General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRachel is pointing out that the Soviets did defeat the Nazis
There are 70th anniversary celebrations everywhere today. Tomorrow there is a huge celebration in Russia.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It was more than all other Allies combined... Perhaps more than all countries combined? It was a tremendous loss. And their help was crucial to Allies winning the war.
PSPS
(13,599 posts)
Hekate
(90,708 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Some of them were people in the Baltic States who had resisted Soviet annexation. Others were Ukrainian prisoners who were executed by Soviets when the Wehrmacht invaded. Still others were Ukrainians who were fighting against both the Nazis and the Soviets.
And Soviet casualties also included soldiers who invaded Poland, the Baltic States and Finland, and soldiers who fought against Ukrainian nationalists.
Igel
(35,317 posts)There-in lies part of the problem. Rather like how blacks were written out of early American history, Russians are writing numerous other nationalities out of the history of WWII.
Much of the war was fought in the USSR.
However, most of that part of the war was fought in Ukraine and Belorus. The advance was stopped on Russian soil, so some big turning-point battles were fought there. The USSR's narrative quickly, however, morphed to its being an all-Russian affair. It's part of the Russian core--triumphalism not just over Nazi Germany, but over Germany and others. It accounts for why Russian media, culture and politics are far more militarized than the "fascist" politics in the US.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)back at the end of the 90's. Spent summers there on research and even very small towns typically had memorial parks. Old men, the only adult men left in such villages, younger men were off looking for salaried work, were ready and willing to relate their experiences and feelings about something they saw as greater than throwing back Napoleon.
I don't begrudge them their memories and interpretations. The Soviet front was huge and immensely deadly.
Archae
(46,328 posts)We knew it would be a colossal meat grinder, so we let the Soviets take Berlin.
Then it was divided up.
Can you imagine what it would have been like invading Tokyo?
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)and then went on a spree on the population after taking the city.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Wholly unnecessary, as the Japanese had already made numerous overtures of surrender - we wanted first, a totally unconditional surrender, and second, we wanted to throw two huge bombs to scare the shit out of the Soviets. Mind, we had already fucking devastated Tokyo already by that point too.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)enemy's capitulation. What other option was there for allied war planners than to seek Japan's surrender?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)After all, there was more than one coup attempt when some parts of Japan's military started pushing for surrender.
A little under half of Japan's military leaders wanted to fight on even after the two nuclear bombs.
Yes, I know there was a recent article claiming we were assholes that just wanted to blow the shit out of Japan. Their version of history is creative.
Kaleva
(36,307 posts)There were elements in the Imperial government and military that wanted to negotiate an end to hostilities which is a far cry from an actual surrender.
tech3149
(4,452 posts)Considering that Russia lost something like 20M fighting the Nazi's, it's good to see some recognition of their efforts in winning the war.
Where were representatives from Britain, US, and France for the commemoration? Crickets anyone?
malaise
(269,022 posts)including one were all the part leaders in England attended (despite the overnight licks).
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)and has started persecuting a vulnerable minority in their country.
Might have something to do with that.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I don't know if the general populace knows much about the Soviets' role in the war, if we can believe the polling indicating large percentages of people can't find the Pacific Ocean, don't know who Joe Biden is, and couldn't name a single USSC justice past or present to save their lives.
Igel
(35,317 posts)Most Russians aren't aware of the role that the US and Britain or any other country played in WWII.
The usual narrative is that we sat it out until it was obvious that Stalin was going to win the war, then we got back into just to keep Russia in check instead of having its borders at the English Channel and a naval base on Sicily and Sardinia.
In fact, sometimes the war is a Western plot, with the West conspiring with Hitler. And that scurrilous slander about the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty being either (a) a fantasy and utterly denied or (b) something that Stalin had to do to buy time so that when Hitler did invade, the USSR forces would be, as they are said to have been until this bit of creative prose, in top form.
Even lend-lease vanished. From history and literature. On rare occasion if you read an old war novel you'll run into Russian soldiers eaten American tushenka, canned meat (Spam by any other name ...). Or they're using an out-of-place weapon. By "old" I mean "printed a long time ago," not "written a long time ago." If you compare those print runs with print runs a few years later or from last year you find that the tushenka is no longer American, and any identifier that the weapon wasn't a TT or of Soviet make eliminated.
They allowed Bulgakov and Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn and Klebnikov, even Voinovich and those more vitriolic towards the Soviet state to be printed. All that formerly anti-Soviet stuff was allowed out, even if it is frowned upon at times now. The archives were opened for a while, even if they're again until tight seal--even for studying medieval records you need special permissions and visas.
But the sanctity and pure Russianness of the Soviet war effort was never allowed to lapse, and the formerly American tushenka once stripped of its ethnicity never again reverted to being American.
I've even read that the US and Britain were having troubles in the Pacific against a victorious Japan and the real reason for the Japanese surrender was the realization that with the USSR's entry into the war they would finally be forced to retreat and would lose. Until then, the Japanese were winning. (It goes back to a bit of trauma and humiliation suffered in 1905, of course. And more Russian triumphalism.) In other words, Russians know less about the US/British/Commonwealth role in the Pacific theatre than the Americans know about the Australian war effort.
UTUSN
(70,700 posts)
brewens
(13,589 posts)and I'm a WWII buff. I see pics or footage and I know what I'm seeing. It's pretty damn hard to spot US or British made equipment in use by the Red Army. Can't blame them for editing stuff like that out of their propaganda, we'd have done the same.
We'd especially have done the same if we were in the position of the French or Russians. If we were lucky. Or military was in no better shape than they were in '40 or '41. Just look at our obsolete tanks and planes we entered the war with. We were just lucky to have huge oceans between us.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I know Hitler wanted to keep the US out of the war because of our industrial capacity, I've been told that he was furious at the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and almost severed ties with Japan.
Is this true?
brewens
(13,589 posts)Was it over when the Gremans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell NO!
I'm pretty sure Hitler declared was on us. Hitler was stoked that the Japanese hit us and had no clue it was comkng.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Did Hitler know that the Japanese were going to hit Pearl?
brewens
(13,589 posts)his idea.
Kind of like did Roosevelt know the Japanese were going to hit us? You can pretty much piece together documents that show evidence they were planning an attack. But they were never pieced together professionally before the attack. There was enough there that you have to say they dropped the ball anyway. Even if it's just the way militaries run.
Look at some of the crap the Germans fell for? So we were supposed to have just the right guy slueth Pearl Harbor out and get the big bosses to act on it?
I still believe Hitler's biggest blunder, among many, was attacking the Soviet Union.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)much guaranteed Stalin would eventually attack him instead.
And Germany was at the height of her power relative to other countries in 1941.
The attack on the Soviet Union was poorly executed. Lack of / changing strategy, ignoring strategic objectives, too grandiose of a strategy, and poor tactical decisions. Attacking Kiev and Moscow was too much for one season. Go hard for Moscow or take Kiev, but then dig in for the winter. Attempting to take both before winter was too much.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, it pretty much sealed Germany's fate IMO.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)have gotten her clock cleaned even faster because the Soviets would have launched their own Barbarossa - maybe in Spring of 1943. Maybe even Fall of 1942.
Maybe it was truly impossible for Germany to win, I don't know. But he pretty much had to invade then.
The biggest blunder was ignoring Guderian's advice and not going for Moscow in September 1941.
The second biggest blunder was after encircling Kiev, ordering the drive on Moscow to resume. It was too late in the year at this point.
Take Moscow or Kiev.... but not both. Gutsy/risky move to take Moscow. Safer move is to take Kiev and dig in, wait for 1942, then attack Moscow.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)That's what I love about DU, I learn something new every day.
Thanks for that info. 
krispos42
(49,445 posts)I understand he wound up launching the SU invasion in early June instead of late April.
Seems to me that, since German troops came within visual range of Moscow before winter closed in, a timely invasion might have actually worked.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Eastern Europe / Russia in both the Spring and Fall, and it was particularly bad during both seasons in 1941. In a lot of ways, the mud is even worse than winter too. In October the Germans were slowed to 2 miles a day advance because of the mud - after the ground froze in mid-November they resumed moving quickly, but by that time Moscow was too fortified plus some fresh siberian divisions had been brought in.
The other problem with bypassing the Balkans is that a pro British coup de etat was staged in Yugoslavia, so leaving the Balkans alone would have meant an exposed southern flank and a possible British beachhead for invasion.
I suppose a better decision might have been a two pronged attack into Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, as soon as the weather permitted (mid-late May? whenever the mud was gone).
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)It would have been difficult logistically to support such an advance on two divergent axes, and Barbarossa would have suffered from the lack of whatever forces were diverted to the Balkans. Otherwise, I agree with everything you've said in this post. Glad to see a "Millennial Dem" with interest in such an abstruse subject.
-- Mal
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)in Greece (YAY, Greece!), the suppression of her partisans forcing the delay of Operation Barbarossa by some two months and compelling the German Army to bear the brunt of the Russian winter.
At least this is what Hitler claimed was his 'big mistake'. Of course, Hitler constantly tried to scape-goat (Jews, Bolsheviks, Mussolini and, in his final address, the German people themselves). So the verdict is still out.
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)... he made so many. I find in WWII that the politicians who spent the most time meddling in military affairs made the most blunders.
Having said that, the invasion of the USSR was not a blunder, unless you want to argue that the entire war was a blunder, which is certainly an argument that has merit. But once the decision was made to go to war, a showdown with the USSR was inevitable, and there is no reason to think delay would have made things any better for Germany.
Not taking Malta, that was a blunder, the strategic ramifications of which far outweigh the simple impact on the Afrika Korps. Rushing first-rate troops to North Africa to be captured after the campaign was already lost, that was a blunder, especially since if Hitler had committed such resources earlier he might have seen a different outcome. Hitler's blunders were legion, but invading the USSR was not one of them, even if (to paraphrase Hirohito) the result did not turn out exactly to his advantage.
-- Mal
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)and the other documents and speeches of the Hitler and the Nazi party, it's pretty clear that attacking the Soviet Union was pretty much the main event as they were concerned. Hitler hated Communism, and considered the Russians and other Slavic people to be just a step above the Jews in the ranking of ethnicities that deserved to be murdered and enslaved.
Calling it a blunder doesn't really do it justice, since it was such a core part of Nazism. Also, Stalin got caught off guard as far as the timing was concerned, but he knew war was coming. If Germany hadn't attacked when they did, the SU probably would have attacked them preemptively within a year or two anyway.
brewens
(13,589 posts)went on on the eastern front. That was just where Shultz was going if ever got caught helping Hogan. We just knew it was really cold out there.
It was when I got into modelling that I got a clue. What were all thse awesome looking Russian tanks and planes all about? I shit you not.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)but he would have preferred for the Japanese to open a second front on the Soviet Union. That was Germany's reason for the alliance to begin with.
There was enough blame to go around for Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. MacArthur was caught flat footed and let his planes get destroyed on the ground even though he should have known an attack was coming because of Pearl Harbor.
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)MacArthur was a great captain, dontchaknow? Hell, he got the Medal of Honor and a Get Out of Jail Free card for losing the Philippines.
-- Mal
hatrack
(59,587 posts)He's quoted as saying "Now we have an ally that has not been defeated in 10,000 years!" Had he known the shallowness of Japan's industrial capacity, he might not have been quite so thrilled, but that's just the kind of homicidal dictator he was . . .
It was in that jolly moment that he declared war on the United States, also not a well-though-out decision, coming as it did less than a week after the Russian counteroffensive began.
Springslips
(533 posts)When Japan bombed Pearl Habor Germany went ahead and declared war on the USA. But Japan turns around and tells Stalin that they won't attack the USSR, freeing Siberian forces to counterattack the Nazis. It seems Japan played Dur Failure like a fiddle. Didn't work though. Still. . .
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)My impression from history is that there was relatively little coordination between Germany and Japan. If he wasn't initially pissed at Japan for Pearl Harbor, Hitler probably was shortly after the U.S. entered the war, as the majority of the US war effort was directed towards Europe the first year to year and a half. The Pacific Theatre early on was merely trying to slow down and stall Japanese advances.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)those two and Japan. It's also worth pointing out the sheer distance between Europe and Japan and that even with then archaic type of communications equipment available, coordinating would have been difficult if not impossible.
It is true that the bombing of Pearl Harbor is what was the last straw for the US to go all in for WWII. We more or less helped from afar with providing aid to Europe and the USSR to fight Germany until that point.
My grandfather was involved in the Pacific Theatre in WWII later in the war after the defeat of Germany.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)was Germans standing behind Italian troops pointing guns at them. Italy was more concerned with establishing Aftican colonies, than with conquering Europe. Germany pretty much gave them an ultimatum, ally with us or we'll attack you. As the Germans retreated, the Italians quickly surrendered to US troops. All this was told to me by the father of a good friend, who was a torpedo boat captain in the Italian Navy in WW2. Italy didn't want war against the Allies.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)He was extremely happy that the attack happened as the Japanese were allies and "had never lost a war in 1000 years".
As a side note, the US was the only country that Germany declared War on. All others were just invaded.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Biggest blunder Hitler made was invading the Soviet Union, second biggest blunder was Hitler declaring war on the US.
Ex Lurker
(3,814 posts)Had Hitler not declared war on us--he had no treaty obligation to do so, and historians still puzzle over why he did it--Roosevelt would have had extreme difficulty convincing Congress and the public to go all out in Europe while fighting a holding action in the Pacific.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)supplying for WW2, and R&D from the war also spurred innovation in industry. A gordian knot between the military and industrial complexes. Thus the Congress got into both in time to protect the economy. At least that's my take on it in retrospect.
Of course all the true carnage was overseas, making it less apocalyptic here. It's the hideous effect of wars, and the loss of industrial bases and resources, that generally end wars. America suffered neither, but the returning soldiers certainly had stories to tell that made some feel we had to stay on top of the war machine to prevent what happened in other countries from happening here, too. At the cost of what we once had, we also benefited, as strange as that sounds.
As far as to Adolph's thinking, IIRC, and I'm not saying I do, as studying warfare wasn't my thing, he had associations in the Middle East, Africa, Spain, Italy, Russia and Japan as well. Maybe South America, too. China, I don't know about.
I think there was some fear of riling up a potential American industry, yes. We had the great lakes shipping, iron, coke, water ways, uranium and other mines, plenty of forest, open land, and a desperate population willing to do the work. And FDR had the support of the American people for the most part.
Ah, got to get some sleep.
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)... what if Hitler had not lived up to his basically useless alliance and not declared war on the US after Pearl? What excuse could Roosevelt have used to justify declaring war on Germany? He would have had to do some pretty fancy dancin', but fortunately Adolf made it easy for him.
-- Mal
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)while the USSR (Russia now) did end up with millions of causalities, they did not do it alone. They were helped by the allies who provided arms and fought from the opposite side on European soil. People seem to be quick to dismiss the help provided from the US and Europe.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I don't think anyone has ignored that. What we often forget is the massive casualties suffered by the Russians, troops and civilians.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)basically did wave attacks and overwhelmed the germans by sheer numbers.
the generals didn't have much regard for the lives of their men, and just sent wave after wave into a meatgrinder...
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)entire German army and compelled its eventual surrender. That's not 'feeding troops into a meatgrinder.' That's tacitcal brilliance.
Igel
(35,317 posts)Ultimately the encirclement brought victory.
But the battle was also fought in the city, block by block and building by building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#Casualties
"The Axis suffered 850,000 total casualties (wounded, killed, captured) among all branches of the German armed forces and its allies; 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians, and 120,000 Hungarians were killed, wounded or captured....
"The USSR, according to archival figures, suffered 1,129,619 total casualties; 478,741 personnel killed or missing, and 650,878 wounded or sick."
Any single battle that lasted over 5 months and in which well over half a million soldiers are killed or missing can have no other term applied to it.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)as much meat into its maws as did the Red Army. The person to whom I was responding implied that the Red Army prevailed because she was able to overwhelm the Wehrmacht by sheer man-power superiority. I wished to point out that, in Zhukov, the USSR had one of the three greatest military minds of the 20th Century (the other two MacArthur and Giap) guiding her forces.
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)Last edited Sat May 9, 2015, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)
IMO, at best, he applied standard military-academy solutions to standard problems. At worst, he was a bumbling, ego-inflated fool.
As a military governor he was aces, very popular and carried out our policies to perfection. As a commander, at best average. I'd be interested to know on what grounds you consider him brilliant.
-- Mal
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)MacArthur's strategy in the Pacific (of island hopping) is credited with being brilliant. Bypassing fortified islands with little or no strategic importance shortened the Pacific war by several years (probably).
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)... but it is the standard solution to bypass stongpoints and attack the enemy where he is weak. That is why I am puzzled by why it is considered brilliant. We can find abundant examples in WW2 where other generals employed a similar strategy. Similarly, MacArthur's decision to invade Inchon and outflank the N Koreans is also often asserted as proof of his brilliance, yet it too is the standard-taught practice utilized repeatedly in WWII, nevermind other wars.
As you say, you are basing the assessment on the opinions of others, so I hope you understand that my disagreement is with them, not you personally.
One of MacArthur's great strengths as a general was his understanding of the media and his ability to have himself represented in the best light. It is for this reason, I think, that he is credited with brilliance when any reasonably competent general would have made the same choices he did.
-- Mal
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)going to run it by my Dad (a Jarhead who fought and was wounded at Inchon) to see what his take is. We communicate by snail-mail (long back-story there), so it will be a couple weeks before I hear from him. He's the MacArthur expert in our family. I'll pass along his comments to you as soon as they arrive.
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)The Marines in WWII were no big fans of MacArthur, but I don't know if the dislike carried over into Korea or not.
-- Mal
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)would say "America defeated Hitler, duh"
My MIL for example said "I thought Russia got involved later in the war?"
And really, lend lease was important, but the Soviets most likely already won or at least stalemated Germany before lend lease and American/European help in the south and west.
Germany's situation declined every year after Barbarossa. Note this was early and mid war:
1941: Attacked across an entire country, 3 army groups, including threatening the Soviet capital.
1942: Attacked across one front/army group. Threatened a far less strategically important city.
1943: Attacked a single salient.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)(no offense to your MIL). I met people in China that honest to god think South Korea and the United States started the Korean War (and I think I don't even have to tell you how I felt about that one).
I have no doubt that the USSR (Russia) deserves a great deal of credit for stopping Germany and turning them around and marching them back toward Berlin. The Russian causalities were huge.
That said, I see people on DU act as though the US did nothing. The US was involved on the other side for a couple of years which helped to strain Germany's resources and push them out of the other European countries they had taken over. It was more than just the lend lease. Even on the lend lease the information varies in terms of what was provided to the Soviets which is estimated at about $11 billion. For years the USSR minimized how much was contributed, but more current records have shown that it could be higher than the figures they had been providing (prior to the fall of the USSR).
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)just as big as US efforts - also don't ignore Tito's partisans and the French resistance either).
It's more that I am of the opinion that Germany lost the war on December 5th, 1941.
In light of that, I think the US and UK (and others) more sped up Germany's demise (ie they weren't necessary, but of course helped a lot!) than helped cause it. If that makes sense. Like I said, I think the Germans were already doomed after Operation Typhoon failed. Hitler was too ambitious in wanting to capture Kiev and Moscow in 1941, when there was only time to take one or the other, not both. Attacking Moscow and getting stuck in the mud in October and then the cold in Winter was an epic disaster where the Germans ended up getting pushed back 200km west.
Huge extra idiocy points to der Fuhrer for dismissing Guderian and Hoepner.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)USSR was fighting and defeating the Germans along a 2,000-mile front. By the time Normandy happened, the war was all but over, save for the mopping up. The truth lies in the casualty figures; the USSR lost some 20-26 million soldiers and partisans,, the U.S. a mere 250,000. That's a ratio of 100 Soviet casualties for every 1 American casualty.
Igel
(35,317 posts)On the high end, they say about 14 million military personnel were lost--some in fighting, some from illness, others in labor camps.
On the low end, it's around 8 million.
In other words, you've elevated the Jews killed during pogroms under the Germans and those civilians who died from artillery shells and starvation in Leningrad to the status of Red Army soldiers. Lots of people died from other reasons, and half or more weren't military. Unless we want to consider every Soviet citizen a member of the armed forces.
So much for truth in the casualty figures.
The US entered the war late, mind you. And once entered, the war wasn't on its territory--and for a decent chunk of the war what was happening was preparation and build-up as the Germans fought their idiot cross-channel 'not quite war'. That meant the action on the ground was in N. Africa. During that time German forces could, under the Soviet version of events, have just put up border crossings at Calais and in N. Africa and left a few border guards. Instead they continued to put significant resources into the Western and southern fronts. Not that they had any other use for those resources, of course. But the Germans thought keeping those forces in the West worth the price of losses in the East.
Lend-lease started helping the USSR soon after its entry in the war when the USSR was really hurting. Hard to know how much of a difference it made. Stalin had the USSR military in a relatively sorry shape--and yes, while the USSR economy wasn't great this was largely the result of Stalin's mismanagement and reign of terror.
Da zdravstvuet tsar' Vladimir Vladimirovich, tsar' nash batiushka. Uzh kak na nebe solntsu krasnomy slava!
With apologies to Pushkin-Mussorgsky.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)both military and civilian dead. That said, the underlying truth remains: the USSR lost 100 lives for every one the U.S. lost. Very few dispute this point, although many dispute the significance of the ratio. (FWIW, the 26 million figure includes only those Jews and other ethnic minorities having Soviet citizenship and not Jews and other ethnic minorities from other European countries like Poland, the Balkans or Western Europe.)
It's been quite awhile since I studied the time in question and memory grows rusty with age. As is often the case, Wikipedia provides a good general discussion of the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)Lend-lease trucks, for example, allowed the Red Army to motorize parts of its army. Lend-lease commo cable allowed them to improve communications. Lend-lease raw materials allowed them to build their own equipment. Most of the stuff we sent them was old, obsolete, and used to fill out units in quiet areas so the T34s could be used at the sharp end. Hell, one of the most elite Soviet fighter groups flew P-39s, not exactly the most technically-advanced aircraft on the planet.
-- Mal
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)do you think Germany was already defeated early in the war, when they failed to take Moscow in 1941? (IMHO, this is the closest they came to winning the war. Stalingrad was mostly meaningless even if they won it).
Or do you think Germany could have come back in 1943 or later to win it?
I'm in the former camp - once Germany failed in Operation Typhoon all Lend Lease did was hasten their demise. And Lend lease was a non-factor in 1941.
If you're in the latter camp, yes you could think Lend Lease while not the most critical point of the war, may well have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)I think Germany was defeated on 1 September, 1939. I am of the camp who believe they really had no chance of defeating the world, although they could have made things very interesting if a few different choices had been made. So many things would have had to break differently for them to have had a chance to actually win the conflict. Even if the USSR had been knocked out of the war, Germany still had the problem of the enormous manpower and material resources of the Commonwealth and the US to overcome. And no real way of getting at the UK, nevermind the US. Atomic bombs? Still a problem of delivery systems, and the US, with much greater industrial capacity than Germany, and moreover one that was not constantly under air attack, only managed to make a few before the end of the war. I think if Moscow had fallen, it would have probably been little different from when Napoleon performed the same feat. Maybe not, maybe the USSR would have fallen apart, but given the total indifference of the rulers to the sufferings of their people, more likely they would have fallen back to another city and kept up the fight. And even if not, the other Allies would have continued to blockade and nibble around the edges until Germany was defeated by attrition. In the final analyis, IMO, Germany simply lacked the seapower to sufficiently project force to overcome the enemies she could not reach overland.
So, to answer your question about Lend-Lease, I think it contributed materially (so to speak) in shortening the war.
-- Mal
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)take.
So let's dispel that common myth because it's so common I want to scream when I hear it.
Defeating Moscow probably would have had the Soviets capitulate, but I can't be certain of this. It certainly would have really crushed their ability to fight and resupply as virtually all rail traffic went through Moscow.
As for a knocked out USSR in 1941 but England and the US fight on, far too many uncertainties. As for naval power though, that's pretty irrelevant except for the perspective of Germany not being able to invade the US or UK any time relatively soon. On the other hand though, it also doesn't help the US and UK much as far as taking on Europe's superior ground forces. A battleship is useless for a fight in Budapest :p Also, you don't think the Axis would have switched to naval production if the US and UK refuse to agree to an armistice? And a naval blockade doesn't really deprive the Axis of anything. They have plenty of food in Ukraine and elsewhere and probably would have insisted on Baku as part of a peace treaty with Stalin for oil - plus of course Romania and synthetic gasoline from coal (my grandfather was both an early war German tanker and later Holocaust survivor who worked on this. He got booted from the army in 1940 for being half Jewish, but was sent to Luena-Werke in late 1943).
As for nukes, it would take a lot more than just the two used against Japan, unless large portions of the Nazi government or OKW/OKH were taken out by one of them. The Axis lost 5,500,000 soldiers in the USSR. That's 55 nukes :p but ok, maybe they lose 1.5 million in a quick defeat over the USSR, so we'll cut it down to 40 nukes. And yes, delivery method is another issue, without the Eastern Front, I'm not sure the US and UK could have established air superiority over hostile territory. They lost the late 1943-early 1944 air Battle of Berlin, and that's of course after the Eastern Front had already turned very sour. Also I think we start to get into way too many what ifs once we start looking at Summer of 1945 and later in Germany. One of the main reasons the Germans didn't put much development into a bomb, is again..... the problems on the Eastern Front and because they correctly assumed the war (in Europe) would be over before the bomb was produced. Maybe by the time the US and UK finally establish air superiority in 1946 Germany has their own bombs? Like I said, a lot of what ifs here, the A bomb is not an automatic win the war card.
As for production capacity, we always look at German vs US industrial capacity. I have no problem believing the US could have outproduced and eventually even defeated Germany.... but Germany was only 1/3 of the manpower of the Axis! They were just the big player, the most well trained, and most technologically advanced.
But when you add up the main separate alliances you essentially get:
Germany + Italy + others manpower (Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria): about 200 million. Not counting Japan, who was basically a separate entity all their own.
The Soviet Union: about 200 million
The US and UK combined: about 200 million (not counting India)
All 3 of these groups had similar industrial output. No USSR would mean a slug it out, nasty war in the West I think between two similarly matched alliances. It may have become an Iran-Iraq war style stalemate or an armistice and Cold War.
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)... my reference to A-Bombs was only to dismiss them as a factor, not to suggest they would have made a difference. I don't consider sea power to be as irrelevant as you appear to, and as for switching production to naval units after beating the USSR, the Germans might have done so, but they had limited shipbuilding capacity and it takes a long time to build a capital ship. I doubt they could have produced a navy sufficient to challenge the UK and US, especially when you consider the number of warships we actually never finished because the war ended. The inability of the Germans to project force would, ultimately, lead to a war of attrition, and the Germans would have had even greater problems with partisans the more territory they conquered. There are not many examples of an army being successful against determined guerilla resistance, and it is perhaps special pleading to think the German army would have been any better at the job than others, especially given the difficulties they actually had with the problem.
As for the relative strengths of the coalition and the Reich, it is disingenuous to exclude India from the equation, especially given that good use was made of Indian troops and Indian resources in the war. I think you underestimate the relative resources of the Allies without the USSR and overestimate the resources of the Reich. The biggest problem, though, is that the US capacity was virtually invulnerable, whereas German industry was subject to a continual and expensive drain due to the bombing campaign. Aye, production actually increased despite the bombing, which is irony if you like (and once Hitler decided to stop jerking around and go to a full war-time economy), but if one cites that factoid he disregards the fact that the bombing campaign did destroy a good few resources. And if the USSR had been defeated, it is reasonable to expect that the Allies would have been apt to concentrate even more on such strategy, and not try to open a ground war in 1944. We could have adopted a "Beat Japan First" strategy and then diverted to Europe, instead of vice-versa. And my contention is that the destruction of the USSR would have led to a long war of attrition, but that the Germans would not have been able to overcome the deficits in long-ranged aircraft and naval vessels to make their land power felt. Still, since it's all counter-factual, after all, we can say what we like.
One small quibble: in no way do I imply that Moscow was the capital of Russia when Napoleon took it, so your myth-busting is misplaced. The fact that Moscow was the central rail hub of the USSR is one of the factors that makes it possible that the fall of Moscow would have caused the fall of the USSR, but I think it is not wise to understimate the stubborness of Stalin or the Soviet people. The fall of Moscow would have been a huge disadvantage, certainly more so than it was when Napoleon took it (when it was basically meaningless), but it doesn't mean that the war would have necessarily ended at that time.
-- Mal
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)want to bang my head into the wall whenever I see it, and certainly some people do believe they are entirely the same thing. Apparently der Fuhrer himself even believed it, because the reason he ordered the encirclement at Kiev is because his greatest nightmare was to take Moscow but fail to defeat the Russian army in the field, "just like Napoleon".
As for putting down guerillas, yes these do present a problem, but WW2 was a little different. A titanic struggle between fascism and communism, and many in the conquered territories did join their cause. There were even Soviets that did - see the Hiwi. Guerillas have been put down in many cases too, it just tends to take a very long time. See the Baltic Forest Brothers and the Spanish Maquis. That said, the US and UK did have some problems dislodging the Germans, it certainly wasn't a walk in the park... and that's with the Germans dealing with partisans AND the massive Red Army.
As for ship building, yes, it would have taken some time of course. Acknowledged there. But again, the main thing a Navy does is allow troops to be landed. The Germans wouldn't be able to land troops in Britain or the US any time soon, but any Ango-American landing would get slaughtered on the beaches. D-Day was hazardous enough even with the Germans getting their clocks cleaned in the east. I don't think the Western Allies would have had much success against the Atlantic Wall or in Italy without the Soviet Union.
It may be disingenuous to completely exclude India from the equation, but it's also disingenuous to include their entire population. Most of the country wasn't modernized. To think otherwise would be to think that the Indians could have smashed the Soviet Union and the Axis themselves. Yes a lot of Indians served with distinction during the war, but "only" 2.5 million did. While that's a lot, it's kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the 16 million Germans. Would the 2.5 million have been enough to break the camel's back though? Maybe.
As for the air war, I think you're making the Luftwaffe out to be a bit more of a pushover than it actually was. Establishing air superiority and making a dent into German war production was similar to the ground war in the west. It was difficult as is with the majority in the east, it would only be a trillion times tougher with no Eastern Front. The Germans were still putting up quite a resistance in the air until 1944. Plus, the defeat of the Soviets would also have more knock on effects - just like more ship building I think there would be more AA buildup.
As for Moscow leading to the defeat of the Soviets, yes this is of course... questionable as well, but at very least would make it quite difficult for the Soviets to wage war. Hard to supply your troops without the rail network :p
Anyway, overall, I think there is a lot of uncertainty here..... I think saying that the West would have won without the USSR is extremely speculative, though I think they could have. Because of their navies, I think they had a better chance to win the war than the Axis did.....
But I think a far more likely outcome is stalemate/cold war/armistice with the Germans controlling continental Europe, and Britain and the US controlling everything else. Japan being so isolated would still have gotten their clocks cleaned. There might be more fights in North Africa and the Middle East though. The longer the war dragged out the more likely the Germans can get Spain and Portugal into the war as well.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)And so many of them were killed in the fighting that there were not enough men to run the economy at home. Women filled most of the jobs and children were placed in day care so that they could work. Long before we did that.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)all times.
Doesn't even include the fact that the smaller Axis countries were almost, if not entirely on the Eastern Front. Except Italy - but even then over 50% of them died in the Soviet Union as well.
The Soviets pretty much won already won the war on Dec 5th, 1941 for that matter. Germany would never again threaten Moscow.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It certainly doesn't shed any light on the other issues in this thread, but it bugs me enough that I must correct you.
For the record, the attack on Pearl Harbor was on December 7, 1941. It was already December 8 in Japan so I wouldn't be surprised if some historians used that date but there's no basis for saying it was December 5.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)HEyHEY
(45,977 posts)Either way EVERYONE defeated them.
tritsofme
(17,379 posts)exboyfil
(17,863 posts)with the Germans in the carving up of Poland.
I like our strategy. Fight the Germans to the last Russian. In a sense WWII was like WWI we were late to the heavy blood letting in Europe.
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)... though not in the ha-ha sense. The USSR was devastated materially and in population by WWII. Yes, some factories were moved to the Urals, but these were armaments factories. Dams, power stations, infrastructure in the most advanced parts of the USSR were destroyed, other property damage must have been enormous. Yet we in the West were critical of the Soviet "system" for not keeping up with our economic progress after the war? Talk about an uneven playing field! I am amazed that the USSR was able to recover as well as they did, nevermind not being able to make Levittowns and washing machines.
-- Mal
malaise
(269,022 posts)and most of the comparisons are odious.
Here are Putin's comments from today
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/09/vladimir-putin-us-trying-to-create-unipolar-world
dembotoz
(16,806 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)by Chris de Ploeg / May 6th, 2015
http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/05/unmasking-the-politics-of-commemoration/#more-58249
This certainly won't be a popular read, but as someone who lost family members from the very beginning of both world wars, it makes me sick to see Russia's or anyone else's contributions minimized, deliberately ignored for agenda sake and even joked about.
malaise
(269,022 posts)Amazing that the West thought boycotting this important commemoration was a good thing
Excellent read
Rex
(65,616 posts)I'm sure all the Allies have a similar story. America turned the tide. Britain holding out against a horrible onslaught. The hopeless and desperate people in the French Resistance.
I don't think history cares about the political significants of events, only the winners and losers care about that. History is just a matter of facts, these which can be verified mostly. Unlike something that happened 300 million years ago.
Rachel is a great source of information, sadly most would rather be pundits and take the easy way. Not Her.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Afghanistan has been at war since 1978 due US & Saudi alliances against communism, Germany ran out of gas literally.