushed thru East Europe. Americans just don’t understand the importance of that."

Chunky
12-19-2013, 04:55 PM
They didn't do it on their own

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.convoyweb.org.uk%2Frussian%2F&ei=VXizUvmlJtLxhQev04DoCw&usg=AFQjCNHm492Vsuz874hQVN00ss9fdf5vwA

ivica78
12-19-2013, 06:30 PM
They didn't do it on their own

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.convoyweb.org.uk%2Frussian%2F&ei=VXizUvmlJtLxhQev04DoCw&usg=AFQjCNHm492Vsuz874hQVN00ss9fdf5vwA

I agree with your opinion. However, for three years , from 1941 to 1944, when the Anglo-American troops with great difficulty advancing through North Africa to Italy , the Soviet Union was the only force opposing the Third Reich ( more than half of all troops were concentrated in the battles with the Russian) . Battle of Stalingrad in full measure showed the scale of the fight on the territory of the Union . In the battle of El Alemán in 1942, when Churchill insisted on the " beginning of the end ", the British suffered losses of fifty thousand . For comparison, in the Battle of Stalingrad fell entire sixth army Paulus.

Ardee
12-19-2013, 10:44 PM
ivica78, you seem to be taking a very simplistic black-or-white approach. I think most well-educated people - and certainly those with a historical interest in the era - are aware of role played by the USSR. They know why that role was downplayed by the West after the War. We all know History also tends to be told with eye centered on the nation doing the telling: the US will emphasize its role, just as the former USSR will emphasize their Great Patriotic War.

Did the Soviets shed and spill the most blood during the war? Anyone with access to the Internet can answer that. Do they bother to look, or even feel curiosity? Certainly not if they already know the answer from a childhood full of Cold War-era war films, and a national history that glorifies that nation's sacrifice and downplays that of others.

Could the Soviets have won without the West? Could the West have won without the Soviets? Where the Germans defeated the moment Britain and France declared war? When they invaded the USSR? The moment the US entered the war? Did Germany lack the population base to control what it conquered, making its eventual collapse inevitable? Would Germany have won if it did X, Y, or Z?

The war was won together by the Allies, East and West, including the Occupied. Leave it at that, or else go take a course on Chaos Theory. Trying to name one nation or block of nations as the "responsible" party is foolish and ignores the interplay of an incredible number of variables and inter-related events that resulted in the actual outcome. JMHO.

leccy
12-20-2013, 06:00 AM
I recently learned the fact that many people do not understand what was the real role of the Soviet Union during World War II. For me, as, I hope, for you it is no secret that the role Soviet Union was not just big, it was a huge. Main allies, the U.S. and Britain, were amazed by abilities of the Soviet army.

However, in this regard, I would like to draw a parallel with the present. In particular, the fact that people of the Western world, probably forgot that once Roosevelt and Churchill, and numerous media trumpeted to the world that the only Soviet helped to rid the world from the fascist yoke. I can not believe that now, in the age of technology, many people, even those who have access to the Internet, do not know what actually happend in time of the most terrible war of humanity. Soviet soldiers heroically turned the tide of the war, went on the offensive and hoisted the flag on the roof of the Reichstag. Heroism and sacrifice - things you must know and respect. In addition to my words i would like to quote William Rosenberg, professor of University Of Michigan: "Americans have never understood – and don’t understand now – the role of the Soviet Union in WWII.

First of all for Americans the world begins with Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941). But by that time Germans have already reached Moscow. And the second notable event in the War (July 6, 1944) Battle of Normandy. And almost no one remembers that by that time the USSR have already freed its own territory and rushed thru East Europe. Americans just don’t understand the importance of that."

The US quite often neglect thoughts that any nation helped - not just the Soviet Union

Germans were still in Soviet territory on June 22nd 1944 when Bagration was launched, even after Bagration the whole of the Soviet Union was still not free from Axis forces.

Western leaders admitted that the Soviets made a huge contribution to final victory, something Stalin did only when it suited and not after 1945 when it was played up as a great Soviet victory despite the West wanting to weaken the USSR (thoughts held by westerners on why the Soviets signed a peace treaty with the Germans and attacked poland as well in 1939 - let the Germans and the West fight it out so they could pick up the pieces)


I agree with your opinion. However, for three years , from 1941 to 1944, when the Anglo-American troops with great difficulty advancing through North Africa to Italy , the Soviet Union was the only force opposing the Third Reich ( more than half of all troops were concentrated in the battles with the Russian) . Battle of Stalingrad in full measure showed the scale of the fight on the territory of the Union . In the battle of El Alemán in 1942, when Churchill insisted on the " beginning of the end ", the British suffered losses of fifty thousand . For comparison, in the Battle of Stalingrad fell entire sixth army Paulus.


Oh thats news to the British who were fighting the Axis (not just the Germans by the way) from Sept 1939 to May 1945 while the Soviet Union assisted the Germans in carving up Poland in 1939 - were the aggressor in Finland and the Baltic states as well then only joined in fighting the Axis after Germany led the way with Rumania, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and numerous peoples from other nations (conscripts and volunteers) in attacking Soviet troops in 1941.

Many also don't know that the peace treaty made between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939 enabled Hitler to launch the actual fighting part of his attempt to conquer Europe (With Poland and the Baltic states placed under various spheres of influence and occupation).

El Alemein not sure what you saying there - you seem to be comparing British Commonwealth and sponsored forces casualties which was a victory (I assume you mean the 2nd battle as well) with the Axis losses in Stalingrad which was a loss for the Axis?

You could say that 6th June 1944 overshadows the shattering of Axis forces on the eastern front a couple of days later on June 22nd 1944 when Bagration was launched.

Many in the former Soviet Union completely neglect any thought for the other allies fighting the Axis - (From Dec 1941 the Western Nations were also fighting Japan and on very extended sea lanes while the Soviet Union was fighting just the European Axis forces on contracting internal land lines).

Lend lease is also deemed to have been of no importance at all in the speed of the Soviet recovery and advance.

Its not just people in the west (and many internet sources are wrong or have agendas) that do not understand or appreciate other nations and their contributions.

Chunky
12-21-2013, 08:44 AM
Interesting post this, There was a possibility at one time that the Russians and the Germans were going to be allies,

Always wondered, did the Russians fight the Germans as our Allies, or did they just fight the Germans, just thinking, weren't the Polish on our side in WW2, as this would mean if the Russians were our Allies, the Polish also fought against Germany with us, the how the hell did this happen


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historylearningsite.co.uk%2Fk atyn_wood_massacre.htm&ei=LaS1UpSlGMWThQf4ooH4DA&usg=AFQjCNFURjyjvFlG6kXpl_QQ8pIeJS_uaA&bvm=bv.58187178,d.ZG4

Rising Sun*
12-21-2013, 09:05 AM
The US quite often neglect thoughts that any nation helped - not just the Soviet Union

Germans were still in Soviet territory on June 22nd 1944 when Bagration was launched, even after Bagration the whole of the Soviet Union was still not free from Axis forces.

Western leaders admitted that the Soviets made a huge contribution to final victory, something Stalin did only when it suited and not after 1945 when it was played up as a great Soviet victory despite the West wanting to weaken the USSR (thoughts held by westerners on why the Soviets signed a peace treaty with the Germans and attacked poland as well in 1939 - let the Germans and the West fight it out so they could pick up the pieces)




Oh thats news to the British who were fighting the Axis (not just the Germans by the way) from Sept 1939 to May 1945 while the Soviet Union assisted the Germans in carving up Poland in 1939 - were the aggressor in Finland and the Baltic states as well then only joined in fighting the Axis after Germany led the way with Rumania, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and numerous peoples from other nations (conscripts and volunteers) in attacking Soviet troops in 1941.

Many also don't know that the peace treaty made between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939 enabled Hitler to launch the actual fighting part of his attempt to conquer Europe (With Poland and the Baltic states placed under various spheres of influence and occupation).

El Alemein not sure what you saying there - you seem to be comparing British Commonwealth and sponsored forces casualties which was a victory (I assume you mean the 2nd battle as well) with the Axis losses in Stalingrad which was a loss for the Axis?

You could say that 6th June 1944 overshadows the shattering of Axis forces on the eastern front a couple of days later on June 22nd 1944 when Bagration was launched.

Many in the former Soviet Union completely neglect any thought for the other allies fighting the Axis - (From Dec 1941 the Western Nations were also fighting Japan and on very extended sea lanes while the Soviet Union was fighting just the European Axis forces on contracting internal land lines).

Lend lease is also deemed to have been of no importance at all in the speed of the Soviet recovery and advance.

Its not just people in the west (and many internet sources are wrong or have agendas) that do not understand or appreciate other nations and their contributions.

Very nice and accurate summation of the various conflicting aspects of the Soviet contribution to its pro-Nazi forerunner of and later anti-Nazi engagement in WWII, as well as Britain and its Commonwealth forces standing alone against Germany for the first couple of years of the war while the Soviets and Americans who later were critical to Hitler's defeat stood, at best, on the sidelines.

burp
12-22-2013, 07:43 AM
I'm not to much sure that, like Britain, Russia without help from USA would had the same influence on WW II.
For example, without the (about) 4800 P-39 Aircobra or without the 50000 Jeep Willys the army of Soviet Union will had less weapon systems, with heavy influences in the battles.

Chunky
01-02-2014, 04:12 PM
I don't believe the Russian's would have beaten the German army, without the help of the Merchant Navy, and the cost in doing so was high.




http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-convoy-pq-17.htm

Chunky
01-03-2014, 05:06 PM
[QUOTE=Chunky;190976]Interesting post this, There was a possibility at one time that the Russians and the Germans were going to be allies,

Always wondered, did the Russians fight the Germans as our Allies, or did they just fight the Germans, just thinking, weren't the Polish on our side in WW2, as this would mean if the Russians were our Allies, the Polish also fought against Germany with us, the how the hell did this happen

Through research, I found my own answer to "how the hell did this happen:

In spite of all the denials by Moscow there is no doubt whatsoever today about the origins of the massacre, which was ordered by Stalin in 1940 in order to deprive Poland of its military and civilian elite. At the time, the discovery of Katyn only confirmed the suspicions of the Polish government in exile in London, which had been unable to obtain from the Kremlin the slightest information about the 15.000 Officers who had been taken prisoner and had vanished in the USSR since 1939

6897

leccy
01-05-2014, 06:12 AM
The politics of Stalins Soviet Union and Hitlers Nazi Germany were very changeable - in fact many countries changed alliegencies during WW2

Not comprehensive or in any particular order

Britain and France were going to help Finland in 1939 against the Soviet Union

Soviet Union and Germany pact to carve up Poland and set spheres of influence (baltic States to be part of Soviet Union)

Germany along with Romania, Hungary, Slovak and volunteers or conscripts from other nations attack Soviet Union

Parts of Romania ceeded to Bulgaria, Hungary and the Soviet Union (deals brokered by Germany and Italy with Soviet Union)

Czechoslovakia part annexed, Slovak state set up allied to the Axis, rest of Czech Rebublic annexed (Poland also took part in this action)

Finland fought Soviets and later Germans (under pressure from Soviets)

Romania, Bulgaria, Italy all changed sides not just surrendered

Large numbers of former POW's along with volunteers from occupied nations (and some from outside the Axis, not forgetting those deemed to be german in occupied areas who suddenly found themselves eligible for conscription) fought for the Axis (some later changing sides to try and atone for 'sins').

Former Yugoslavia local forces - all sides fought all sides, often changing aliegence for short periods as they had more axes to grind amongst themselves than the Axis.

British Commonwealth, Free French and US forces fought Vichy French Forces on several occasions.

Rising Sun*
01-05-2014, 07:51 AM
British Commonwealth, Free French and US forces fought Vichy French Forces on several occasions.

True, and they were some of the most bitter engagements in the war because of the complex distinction between obedience to orders and sympathy for the Allies as far as some of the Vichy French were concerned, and especially in the two main naval engagements which engendered a lot of bitterness in some French quarters against the British.

However, the Vichy government wasn't the French government which went into the war, and was faced with a different set of problems and necessities in defeat. Which was a problem for other European, and Asian, governments as the tide of war changed local circumstances.

The only nations which were constant for the whole war on the Allied side were Britain and most of its Commonwealth (primarily dominion) forces, while the Germans and Japanese were the only ones constant on the Axis side.

Ardee
01-06-2014, 11:37 PM
The only nations which were constant for the whole war on the Allied side were Britain and most of its Commonwealth (primarily dominion) forces, while the Germans and Japanese were the only ones constant on the Axis side.

The temptation to quibble! How are you defining nations? Defining the war? Defining sides? Well, one could say Poland was on the side of the Allies for the whole war (resistance forces, home army, expatriated armies - or like Stalin suggested, did Poland cease to exist?). Or you could say they helped the Germans carve up Czechoslovakia (but that was technically before the war)...does that make them temporarily Axis? The USA was clearly on the side of the Allies even before it "entered" the war...remember the Rueben James? You could say China was with the Allies for the whole war -- except initially the Germans were helping them with their war against Japan. And then there was the Soviet-backed Chinese Communists fighting the Chinese KMT backed by the Western Allies...maybe they both could be counted as Allies? The warlords kind of muddy the pot, but what really counts as a government? What about Greece -- originally with what some call a fascist government, attacked by the Italians and Germans...and defended by the UK. Manchukuo was a Japanese Ally the whole period of its existence (1931-45). Or are countries like Greece, Holland, Norway, Belgium and the rest considered to have started out as neutral, and therefore not as Allies for the whole war. But then, some Belgian units fired on British and French forces in the opening hours of the German invasion. How do you treat that? For that matter, didn't forces in the Belgian Congo continue fighting Germans even after Belgium's fall? Where does Thailand fit? Ethiopia? Or what about....

Sorry. Partly I'm having fun (or being a pain), partly I'm reacting to absolute language, and partly pointing out the whole situation was a mess that defies simple statements, and that you could argue almost anything.

leccy
01-07-2014, 05:51 AM
Lol Ardee thats why my post was not comprehensive, trying to sort out the tangle of which nation actually did what is difficult.

Generally it seems they are labelled as Axis or Allies purely on the amount of time they spent supporting the major partner. Discretions prior to and at the start are overlooked as long as the contribution was greater later.

You also got those that never took an active part but had definite leanings towards one or the other of the major nations.

383man
01-10-2014, 12:27 AM
You know I keep hearing the people in the US dont understand how much the USSR did and how they fought such large battles on the Eastern front. There are some things to remember many of which have already been mentioned like the USSR attacking Poland when Hitler did and attacking Finland. And as was stated France and Britian were making plans to help Finland. It seems the USSR only became on the side of the Allies after Hitler tore into them and they even made some Polish troops fight for them but look at what they did to Poland after the war. Sure I know how much the USSR did but so did other countries. Many forget England was fighting the Germans since 1939 and for a while they were fighting Germany on their own. Hitler thought they would settle for a peace with him after France fell but they did not as Churchill knew how evil Hitler was. And I here so many talk about the huge casualties the USSR suffered which is true but they sure dont regard life like the US and Britian do. Many times I hear the Soviet troops were ordered to go right thru minefields as they knew they had alot of troops and did not seem to regaurd their lifes as much as other nations. Heck the US public was sick to have almost 6000 of their boys die at Iwo Jima and the US knew they had to keep casualties as low as possible and thats how they fought many battles trying to keep Amercan boys alive. It just seems to me the Soviet generals did not care how many died as look at Zukov at Berlin. He threw many troops right at the Germans trying to be sure he got to Berlin before the other Soviet general. It seems the Soviets could have fought trying to take less casualties but it looks like they did not care ?? And last so many say of the 6 million Red army troops on the eastern front and how many of their battles had a million men or more just on the Soviet side which is true. Now the US had just over 3 million army troops in Europe and about 500,000 in the Mediteranen and 1.5 miillion army troops in the Pacific. Now the total US troops oversea's was about 7.6 million as the army had just over 5 million troops oversea's and the Navy and Marines had about 2.6 million which almost all of them were in the Pacific. The Red army did have alot more troops fighting Germany then anyone but you have to remember the US had their troops all over the Pacific and Europe not just all on one front. Of the 3 million in western Europe about 2.3 million were ground troops and about 1.6 million of them were the front line combat troops and the other 700'000 were service troops which some of them also saw some combat. Just over 400'000 were army air force troops and the other 300'000 were replacements , overhead , patients and staff. The British did all they could but they were just running out of man power. I know Kursk was a large battle on the eastern front and I believe both sides had 2.3 million troops comitted ? 900,000 German and 1.4 million Soviet troops. As far as I know the Battle of the Bulge was the largest on the western front and it had over 1 million comitted to the fight before it was over as the US had about 610,000 troops in the battle and Germany commited about 500,000 before it was over. OK I blabbed enough. Really all the allies fought hard and used what they had and as was stated the ALLIES won the war not one or the other but all of them. Ron

Wittmann
07-18-2014, 12:33 AM
I wont debate the fact the that the USSR had an enormous role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, I will debate that Russia alone
could have won WW2 past a stalemate at best, with Germany minus the UK, US and other allies. The lend lease act, constant bombing over Nazi Germany and Europe, along with naval domination, air domination and keeping the pressure on Empire of Japan until its final defeat. I'm not trying to sell the Russians short, but Stalin's purge of military years earlier was painfully obvious in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa.

I just don't see one country being able to defeat the Axis in all theaters during WW2, the UK did put up one hell of a fight and kept Victory possible.

If you were to give Germany full armament production uninterrupted by Allied Bombing and all the oil resources of the Middle East , that would have been pretty scary even before you talk of Japan and Italy being unencumbered . By 1943 the United States had a larger Navy than all of the combatants combined. Not only did the Allies own the water, they also owned the air at very high cost of men and planes that no other countries at the time could produce, like the heavy bombers Lancaster and b-29 for example. That's all before you discuss the new weapons Hitler may have acquired if the war had gone on past 1945.

I know that the shear numbers of men loss is often used as an argument for Russia alone winning war and the Western Allies with fewer causalities didn't provide that much help. I'm just wondering how training, tactics' supplies, support and command compared between the combatants of WW2'.

Rising Sun*
07-18-2014, 08:52 AM
I just don't see one country being able to defeat the Axis in all theaters during WW2, the UK did put up one hell of a fight and kept Victory possible.

I agree that without the combined effort of all the Allies it is most unlikely that the Axis would have been defeated in all, or even most, theatres.

Trying to identify the most important combatant on either side is about as useful as identifying the ten best movies, songs etc of all time. It’s fun debating it, but in the end there is no clear winner.

However, I'd suggest that on the Allied side the most important combatant was Britain and its Commonwealth to the end of 1941, who fought alone against Germany and Italy for the first couple of years of the war. If Britain had surrendered, which it could well have done in the early stages and later but for Churchill, Germany and Italy would have secured their gains; America would have been denied Britain as a springboard into Europe; the USSR would not have had Britain to distract Germany and divert some of its forces from the Russian front for the crucial second half of 1941; America, Britain and British Commonwealth forces would not have had North Africa secured to launch the Sicily and Italy campaigns which further diverted German forces from the eastern front; and Germany and Italy would have reigned supreme in Western Europe and North Africa, controlling the Mediterranean and Suez Canal with the ability to push through the Canal to the Indian Ocean etc in support of Japan, with no prospect of being dislodged by the Soviets. Worse, once Japan entered the war, Germany's and Japan's drives to the Iraq and Persian oilfields would have been unimpeded, which would have given those oil-starved powers plenty of oil to continue their wars.

After that, it becomes impossible to predict the result, but America's war as the only combatant fighting both Japan and Germany would have been very different to the war it actually fought with Britain holding much of the German fleet in the north Atlantic and the Italian fleet in the Mediterranean. America's ability to supply the USSR in the face of Germany free to roam the Atlantic, and without Britain as a base, would have been severely reduced.

I have little doubt that America could and would have defeated Japan, and probably a lot more efficiently than it actually did while having to apply most of its forces and resources to the European war, but where would victory over Japan leave America with every major country outside north and south America (but probably excluding Argentina), surrendered to, occupied by, or aligned with Germany and Italy?

The end result, as in all wars, would sooner or later have been American commercial agreements with the European Axis powers to trade for mutual profit. Which is pretty much what happened after the real WWII, except Germany and Japan had to be largely destroyed before they could get the economic riches they sought unsuccessfully to gain by arms, and the Allies had to suffer greatly to confer those riches on the Axis powers. And none suffered more than Britain so far as economic loss was concerned, as it pretty much destroyed itself and lost its Empire in standing against the Axis.

JR*
07-18-2014, 10:36 AM
Interesting comments, RS*. One point - I am reminded of a cartoon I saw, quite some years ago, featuring a prosperous-looking German capitalist and a diminutive (but prosperous-looking) Japanese capitalist, walking past a vibrant industrial area. The German says to the Japanese, "Isn't it strange that we had to lose the war to do so well !". I think it may have been in "The Economist", before the Japanese crash. Pity I can't find it. Best regards, JR.

Rising Sun*
07-18-2014, 11:19 AM
Interesting comments, RS*. One point - I am reminded of a cartoon I saw, quite some years ago, featuring a prosperous-looking German capitalist and a diminutive (but prosperous-looking) Japanese capitalist, walking past a vibrant industrial area. The German says to the Japanese, "Isn't it strange that we had to lose the war to do so well !". I think it may have been in "The Economist", before the Japanese crash. Pity I can't find it. Best regards, JR.

I was, as I think you know, being somewhat simplistic in my comments which support that cartoon.

The cartoon certainly represents the economic result of WWII.

But in contemporary Axis thought and ambition WWII was much more an exercise in gaining colonies to exploit (and a British one in keeping them), which was one of the drivers of Germany's WWI as a lately formed but powerful nation which had missed out on the colonial spoils of its major European neighbours and Britain.

Japan as an Ally in WWI did considerably better than enemy Germany as a lately emerged nation seeking colonial territory, gaining Pacific islands which would be critical to Japan's later attempt at colonial expansion in WWII through its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and the gruelling assaults on those islands by the Allies, almost exclusively Americans.

It's a measure of how much things changed within a short time that the world went from the colonial exploitation of much of Africa and Asia by European powers which was the norm before WWII to independent, albeit not always successful, nations in subsequent decades.

That was the last thing Japan intended in Asia, where its proclaimed support for independence in the countries it occupied was superficial propaganda but, oddly enough, Japan's Pacific and China wars succeeded in displacing the various European powers which had been exploiting those areas.

Unintentionally, Japan's defeat succeeded in freeing the same areas from Japanese colonial exploitation.

Anyone opposed to colonialism has to approve of Japan's unintended success in permanently liberating vast swathes of Asia and allowing self-determination in those nations, because it would not have happened without Japan's intended colonial expansion.

Wittmann
08-08-2014, 12:13 AM
This is an interesting link that talks of England's support of Russia early WW2.

http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

gumalangi
01-14-2015, 06:42 PM
However, I'd suggest that on the Allied side the most important combatant was Britain and its Commonwealth to the end of 1941, who fought alone against Germany and Italy for the first couple of years of the war.

Ou lala,. ze britain fight alone for ze ferst couple of yew,. err Monsieur RS ;)?,.
if not for the channel,. "the British would soon have 'its neck wrung like a chicken' by the Germans" :)

dont debate me, i just recollecting some comments few years back when reading "prelude to war, pony war and the fall of low countries"

JR*
01-15-2015, 10:06 AM
What was it that Stalin said in the matter - "Britain gave time; America gave money; Russia gave blood" ? Something to be said for that. As regards the question of whether Britain would have been defeated by Germany had the English Channel not been there ... this is just too "what-iffy" for me. So many variables on the "road not taken". To mention just one - what if the bulk of the British and northern French armies had retreated, across a "dry" Channel, with the bulk of their equipment, and faced off against a Wehrmacht exhausted by its initial thrust, and also menaced by substantial (if less than first class) French forces to the south ? Of course, in asking this question, one also has to ask how French politics would have developed in such a scenario; would Pétain and his reactionary and functionalist friends, in such circumstances, have been able to effect the coup that ended the Third Republic ? And how would the Soviets have reacted if the Germans found themselves in difficulties in the united Anglo-French land mass ? And so on - too many questions. And this is without going near the question of how English and French history would have developed if there had been no Channel ? Thousands upon thousands of questions, there. I thin I should stick to actual History ... Yours from the White Cliffs of Dover, JR.

leccy
01-15-2015, 06:45 PM
Would britain have been so ill prepared with out the Channel - it separated Britain from the european mainland, helped cement Britain as a naval power and its Empire at the time.

With no thoughts of entering a land war in Europe the Army was kept for colonial police action and not a major war - would that be so if Britain was connected by a land bridge

but if you start with Britain loses against Germany with no channel you have to go back and re-write history - Napoleon would possibly have been successful - Romans even may have invaded much earlier et etc - cant just pick one thing unless you assuming the German Forces could do a Moses on the Channel.

stalin
01-22-2015, 03:34 AM
What was it that Stalin said in the matter - "Britain gave time; America gave money; Russia gave blood" ?

he did never say that.

stalin
01-22-2015, 03:53 AM
the East Front was the main WWII front where the biggest part of Nazi Germany troops was amassed and largest & most decisive battles ever in the history of mankind fought, so it was the USSR that won this war, hands down.

Rising Sun*
01-22-2015, 07:52 AM
the East Front was the main WWII front where the biggest part of Nazi Germany troops was amassed and largest & most decisive battles ever in the history of mankind fought, so it was the USSR that won this war, hands down.

All by itself?

stalin
01-22-2015, 04:06 PM
All by itself?

all by itself.

Rising Sun*
01-23-2015, 03:20 AM
all by itself.

Pity someone didn't tell Stalin that, as he was continually pressing the Western allies to open a western front and deliver more and more armaments etc to the USSR from mid-1941 when the USSR officially entered the war.

Presumably it was Soviet troops, airmen and sailors cunningly disguised as British Commonwealth forces who fought the Nazis alone to mid-1941 while the USSR cleverly appeared to be at peace with Germany pursuant to their non-aggression treaty. This is a major revelation to historians. You could make a lot of money writing a book revealing this previously unknown aspect of the war.

Also a pity someone didn't tell the Western allies that they weren't needed, which would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives among the Western allies' forces on pointless activities such as the Murmansk run and bombing Germany and other Axis targets and the Italian and North African campaigns and D Day onwards, along with needless deaths of German, Italian, French and other civilians along with German and Italian armed forces in these pointless activities by the Western allies.

You could make even more money showing how the USSR defeated Japan all by itself, without committing any forces to combat against Japan until the last few days of the Pacific War stupidly fought by the US and other Western Allies from December 1941 without realising that the USSR had it all under control by avoiding combat with Japan while the rest of the world thought that the USSR was flat out fighting Germany from mid 1941 until Germany was defeated.

stalin
01-23-2015, 08:32 AM
Pity someone didn't tell Stalin that, as he was continually pressing the Western allies to open a western front and deliver more and more armaments etc to the USSR from mid-1941

'continuously pressing'? Stalin had never done it like that; and the West Front was opened only in 1944 - a bit too late, isn't it?


You could make even more money showing how the USSR defeated Japan all by itself

was Japan powerful enough to even think of launching an invasion using its infantry against the USSR ?

Rising Sun*
01-23-2015, 09:08 AM
'continuously pressing'? Stalin had never done it like that; and the West Front was opened only in 1944 - a bit too late, isn't it?

It was certainly Stalin's view that the Western Front in 1944 was far too late.

He was already moaning about the absence of a second front as early as November 1941, barely a few months into his war with Germany. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/41937421 See if you can find Britain moaning about the USSR not opening up a second front 1939 to mid-1941.

Stalin sent Molotov to Washington in May 1942 to encourage the Americans and Britain to open a western front in 1942 to draw off about 40 German divisions.

Stalin spent the next couple of years pressing the Western allies to open up a second front, and in other respects seeking their assistance such as requesting bombing raids on German targets to assist Soviet troop movements.

You're out of your depth with your ill-informed assertions about how the USSR won the war by fighting in only four of the six years of WWII in only the eastern European land theatre. There was a bit of fighting going on elsewhere, not to mention some rather significant logistical matters which also exceeded Soviet production which was conveniently limited to that land war while the rest of the Allies had to fight on land, sea and air around the rest of the planet.


was Japan powerful enough to even think of launching an invasion using its infantry against the USSR ?

What does this have to do with the defeat of Japan by the glorious forces of the USSR in a few days of battle at the end of what the Western Allies thought was the Pacific War?

You assert that the USSR won WWII all by itself.

Japan attacking the USSR is irrelevant as you say that the USSR won WWII all by itself.

By the way, could you explain why there weren't any Soviet occupation forces in Japan to cement the magnificent Soviet victory, all by itself, over Japan?

Also, why were the glorious forces of the workers' paradise conspicuous by their absence in North Africa, Malta, Sicily, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland and so on as the USSR won the war all by itself?

stalin
01-23-2015, 10:03 AM
He was already moaning about the absence of a second front as early as November 1941, barely a few months into his war with Germany. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/41937421

'moaning'?.. the article shows he only tried to justify himself, far from moaning.


Stalin sent Molotov to Washington in May 1942 to encourage the Americans and Britain to open a western front in 1942 to draw off about 40 German divisions. Stalin spent the next couple of years pressing the Western allies to open up a second front

while the Red Army alone successfully fought the Wehrmacht on the East Front.


Japan attacking the USSR is irrelevant as you say that the USSR won WWII all by itself.

how could they attack since they didn't have enough infantry men for that?


could you explain why there weren't any Soviet occupation forces in Japan to cement the magnificent Soviet victory, all by itself, over Japan?

The Kuril Islands - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands , Sakhalin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin

Nickdfresh
01-24-2015, 05:50 AM
'continuously pressing'? Stalin had never done it like that; and the West Front was opened only in 1944 - a bit too late, isn't it?

Em no, the West front was opened in 1939, when Stalin was still helping Hitler invade other nations. One could just as easily argue that the Poles and French provided much assistance to the Soviet Union by wearing down the Luftwaffe (most notably) via attrition and exhausting the crews. This had a real, lasting impact well into 1942...


was Japan powerful enough to even think of launching an invasion using its infantry against the USSR ?

In conjunction with Barbarossa, they could have caused significant difficulties. Although China had already sapped much of Japans power. The Western armies may never have been drawn back to defend Moscow...

Nickdfresh
01-24-2015, 05:56 AM
A rational historian would also be forced to conclude that the massive strategic air war over Western Europe was in itself a front soaking up large German resources in technical endeavors that go beyond production of relatively simple machines such as trucks and armor and sapped Luftwaffe strength in the East considerably...

Nickdfresh
01-24-2015, 05:59 AM
...

while the Red Army alone successfully fought the Wehrmacht on the East Front.

What about the Red Air Force and Navy?

The Red Army also nearly lost the battle early on - mainly due to the idiotic paranoid tendencies of Marshall Stalin...



how could they attack since they didn't have enough infantry men for that?



The Kuril Islands - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands , Sakhalin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin

They wouldn't need all that many to significantly tie down Soviet Western armies, and perhaps Moscow falls and Stalin pisses himself again like he did in the opening days?

stalin
01-24-2015, 09:05 AM
the West front was opened in 1939

to call that a front would be a gross exaggeration. 1944 did look like it, but certainly not 1939.


One could just as easily argue that the Poles and French provided much assistance to the Soviet Union by wearing down the Luftwaffe

only moral support... it is obvious neither French or Poles were up to do fighting, not to mention fighting the Luftwaffe.


In conjunction with Barbarossa, they could have caused significant difficulties.

no, Japan did not have enough manpower to conduct a proper invasion.


A rational historian would also be forced to conclude that the massive strategic air war over Western Europe was in itself a front soaking up large German resources

the WWII was an infantry war, so air and naval forces were only a minor contribution.


What about the Red Air Force and Navy?

the WWII was a war conducted on land, that's where the major military forces clashed.


The Red Army also nearly lost the battle early on - mainly due to the idiotic paranoid tendencies of Marshall Stalin

paranoid Stalin was not; countries can't be ruled by paranoids.


They wouldn't need all that many to significantly tie down Soviet Western armies

still it would need significantly more than Japan could field at the moment.


and perhaps Moscow falls and Stalin pisses himself again like he did in the opening days?

and how do you know? have any evidence?

Rising Sun*
01-24-2015, 09:22 AM
'moaning'?.. the article shows he only tried to justify himself, far from moaning.

Why would Stalin want a second front when the USSR won WWII all by itself?

Rising Sun*
01-24-2015, 09:26 AM
the WWII was an infantry war, so air and naval forces were only a minor contribution.

the WWII was a war conducted on land, that's where the major military forces clashed.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol::lol:

ROFLMAO ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is a contender for the all time most ignorant and stupid statement on any military forum, ever.

Rising Sun*
01-24-2015, 09:31 AM
paranoid Stalin was not; countries can't be ruled by paranoids.

ROFLMAO, Again.

Where is that written?

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?

Check out Stalin and his ilk like Saddam Hussein, who lived in constant fear of being assassinated and, for example, rarely spent two nights in the same place lest they be found by potential assassins.

Rising Sun*
01-24-2015, 09:38 AM
to call that a front would be a gross exaggeration. 1944 did look like it, but certainly not 1939.

Clearly not a front, with only all of France's army, the BEF, Belgium's and the Netherlands' forces involved

Mate, you really need to refine your act as a comedian, satirist, troll, idiot or whatever it is that you're trying to present yourself as, because so far you're just coming across as a sad fu*kwit.

stalin
01-24-2015, 09:46 AM
Why would Stalin want a second front when the USSR won WWII all by itself?

because as always the West was jealous when there's something going on without its part taking. Stalin only wanted to be polite in order not to enrage the West.


This is a contender for the all time most ignorant and stupid statement on any military forum, ever.

not at all, the vast majority of WWII armed forces movements and operations took place on land; and to control land territiories it takes men walking, not flying or sailing.


Clearly not a front, with only all of France's army, the BEF, Belgium's and the Netherlands' forces involved

i meant 'front' in terms of how West Allies would handle it, not France defeated etc.


you're just coming across as a sad fu*kwit.

you already cop out?

Nickdfresh
01-24-2015, 04:11 PM
Drunk posting by Stalin-apologists that clearly have read next to nothing on WWII, or anything in general... LOL :D

Nickdfresh
01-24-2015, 04:27 PM
...

only moral support... it is obvious neither French or Poles were up to do fighting, not to mention fighting the Luftwaffe.

The Poles and French were just as "up to do fighting" as the initial horde of Soviet soldiers that were crushed and surrendered en masse in the initial phases as Barbarossa exceeded their numbers. I would point out that more Red Army soldiers surrendered than soldiers in either army mentioned in the same time and space of six weeks. The difference is the Soviet Union had the vast expanses whereas both Poland and France were highly strategically vulnerable countries easily cut in two, or isolated from their allies. Especially when your hero collaborated with Hitler in carving up Poland and murdered a large number of them before "liberating" them...


...


and how do you know? have any evidence?

Do you have any that he didn't? Because there is a significant ream of documentary evidence starting with Stalin's purge of able commanders like Tukhachevsky and his forbidding the doctrine of "Deep Battle," while promoting harmless monkey-generals and military idiots like Budyonny, severally hindered the land forces. Or how he ordered his commanders to stand down and forbid them to mobilize right as it was blatantly obvious the Heer was about to begin it's onslaught of Barbarossa. Or that nothing was heard from him by the Soviet people for days and weeks after the invasion and nearly everyone near him stated he was shocked into a catatonic paralysis and even contemplated suing for peace. Maybe you can stop being such a mindless sycophant that you can pull your head above the chest-thumping nationalist shit you've been led to believe..

You're other stupid points I can't even bother with...

Kregs
01-24-2015, 10:48 PM
Why would Stalin want a second front when the USSR won WWII all by itself?

Yes, but at what price to his people and the future stability of the USSR? At the end of the war, the Soviet Union lost a whole generation of young boys. Even today the affects of four long years of total war are most apparent and visible in census data, which shows a yawning gap between the two genders. Not only that, but Soviet infrastructure, technology, and intellectual capital never completely recovered from the destruction.

stalin
01-25-2015, 02:07 AM
Drunk posting

i'm perfectly sober.


have read next to nothing on WWII

the only thing one needs to know about the WWII in order to figure out the victor is number of troops deployed and destroyed by each side, that's all.


The Poles and French were just as "up to do fighting" as the initial horde of Soviet soldiers that were crushed and surrendered en masse

like i said, the French and Poles didn't put up much resistance; as for the 'horde' (what a boorish term to come up with) those soldiers were betrayed by their own commanders who committed treason at the moment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Pavlov_%28general%29


Do you have any that he didn't?

i do. Stalin was not only an adult person, but also a revolutioneer and terrorist in his past; men like that don't piss themselves, unlike those who say they do.


Stalin's purge of able commanders like Tukhachevsky

able commander? Tukhatchevsky previously had botched the Polish campaign completely, it was him to blame that Red Army soldiers ended up in Polish prison camps.


his forbidding the doctrine of "Deep Battle,"

that doctrine wasn't forbidden, it was used throughout the war; not to mention that no such doctrines were ever used by West Allies, for example; let's blame them for this?


he ordered his commanders to stand down and forbid them to mobilize right as it was blatantly obvious the Heer was about to begin it's onslaught of Barbarossa.

he forbid them to provoke Hitler, but mobilised they were alright; first days defeat happened only because of a treason committed by some of those from the Red Army High Command.


Maybe you can stop being such a mindless sycophant that you can pull your head above the chest-thumping nationalist shit you've been led to believe

led to believe? by whom? Stalin has been slandered by every source... everything i say is a result of my own research.

stalin
01-25-2015, 02:18 AM
Soviet infrastructure, technology, and intellectual capital never completely recovered from the destruction.

actually it did - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_in_Soviet_Bloc_countr ies , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obninsk_Nuclear_Power_Plant and so on.

Rising Sun*
01-25-2015, 02:32 AM
everything i say is a result of my own research.

Obviously.

Unfortunately, your magnificently ill-informed and embarrassingly wrong comments merely demonstrate how limited and deficient your 'research' has been.

stalin
01-25-2015, 03:18 AM
Unfortunately, your magnificently ill-informed and embarrassingly wrong comments merely demonstrate how limited and deficient your 'research' has been.

well, if limitied, then only limited to facts and bypassing everything that contradicts common sense, like history fiction books or hollywood movies etc.

Nickdfresh
01-25-2015, 10:26 AM
well, if limitied, then only limited to facts and bypassing everything that contradicts common sense, like history fiction books or hollywood movies etc.

You don't have any "facts" and are a simpleton that lacks context...

Nickdfresh
01-25-2015, 11:12 AM
i'm perfectly sober.

Then that's even more scary...


the only thing one needs to know about the WWII in order to figure out the victor is number of troops deployed and destroyed by each side, that's all.

If someone knows something, it's not just about "troops" and numbers. It's about exhausting the enemies resources. That's grand strategic warfare. Not just sending your people to the front to be butchered by most often numerically inferior forces. It's about industrial producing and sapping the best and brightest. Any idiot peasant can die; a good part of the Red Army doctrine was simply throwing them at the enemy in a meat grinder with little training. The real resources are educated and the intelligent whom are forced to be applied to more complex things: like the Reich's massively complicated and intricate air defense network - which took away divisions' worth of resources and tied down the Luftwaffe from bringing its full force to bear in any one theatre...



like i said, the French and Poles didn't put up much resistance;

They both put up as much resistance as the Red Army did in the same span, but like the Red Army, they were incompetent for various reasons. Or suffered bad luck and often created their own bad luck.
I've already covered this "fact", they did as much initial "damage" as the Red Army did. The Red Army had time and space and faced a Wehrmacht that believed in fanciful realities...


as for the 'horde' (what a boorish term to come up with) those soldiers were betrayed by their own commanders who committed treason at the moment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Pavlov_%28general%29

No more "boorish" than your ignorant dismissal of the Allies. Stalin betrayed his own people with his incompetence....


i do. Stalin was not only an adult person, but also a revolutioneer and terrorist in his past; men like that don't piss themselves, unlike those who say they do.

Yes they do! What "fact" are you basing this all on? Did the Soviet commanders knew well over 48 hours in advance that the Germans were massing for an offensive? were they not threatened with execution if they put their forces on alert? Stalin received multiple corresponding intelligence reports from his services the Germans were launching Operation Barbarossa. His dismissed it all out of paranoia and fear and simply went into denial...

It's an easy question you'll continue to dodge because it doesn't gibe with your paradigm of the Hero of the Soviet Union...


able commander? Tukhatchevsky previously had botched the Polish campaign completely, it was him to blame that Red Army soldiers ended up in Polish prison camps.

Again, laying all the blame on him is like saying Lenin "botched" WWI by negotiating a horrible peace with the Germans. He was not solely to blame and was working with an army beyond it's means and competence. And was fighting a highly motivated Polish force. He still got far less men killed than Stalin did. And if he was such an idiot, why was his basic operational doctrine used by Soviet commanders during and after the war?..


that doctrine wasn't forbidden, it was used throughout the war; not to mention that no such doctrines were ever used by West Allies, for example; let's blame them for this?

It was initially forbidden --officially-- the mere mention of it was! As Stalin realized he couldn't terrorize his military to victory, things became more relaxed and the generals took over from their military idiot "Generalissimo" "terrorist"...


he forbid them to provoke Hitler, but mobilised they were alright; first days defeat happened only because of a treason committed by some of those from the Red Army High Command.

Good plan! Don't mobilize and enemy that is blatantly obviously mobilizing to attack you! :mrgreen: Were the wise Soviet commanders that held convenient live fire exercises to get around Stalin's idiotic decree committing treason too? But he wasn't paranoid and didn't panic you say? Really? :evil:


led to believe? by whom? Stalin has been slandered by every source... everything i say is a result of my own research.

Right, sycophantic sources rewritten by Stalin's scholars and video games :D

stalin
01-26-2015, 03:48 AM
Then that's even more scary

you get scared so easily? hope you don't piss yourself.


it's not just about "troops" and numbers. It's about exhausting the enemies resources.

it is only about troops and casualty numbers because only battles can exhaust enemy resources in most effective way.


Not just sending your people to the front to be butchered by most often numerically inferior forces.

the USSR had no choice, would you blame it for this? Britain could have done the same instead of now going jealous over Red Army success.


a good part of the Red Army doctrine was simply throwing them at the enemy in a meat grinder with little training.

nope, it was only early days of the war they did so, but later on the Red Army learned how to fight.


the Reich's massively complicated and intricate air defense network

how many German factories were destroyed by West Allies air forces aside from killing German civillians?


which took away divisions' worth of resources and tied down the Luftwaffe from bringing its full force to bear in any one theatre

the Luftwaffe might be a force to fear for Britain, but on the East Front most was done by land forces.


I've already covered this "fact", they did as much initial "damage" as the Red Army did.

got statistics to support that claim?


Stalin betrayed his own people with his incompetence....

go prove it.


Yes they do!

no they don't.


What "fact" are you basing this all on?

what facts you based on when started it all?


Stalin received multiple corresponding intelligence reports from his services the Germans were launching Operation Barbarossa

he received all sorts of contradicting reports, no one could tell the correct one, that's what you forgot to mention, for some reason; so it is now from hindsight you can boast like a clairvoyant, but what you'd say back then?


His dismissed it all out of paranoia and fear and simply went into denial...

he had a pact signed with Hitler, as if you don't know.


He was not solely to blame and was working with an army beyond it's means and competence.

white washing all of the sudden? Stalin then deserves justification the same as Tukhatchevsky's.


And if he was such an idiot, why was his basic operational doctrine used by Soviet commanders during and after the war?..

you mean West Allies were idiots that they didn't use the 'deep battle' doctrine either?


It was initially forbidden --officially-- the mere mention of it was!

got any documents to support that claim?


But he wasn't paranoid and didn't panic you say?

no he wasn't and didn't.


Right, sycophantic sources rewritten by Stalin's scholars and video games

show me these.

JR*
01-26-2015, 05:27 AM
Er ... welcome, Comrade ... I think. Got a bit warm In Here. Probably a mistake to come in but ... here goes.

I have never in any way underrated the contribution of the Soviet forces to the Allied victory over the Axis, the Germans in particular. That having been said, it is patently ridiculous simply to disregard the contribution of the Western Allies to the process. True, some commentators tend to regard the Pacific War as a separate war from that in the Western theatre, only loosely (almost coincidentally) connected with the latter. I am not inclined to accept this analysis, largely because if either theatre had gone "wrong" for the Allies, it would have opened the way to unpleasant possibilities in the other. Beyond that I am not willing to speculate. However, the world would not have been made better by such an eventuality.

It is also ridiculous to disregard the contribution of the Western Allied bombing campaign in disrupting and degrading Germany's fighting capacities. There are reams of incontrovertible evidence showing that, apart from killing civilians, the bombing campaign increasingly influenced matters such as the location and operation of large areas of German industry. That it did not break Germany's war-making capacities completely is a tribute to the resilience and ingenuity of the German people, something that they also showed in spades in the postwar period.

Then again, there is the matter of Western Allied material assistance to the Soviet Union. This started early in the "Great Patriotic War", at a time when the Western Allies were themselves short of equipment, often at great human cost (Murmansk convoys etc.). Only slightly later, as US industry geared itself for war, the Soviets received huge assistance, notably in the areas of logistical transport and food. The Red Army rapidly changed from a horse-dependent army to an almost extravagantly motorized one on the back of Dodge trucks and other US-made vehicles, something that facilitated the Soviets in moving more of their industrial capacity to producing their (often superior) armored vehicles and aircraft. As for food, Barbarossa had seriously disrupted Soviet food production. Much of the resulting food gap was made up by supplies from the US. To take one example, the Red Army became almost as familiar with American canned meat as the Americans themselves; Red Army troops of the 1942-'44 period tended to refer to Spam, the US canned pork luncheon meat product, as "Second Fronts".

I could go on ... but I really do not like to be negative. On the basis of the last post, this thread threatens to descend into a pantomimic "oh yes there is/oh no there isn't" level. Mere assertion and denial is not evidence or even (as the famous "Monty Python" sketch suggested) argument. I am sorry to say this, but the "argument" proposed by Stalin seems to have been drawn from a Soviet-era school history book (circa 1950 ?). An acceptable type of source ? Don't think so ...

Yours from Moscow Centre, JR.

Rising Sun*
01-26-2015, 06:00 AM
Everything you say, JR*, is correct, as anyone with even a basic grasp of the history of WWII knows.

Alas, experience with the likes of stalin indicates that it will be rejected with unsupported assertions or selective Wiki quotes and that it is pointless trying to educate him.


It is also ridiculous to disregard the contribution of the Western Allied bombing campaign in disrupting and degrading Germany's fighting capacities. There are reams of incontrovertible evidence showing that, apart from killing civilians, the bombing campaign increasingly influenced matters such as the location and operation of large areas of German industry.

No doubt this will be rejected as fanciful by stalin as it didn't produce dead bodies on the Eastern Front which is stalin's only measure of success in WWII, but the bombing campaign had a direct and significant effect on the Eastern Front by diverting a significant amount of 88mm guns (I think it may have been most of the production of 88mm guns around 1943-44, but I don't have sources to hand) to anti-aircraft defence of Germany. Those guns would have had a major impact if used as anti-tank guns on the Eastern Front, as would the vast amount of anti-aircraft ammunition they used if the material had been used to produce anti-tank shells. Similarly, the troops required to man the AA guns would have made a significant contribution on the Eastern Front.

The same applies to the German fighter planes, pilots, ground crews, ammunition, fuel, spares etc applied to air defence in Western Europe.

Nickdfresh
01-26-2015, 08:34 AM
you get scared so easily? hope you don't piss yourself.

I'd be perfect for leader of the Soviet Union then...


it is only about troops and casualty numbers because only battles can exhaust enemy resources in most effective way.

Then Germany should have defeated the Soviet Union...


the USSR had no choice, would you blame it for this? Britain could have done the same instead of now going jealous over Red Army success.

They had many choices, Stalin chose to retard his army for reasons of political control severally hindering its initial effectiveness.

The British were constantly short of men, especially late in the war. They did suffer horrendous death rates in the air war over Europe. Over 50% casualties IIRC...


nope, it was only early days of the war they did so, but later on the Red Army learned how to fight.

I agree. But their effectiveness was hindered...


how many German factories were destroyed by West Allies air forces aside from killing German civillians?

Or how much petrol and lubricants did the German Heer not have for it's tanks due to Allied bombing? Another simpleton equation based wholly on ignorance...


the Luftwaffe might be a force to fear for Britain, but on the East Front most was done by land forces.

Right, thanks for agreeing with me....


got statistics to support that claim?

Do you? How many Red Army soldiers were captured? Wasn't it well over a million in the opening weeks? I'm not bothering with research when you clearly haven't...


go prove it.


You've proven nothing and provided no "documents" or "statistics" and are now demanding everyone else furnish such things...



no they don't.

Yes they do :)


what facts you based on when started it all?

What "facts" do you base anything on?


he received all sorts of contradicting reports, no one could tell the correct one, that's what you forgot to mention, for some reason; so it is now from hindsight you can boast like a clairvoyant, but what you'd say back then?

Complete apologist bullshat! He received consistent and corresponding reports from multiple spy rings, his personnel in the field, and tactical recon. Only a complete fool believes otherwise...


he had a pact signed with Hitler, as if you don't know.

Right, the one where Hitler made a fool out of him...


white washing all of the sudden? Stalin then deserves justification the same as Tukhatchevsky's.

Oh, I'm not the one whitewashing. Stalin botched multiple campaigns if you want to go down with that logic, starting with Finland and even his own activities during the Revolution...


you mean West Allies were idiots that they didn't use the 'deep battle' doctrine either?

Why would the Allies have used an operational doctrine largely designed for the vast expanses of the Soviet Union. Did the Soviets use the American Tank Destroyer Doctrine?


got any documents to support that claim?

show me these.[/quote]

If I did, would you bother to read them? Because you obviously haven't read any others...

Kregs
01-26-2015, 11:54 PM
actually it did - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_in_Soviet_Bloc_countr ies , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obninsk_Nuclear_Power_Plant and so on.

Ah, but your wikipedia entries underestimate the implications of the harsh reparations terms that the Soviet Union forced on vulnerable Eastern European countries, not to mention British and Swiss financial credits, Mr. Stalin (and I cringe at that very name). Yes, the Soviet Union managed to rebuild its infrastructure, and may have even surpassed the United States in computer science and nuclear energy expertise in the early 1950s, but one cannot escape the uncomfortable truth about the USSR that emerged from under the rubble: the USSR could only hold together by force of arms, and, therefore, the country could not hold its own in a race against the USA's industrial might. The USSR lacked the man-power and the resources to efficiently run its planned economy, which needed large units of inputs each year, and as a consequence, the country was unable to meet the demand because of the war. The Nazis, in fact, raped the Soviet Union for all that she was worth to continue her war machine. The cost to the Soviet Union was enormous.

JR*
01-27-2015, 04:21 AM
Very true, kregs. I am reminded yet again of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, "Dr. Strangelove - or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and love the Bomb". When asked why the Soviets had taken the drastic step of producing the "Doomsday Machine" - the ultimate MAD weapon - the Soviet Ambassador replies along the lines that it was necessary because Russia could not keep up in the Arms Race, the Space Race and the Refrigerator Race (or somesuch). Best regards, JR.

73577358

Rising Sun*
01-27-2015, 05:04 AM
the ultimate MAD weapon

As distinct from Strangelovian cold war madness. ;) :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeqVGP-GPM

Frankly Dude Really
02-26-2015, 04:48 AM
The original question of the poster is more aimed at ignorance of the US public in the achievement of the russians over WW2, and overestimating her own achievements.
This is true, but that's nothing new. People want to hear /pay for reading/seeing their own heroes, and are not interested in those from other countries.
Money/profit dictates what you get to read.

Also, any "big" country suffers from this subjective overrating its own achievements (UK, France) not the least Russia !
How often don't the russians of today think "they" did "it" all by themselves!?
And that is not correct or fair either. As the before debates have shown.

Another good example of missing a point in this recurring debate is that the pro-russians/stalinists only focus on the battles with Hitler and forget that the Americans and British were forced to divide their troops and materials to fighting the Japanese (and Italians..at that time no hindsighting) , which the soviets did not ever contribute in until the war with Japan was effectively done.
And Japan was no pushover, as Zjoekov knew himself (won only by the grace of better tanks...to which the japanese diligently decided to upgrade their jap tank designs).

leccy
02-26-2015, 11:47 AM
The original question of the poster is more aimed at ignorance of the US public in the achievement of the russians over WW2, and overestimating her own achievements.
This is true, but that's nothing new. People want to hear /pay for reading/seeing their own heroes, and are not interested in those from other countries.
Money/profit dictates what you get to read.

Also, any "big" country suffers from this subjective overrating its own achievements (UK, France not the least Russia !
How often don't the russians of today think "they" did "it" all by themselves!?
And that is not correct or fair either. As the before debates have shown.

Another good example of missing a point in this recurring debate is that the pro-russians/stalinists only focus on the battles with Hitler and forget that the Americans and British were forced to divide their troops and materials to fighting the Japanese (and Italians..at that time no hindsighting) , which the soviets did not ever contribute in until the war with Japan was effectively done.
And Japan was no pushover, as Zjoekov knew himself (won only by the grace of better tanks...to which the japanese diligently decided to upgrade their jap tank designs).

The Soviets did fight Italians as they were part of the forces arrayed in the Soviet union by the Axis forces (Romania, Hungary, Germany, Finland, Slovakia, Austria plus all the former Soviets who joined, White Russians, Volksdeutsche, Sympathisers and Anti Communist forces from neutral and occupied nations). Why do people keep think it was Soviets v Germans only

The Japanese had a peace deal with the Soviets after suffering 2 defeats against them pre 1939, so many forget that part. Why would the Soviets bother attacking them and having a war on two fronts with the logistical problems that entails. Zhukov of course having a hand in defeating the Japanese in 1938-39 knew about their capabilities - the battle hardened forces that were commanded in 1945 even though they still had some obsolete tanks (T26 and BT's were still in service in the east) were more than a match for anything the Japanese had, on land and in the air - with or without the modern tanks.

Not sure I follow you on Japanese tanks, they belatedly started to build better tanks (subjective as few of the newer upgunned designs saw any form of action - so actual ability is not really known), would not call it diligently upgrading - more too little too late especially with the state of Japanese industry.

Frankly Dude Really
03-06-2015, 05:26 AM
The Soviets did fight Italians as they were part of the forces arrayed in the Soviet union by the Axis forces (Romania, Hungary, Germany, Finland, Slovakia, Austria plus all the former Soviets who joined, White Russians, Volksdeutsche, Sympathisers and Anti Communist forces from neutral and occupied nations). Why do people keep think it was Soviets v Germans only

.


There were also Spanish volunteers fighting along the Nazis. That doesn't mean "Russia " was fighting "Spain". Duh!
Another example: Brasil joined the allies and was "fighting" Nazi germany......

And Russia was not fighting Italy , the Land and full nation of Italy on all theatres of italian conflicts of the world.
Italy sent a couple of 1000 italian wannabeheroes to fight in russia, and on paper Italy joined the declaration of war...but that's it.




The Japanese had a peace deal with the Soviets after suffering 2 defeats against them pre 1939, so many forget that part. Why would the Soviets bother attacking them and having a war on two fronts with the logistical problems that entails. .

Which is exactly my/our point: The CCCP could NOT afford redirecting men/material to Japan front, which is exactly why USA and UK should be credited for it by the Russians (today's russian historians).


Zhukov of course having a hand in defeating the Japanese in 1938-39 knew about their capabilities - the battle hardened forces that were commanded in 1945 even though they still had some obsolete tanks (T26 and BT's were still in service in the east) were more than a match for anything the Japanese had, on land and in the air - with or without the modern tanks. .

Which I also said: but with this nuance difference: Zjoekov won BECAUSE he had better tanks (t26/BT5 were better than the jap tankettes) if it were to be inf to inf (with Arty and few airplanes) then Zjoekov may have failed in the 38-39.
At the end of the war in 1945, the japanese there were even less of a match: less men, no planes, no tanks (not even obsolete japanese tanks).




Not sure I follow you on Japanese tanks, they belatedly started to build better tanks (subjective as few of the newer upgunned designs saw any form of action - so actual ability is not really known), would not call it diligently upgrading - more too little too late especially with the state of Japanese industry
.
Yes. As in; in shock realising that the japanese army needed better design, bigger guns etc. on their tanks. Which they did , the planning, sketching, trials, tests...only what failed by that time, 1943-ish, was the lack of industrial materials to fabricate them in large numbers.

Rising Sun*
03-07-2015, 07:14 AM
There were also Spanish volunteers fighting along the Nazis. That doesn't mean "Russia " was fighting "Spain". Duh!

Why do you refer to Russia?

Leccy referred to the Soviets, who happened to be rather more than Russia in WWII.


Another example: Brasil joined the allies and was "fighting" Nazi germany......

I don't see your point in using "fighting" as if Brazil did nothing against Germany.

Brazil's expeditionary force did very well in Italy.


And Russia was not fighting Italy

Of course Russia wasn't fighting Italy, or any other nation.

It was the Soviet Union, of which Russia was only a part.

Stalin wasn't a Russian, but a Georgian. He couldn't have led Russia, but he was able to lead the much wider USSR.


Which is exactly my/our point: The CCCP could NOT afford redirecting men/material to Japan front, which is exactly why USA and UK should be credited for it by the Russians (today's russian historians).

The USSR had roughly 750,000 troops facing about 600,000 Japanese troops in the early years of the Pacific War. This was critical in depriving Japan of larger troop numbers to support its southern thrust (ignoring Japan's limited ability to ship troops and supplies for significantly larger numbers of troops), when the Allies were at their weakest. The other Allies (British Commonwealth, US, Netherlands) should credit the Soviets with holding those Japanese forces against the Soviets, along with the logistical burden on Japan rather than, as you assert, it should be the other way around.



Which I also said: but with this nuance difference: Zjoekov won BECAUSE he had better tanks (t26/BT5 were better than the jap tankettes) if it were to be inf to inf (with Arty and few airplanes) then Zjoekov may have failed in the 38-39.
At the end of the war in 1945, the japanese there were even less of a match: less men, no planes, no tanks (not even obsolete japanese tanks).

You seem to make a practice of disputing the results of battles and campaigns by various forces because the victor was superior or the loser was inferior in various forms.

Are there some other criteria for victory or loss, which military experts over the millennia have missed but to which you alone are privy?

To borrow from your own comments: Duh!


Yes. As in; in shock realising that the japanese army needed better design, bigger guns etc. on their tanks. Which they did , the planning, sketching, trials, tests...only what failed by that time, 1943-ish, was the lack of industrial materials to fabricate them in large numbers.

Care to specify the campaigns where Japanese bigger tanks with bigger guns would undoubtedly have changed the result, from the commencement to the end of the Pacific War? Malaya / Singapore? Papua New Guinea? Guadalcanal? Island thrusts by Allies against entrenched Japanese troops whose doctrine did not involve mobile armour?

leccy
03-07-2015, 01:21 PM
A few little meandering thoughts


There were also Spanish volunteers fighting along the Nazis. That doesn't mean "Russia " was fighting "Spain". Duh!
Another example: Brasil joined the allies and was "fighting" Nazi germany......

Using your expression DUH - the Spanish fall under the anti-communist forces - as do some from France, Scandinavia, Holland, Belgium etc etc - some fought as independent units even full Divisions others as individuals in regular Heer units.

And Russia was not fighting Italy , the Land and full nation of Italy on all theatres of italian conflicts of the world.
Italy sent a couple of 1000 italian wannabeheroes to fight in russia, and on paper Italy joined the declaration of war...but that's it.

Well excuse me but definition of fighting is having two sides engaged in some sort of match up leading often to pain on one side or the other - in the Italians v Soviets it was slightly more than just pain, the Italians had Naval, Air and Land forces engaged against the Soviets - in the Soviet Union - Just because Soviet forces did not invade Italy does not mean they did not fight.

BTW the ARMIR had over 230,000 Italian Soldiers (half of whom became casualties of one sort or another - 80,000+ MIA/POW with 10,000 repatriated alive - bit different from your couple of thousand), it came about when the CSIR (60,000+) was increased in size in 1942 - The RM also operated midget subs and MAS boats in the black sea

I could also point out that Polish, French, British and later Romanian and Bulgarian units fought side by side or as part of the Soviet Armies against the Axis - some in larger numbers than others

Which is exactly my/our point: The CCCP could NOT afford redirecting men/material to Japan front, which is exactly why USA and UK should be credited for it by the Russians (today's russian historians).

The Soviets had enough forces to keep the Japanese from attempting to attack again - the Japanese nor Chinese allies/puppets could not beat them in 1938 or 1939 on land and had not the resources or man power to attack later - China being joined by the majority of the allies in 1941 diverted everything they had.

The Soviets had no wish to get involved against Japan - served them no purpose at the time - so why would they bother

Which I also said: but with this nuance difference: Zjoekov won BECAUSE he had better tanks (t26/BT5 were better than the jap tankettes) if it were to be inf to inf (with Arty and few airplanes) then Zjoekov may have failed in the 38-39.
At the end of the war in 1945, the japanese there were even less of a match: less men, no planes, no tanks (not even obsolete japanese tanks).

Zhukov did not arrive in theatre until 1939, the battles in 1938 were not wins or losses really for either side - with Generals on both sides being removed from their posts and invited for tea and biscuits - minus the tea and biscuits

Zhukov not only had better tanks, but he had more than three times the numbers the Japanese had, he also had a far larger airforce to call on while troop numbers were slightly in favour of the Japanese and Chinese puppet armies favour (attacking across a river limited the Japanese and their allies ability to provide an adequate force as well).

Yes. As in; in shock realising that the japanese army needed better design, bigger guns etc. on their tanks. Which they did , the planning, sketching, trials, tests...only what failed by that time, 1943-ish, was the lack of industrial materials to fabricate them in large numbers.

Japan need AT guns more than tanks, more of them and more effective ones, but even then it would not be enough, what it really needed was the ability to produce enough carriers and train enough pilots to fly off them to defeat the allied navies - no matter what tanks Japan had the allies could strangle Japan slowly as they did - in most of the theatres it was infantry with limited tank support for bunker busting that was used - Lack of tanks did not decide the outcome

Wittmann
03-21-2015, 11:40 PM
My thoughts on the USSR WW2 alone,

1) NO defeat of the Japanese Empire via the UK and US.
2) NO defeat of the axis army in North Africa via the UK and US.
3) NO Lend lease either from the UK or US.
4) NO Battle for Britain. The axis aircraft loses were enormous.
5) NO Domination of the seas, all of them.
6) NO Destruction of axis factories in a sustained bombing campaign.
7) NO Defeat of Italy via UK and US.
8) NO Second front via US and UK, Normandy Invasion.

I do think the Russia gets too much credit after getting its *** kicked. How far into Russia did German Forces get. Also if you don't take prisoners, or they die very suddenly under your supervision how does that count towards the war tally.

I'm Sorry in the end Stalin and Hitler were one and the same.

383man
04-27-2015, 11:23 PM
the East Front was the main WWII front where the biggest part of Nazi Germany troops was amassed and largest & most decisive battles ever in the history of mankind fought, so it was the USSR that won this war, hands down.


Actually if Italy would not have needed Germany's help in Greece Germany would have attacked the USSR earlier and the fact that Germany had about 50 divisions in France because they had not defeated Britian. If Britian had fallen and Hitler had started the attack on the USSR weeks earlier like he wanted the USSR might have fallen to Germany in 1941. The Germans could have put 50 more divisions in the invasion force and they would not have hit the Russian severe winter as early. May have been enough that Russia may have fallen since Germany would have had a few more weeks of good weather and more divisions. Russia was also lucky to have such a large country and so much land to fall back on.

I also dont see WWII as just a ground war. Maybe it was for the USSR and they were lucky it was since they had no navy and a very bad air force at the begining of the war when Germany attacked. The did later build up a fair size air force but had no navy to speak off. I would have liked to have seen the USSR pull off D-day with its navy or lack of navy. Heck the US was landing on three differnt islands in the Pacific while also landing at Normandy with the British and Canadians.

The US gave the USSR nearly 100 ships near the end of the war so the USSR could attack the Japanese on one of the smaller Japanese islands and the Japanese put a beating on the Russian troops that landed. And the USSR did not attack the Japanese in Manchuria until the war in Europe was over for 3 months to send troops there. The USA was fighting on many fronts at the same time but the USSR only fought on one front at a time during the war.

And the number of troops involved ?? Well the USSR peaked at about 13 million and the USA peaked at 12.3 million. The USA had 7.6 million troops oversea's by the wars end fighting on all fronts on the ground , in the air and on the ocean's. They were not all in one front as the Russian troops were as the US troops were all over the world. Plus they had to get them all over the world and keep them supplied all over the world so they could fight as did many British and their empire troops did also. The USA also sent over 400,000 trucks and Jeeps to the USSR as the USA put the Russian army on wheels !

Thats just a few facts that say the USSR did not win the war on it own nor could it have won the war all by itself. It took all the allies to win the war from many countries. And it did not matter if a country sent 20,000 troops or 3 million troops they stiil fought and died and helped win the war. Ron

leccy
04-28-2015, 10:16 AM
Actually if Italy would not have needed Germany's help in Greece Germany would have attacked the USSR earlier and the fact that Germany had about 50 divisions in France because they had not defeated Britian. If Britian had fallen and Hitler had started the attack on the USSR weeks earlier like he wanted the USSR might have fallen to Germany in 1941. The Germans could have put 50 more divisions in the invasion force and they would not have hit the Russian severe winter as early. May have been enough that Russia may have fallen since Germany would have had a few more weeks of good weather and more divisions. Russia was also lucky to have such a large country and so much land to fall back on.


The late winter thaw in 1941 did more to delay the Axis (Germans, Romanians, Slovakia, Italians, Finnish, Hungarians + all the rest - former PoW's, volunteers from various nations and conscripts from the occupied countries) than Germany assisting the Italians in Greece.

The Axis forces arrayed to invade the Soviet Union were not all utilised immediately, whole divisions being kept as reserve (larger numbers were reserved than were employed in Greece).

Germany could not provide its divisions in 1939 with all the equipment they needed - in 1941 with war booty and production from the occupied countries added to its own domestic production it could not provide all that was required to equip its own units - Contrast that with the allies that produced materiel for each other and had a surplus that they could provide to non aligned or neutral countries to keep them out of the war.

By the time the Axis reached Moscow their manpower shortage was very acute, the majority of the divisions were exhausted from the long march, short of manpower and equipment, supplies were in short supply due to the distances involved as much as the weather, vehicles were worn out. The Axis had literally been bled to death.

Lots of excuses can be made but seems it is not popular to say that it was the Soviets fighting desperately that halted the Axis.

Wittmann
05-09-2015, 12:45 AM
60 Million lives lost in WW2 .

aly j
05-09-2015, 03:56 AM
SU role was invasion and take over of eastern Europe, whilst germany took over western Europe..... Until hitler invaded SU.

383man
06-06-2015, 03:05 AM
60 Million lives lost in WW2 .


Not by the USSR as thats about how many the world lost in WW II. Ron

383man
06-06-2015, 03:07 AM
SU role was invasion and take over of eastern Europe, whilst germany took over western Europe..... Until hitler invaded SU.


That is so true. Actually Britian and I think France were considering sending troops to help Finland fight the Russians who attacked the Finns after helping Hitler carve up Poland. Ron

leccy
06-06-2015, 04:49 AM
That is so true. Actually Britian and I think France were considering sending troops to help Finland fight the Russians who attacked the Finns after helping Hitler carve up Poland. Ron

Britain and France actually embarked winter trained units to go to Norway (if Norway allowed) and proceed to Finland - Finland seeked an end to the fighting first though so the British and French force was disbanded. They had an ulterior role though which was to have troops on the ground to forestall a German attempt to invade Norway.

In the end Britain and France did send troops to occupy Norway and they landed around the same time as the Germans - the specially trained and equipped units though (on the British side at least) were no longer available so it was a hurried force of what ever was available with what equipment could be spared that was sent.

Wittmann
06-11-2015, 11:55 PM
Ron, where in my post about 60 Million lives lost did I mention the USSR?

383man
06-15-2015, 04:13 AM
Ron, where in my post about 60 Million lives lost did I mention the USSR?


On that post nowhere as since the post is "The role of the USSR" I thought you may have meant the USSR lost 60 million. I guess since the USSR lost so many that sometimes many blow the number up even more. I dont get here as much as I would like so I did not realize how much you do know about the war as I now realize you know way to much to know that you did not mean just the USSR. But as I said I just thought you may have meant that but I jumped to the wrong conclusion and for that I appoligize as I meant no disrespect by it. Ron

Wittmann
06-19-2015, 08:46 PM
No problem Ron.

After re-reading my post I found it was very vague and I could easily see how you came to your conclusion. It's on me.

Lets get back on topic on "The role USSR in World War 2".

You brought up some interesting points along with Leccy.