Did Russia win WWII?

RedPlanet

I've read that the Russians fought 80% of Germany's forces in the big battles of the east.
They took Berlin and got to Hitler ahead of anybody else.
After the war they helped themselves to nearly half of europe.
While the Allies took a comparitively small piece of Germany and the US took a scattering of islands in the Pacific. But these pale in comparison with what the Russians took.

In the west we get bombarded with D-Day myth making, or the Battle of Britain, take your pick.
But seriously, the Russians probably could have done it without British or American boots in Europe at all.
If one country took the gold, it's got to be Russia.

Morlar

RedPlanet wrote: »

In the west we get bombarded with D-Day myth making, or the Battle of Britain, take your pick.

D-Day and the battle of Britain were of course absolutely important, that part is not a myth. Had D-Day failed (which it very easily could have) then the war would either have lasted a few years longer or the allies would not have prevailed at all.

It would also have given the Germans a free hand in the east.

So was the atlantic war and North Africa vital. Likewise Kursk and Stalingrad were other monumental events. It is appropriate to acknowledge the sacrifices made throughout all of those events regardless of the numerical scale when compared with the eastern front.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said 'in the west'.

We are in the west and our WW2 history is taught from that perspective (with a recent significant lean in the direction of jewish-centric WW2 history).

What is assigned importance by historians in the west does not tie perfectly with what is assigned as the most important events in the east. In fact at Putin's speech today for the comemoration of the outbreak of WWII he referred to such differences.

In Poland their history is different than ours, in Russia it is even further different. I think it depends on your view point and how you prioritise it. In most areas of WWII this is a shifting sand as knowledge spreads and people begin to understand more about some aspects of it that were previously un publicised for political reasons and so on.

Personally I think that if the Germans fought only on one front (ie either in france/Italy against the allies, or, only against the communists on the eastern front) then they would have won outright.

Russia needed the allies for supplies and could not have won it alone, likewise the allies needed the russians to tie up millions of wehrmacht men and supplies in what at many points in time was a crushing war of attrition.

I think the pacific theatre has not so much relevance in a discussion about Europe.

If you had to say who did the hardest part between britain the US or the communists, it would be the communists due to the fact that they literally 'sacrificed' countless millions of men in a way which would have been political suicide in 20th century developed western democracies. They were also responsible for some of the worst warcrimes to ever go unpunished in 20th Century Europe (in a way which makes the allies warcrimes pale in comparison).

Manic Moran

On D-Day, there were 24 German divisions in France, mainly equipped with whatever they could scrounge up.

The same day, there were 220 German divisions fighting on the Russian Front, generally the first to get the latest equipment.

Allied aid to Russia cannot be overstated, but neither can the Russian contribution to the defeat of Germany, at least until A-bombs come into the equation.

NTM

RedPlanet

Morlar wrote: »

Had D-Day failed (which it very easily could have) then the war would either have lasted a few years longer or the allies would not have prevailed at all.

According to what MM posted below, there were 24 German divisions in France, not sure how many were in the low countries but probably not that many.
So what you are suggesting, is that a mere 24-30 rather poorly equipped German divisions, would have been able to drag out the war in the East for a couple years. Yet the Russians already faced 220 German divisions in their push toward Berlin, so it really doesn't sound like those 24-30 extra divisions would have made much a dent.

So was the atlantic war and North Africa vital.

If the Russians had captured Berlin there is little German boats in the Atlantic could do about it. Same with German troops in North Africa.
Cut-off from any chance of a supply route, they wouldn't be long in surrendering.

Russia needed the allies for supplies and could not have won it alone.

No doubt, they couldn't have won it without supplies from the west, but boots in europe? Not needed at all me thinks.

Mullah

Russia made a massive contribution to the winning of WWII by bleeding the germand armed forces of men and material in a battle of attrition.

They were certainly helped by the convoy supplies as they also were by German military indecision and error at tactical and strategic levels (failures to develop a long range bomber to cross the Urals, indecison over where the main axis of attack should be: Leningrad/Moscow/Caucus oildfields) etc.

citizen_p

russia was vital in the war.
it was a war of anniallation.


look at the figures(off top of my head)...
western allies lost about 800,000 war dead,
russia lost around 11,000,000 war dead. ( about 15 million civilans)
germany lost about 6,000,000 war dead. (majority in russia)

Morlar

RedPlanet wrote: »

According to what MM posted below, there were 24 German divisions in France, ...

I don't think it is as straightforward as that.

Not all German divisions in france were 'poorly armed'. For that matter not all divisions along the russian front were elite/well armed/equipped either.

Many on the eastern front were the ragtags of thrown together units, there were so many re-groupings that even today it would be hard to track which units ended up where. working with equipment which at that stage was literally falling apart and operating way beyond what it was designed for.

There are stories of German tanks towing up to 9 broken down trucks/vehicles on the retreat. Massive amounts of equipment being discarded & destroyed due to being unable to get it moved on time etc. So what assets were in russia on paper does not line up to what was available in France where at the onset of D-Day those factors were not relevant.

Don't forget on D-day the panzers were held in reserve for a variety of reasons, Hitler being asleep and leaving instruction not to be awakened and the Panzer commanders being under the impression they needed permission to move in the event of an invasion (this was later questioned by Hans Von Luck in his biography who insists that the local commanders did actually have the permission they believed they did not have). There were also war-games on at that time and many commanders on leave due to poor weather and the belief that nothing could happen at that time.

When the panzers were finally were moved it was too late. Even the elite SS Das Reich took longer to get form the south of France to Normandy (partly due to resistance actions & attacks on railroads etc which were exaggerated post-war).

Had things gone the other way and D-day been a catastrophic failure for the allies (which it could have been had a few factors and circumstances changed just a fraction) the allies would have been pushed back into the sea. They would have lost their most experienced & capable units as well as massive amounts of equipment. They would also have lost the initiative and britain would be moved closer to a defensive footing. The PR & morale among troops and at home for both america and britain/canada would have been substantial. The chances of a re-run on that scale in the immediate future would have been slim (in my view).

I don't think looking at it is as stragithforward as moving divisions around maps in my view.

If Germany knew with a good degree of certainty that the allies physically would not be in a position to invade france for, say, for example 12-24 months they could shift not just their divisions & best men but also their focus and attention solely to tackling the russian advance. They could change their tactics too safe in the knowledge that there were no external factors in deciding how they were allocated.

I did not say U-boats or the afrika korps (at that time no longer in afrika) could have affected the outcome of the battle for Berlin.

What I said was that they were key elements in the progress of the war. After the war Churchill said words to the effect that the one element he was most afraid of were the U-Boats cutting supply lines to britain (which for a while it looked like they were going to do).

Had that happened britain would have been on a timer in terms of when it would run out of supplies and food. I don't remember the exact figures off hand but I think I read somewhere that 3-6 months was as long as britain could wage war with the supply lines across the atlantic cut. So yes the atlantic war was vital, not to the battle of berlin or the closing stages of the war, but to how the war progressed in it's earlier stages. Likewise North africa too was important in terms of access to the mediteranean and to oil. Also in terms of the Italian-German alliance.

RedPlanet

Morlar wrote: »

There were also war-games on at that time and many commanders on leave due to poor weather and the belief that nothing could happen at that time.

Yes, but the allies could run other war games : mock amphibious landings to lure Germany into commiting more troops to defend the west. Just like the yanks did in Gulf I. And then keep post-poning the invasion date while Russia finishes their sweep.

Maybe the allies figured, if they don't get boots on the ground in there now, they might not ever. And be left trying to bargain with Russia for a place at the winners circle.

FiSe

Nothing is as simple as it looks and I'd say that you are oversimplifying here.

The West played their games with Germans to tie more German troops to guard Atlantic wall.
They destroyed Africa Korps, which could be used on the east in case of German/Italy victory.
They denied German access to the oil in the middle East.

And yes, they fought in the Atlantic not only to keep UK alive, but to keep Red Army moving. The aid to the Soviet Union during the war is somehow overshadowed, but I'd say that it was as vital as 'unlimited' supply of troops and unlimited supply of raw materials to the industry.

And let's not forget that Soviets were fighting Japanese on the east as well, not in such a large scale as the Americans or the British in the Pacific and Indo-China, but they did and I believe that they were grateful that West is keeping Imperial troops busy and far away.

Nothing to do with Berlin siege, perhaps, but Berlin battle wouldn't probably happen as it happened.
Stalin wanted to destroy Berlin and so he did. You can't blame the Western allies that they weren't too pushy to get involved in that bloodbath. The line was drawn before the battle commenced and in many cases American troops were sitting on the demarcation line for days, before the first Soviet troop appeared, hands tied unable to move forward...

Soviet Union did win the war. But not on it's own.

Morlar

I think to go back for a moment to your original point, thinking about it now perhaps one of the reasons why in the west events like D-day and the b.o.b etc are seen as overwhelmingly important and decisive actions etc is that they fit all the criteria of heroic actions. Against the odds, brave sacrifices, honourable behaviour (for the most part) etc. The achievement was by and large not overshadowed by any warcrimes (leaving aside the bombing of Caen and other french cities for a moment).

Whereas if you look at the red army advance across russia and Poland and finally Germany it was a bloody horrific affair leaving behind rapes and atrocities galore. Not to mention the atrocious waste of their own human life and how the russians treated not just german prisoners but their 'liberated' russians who had formerly been in german captivity.

It is not hard to understand (in my view) why this aspect of WWII (the red army advance across europe) makes it seem less heroic in terms of the public perception in the west when compared to say, D-Day or battle of britain etc.

RedPlanet

Morlar wrote: »

.. D-day and the b.o.b etc are seen as overwhelmingly important and decisive actions etc is that they fit all the criteria of heroic actions. Against the odds, brave sacrifices, honourable behaviour (for the most part) etc. The achievement was by and large not overshadowed by any warcrimes (leaving aside the bombing of Caen and other french cities for a moment).

Whereas if you look at the red army advance across russia and Poland and finally Germany it was a bloody horrific affair leaving behind rapes and atrocities galore. Not to mention the atrocious waste of their own human life and how the russians treated not just german prisoners but their 'liberated' russians who had formerly been in german captivity.

More likely, it's because those promoting this view simply take a partisan view of the events. That partisan view was then reinforced during the Cold War.
Leaders in the west simply don't like Russia, therefore, they create myths from their adventure in WWII to undermine the Russian victory over Germany.

RedPlanet

FiSe wrote: »

The line was drawn before the battle commenced and in many cases American troops were sitting on the demarcation line for days, before the first Soviet troop appeared, hands tied unable to move forward...
Soviet Union did win the war. But not on it's own.

I certainly am not saying that Russia won the war on it's own.
But i read a little blurb that the Russian advance checked-up for a while either outside Berlin, or at some river and waited for the allies to catchup.
Don't have the link atm.
I think it was from a book written by this polish-born professor(?) whom was later accused of being a holocaust-denier (however that is irrelevant to current discussion). If any of ye know who i am on about.

Morlar

RedPlanet wrote: »

More likely, it's because those promoting this view simply take a partisan view of the events. That partisan view was then reinforced during the Cold War.
Leaders in the west simply don't like Russia, therefore, they create myths from their adventure in WWII to undermine the Russian victory over Germany.

My view of the red army is not a 'partisan view' it does aim to take in it's behaviour in it's entirety and not to get diverted in random or irrelevant details (however impossible that might be from our perspective in the 21st Century).

I could equally accuse you of taking a partisan view if you disregard their warcrimes.

It would be ridiculous to discard the overwhelming evidence about their behaviour. Even bearing in mind Germany lost the war and history is written by the victors the bulk of evidence I have seen whether it is in books, biographies or documentary interviews with veterans from all sides does not paint a rosy picture of red army behaviour either towards their own or to those they 'liberated'.

The very fact that they enslaved half of europe for a generation speaks volumes which is something you seem oblivious to.

And what I have read/seen etc is not all uniquely american or from the allied post war, post cold war perspective.

There are anecdotal stories of humanity and compassion coming from the red army. Soviets capturing Germans and then releasing them on finding out that the Germans had in the days previously given their own medical supplies to russian women civilians etc But those kinds of stories and extremely few and far between.

The overwhelming version of events is completely the contrary.

Nothing of what I said was a myth.

a) The Russian waste of their own men.

b) Russian treatment of German prisoners, or of their own people who had been captured by the Germans.

c) Russian warcrimes in Poland, a la Katyn etc, in Germany the rapes & mutilations at Neustettin & Berlin and mass murders of prisoners.

What specifically are the 'allied myths' you are referring to ? The 'west' is not seeking to undermine the russian victory - they did that themselves without any help whatsoever. In my view History has let them off lightly all things considered.

FiSe

RedPlanet wrote: »

But i read a little blurb that the Russian advance checked-up for a while either outside Berlin, or at some river and waited for the allies to catchup.
Don't have the link atm.
I think it was from a book written by this polish-born professor(?) whom was later accused of being a holocaust-denier (however that is irrelevant to current discussion). If any of ye know who i am on about.

If you can find it, I'd be very interested to hear that.

Morlar

The only time I can think of soviets halting an advance and holding position was outside warsaw during the uprising and that was so that the germans would have time to crush the polish resistance. This was so that the russians would be rid of another important element of opposition to their planned occupation post-war.

RedPlanet

Morlar wrote: »

I could equally accuse you of taking a partisan view if you disregard their warcrimes.

Actually no, i don't think you can. Neither Russia's, nor the UK's, nor the America's "war crimes" are relevant to this discussion. Which in my OP is nicely summarised as "Did Russia win WWII?".

It would be ridiculous to discard the overwhelming evidence about their behaviour. Even bearing in mind Germany lost the war and history is written by the victors the bulk of evidence I have seen whether it is in books, biographies or documentary interviews with veterans from all sides does not paint a rosy picture of red army behaviour either towards their own or to those they 'liberated'.
The very fact that they enslaved half of europe for a generation speaks volumes which is something you seem oblivious to.

My italics.
This is becoming a rant.
It is nevertheless, entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I am not making a moral argument. I think your repeated attempts at doing so, is a diversion.
I don't care if Europe was "enslaved" by Russia, I am saying that imo, Russia were the victors of the war.
I am not saying that Russia is morally superior or anything remotely like that.

What specifically are the 'allied myths' you are referring to ? The 'west' is not seeking to undermine the russian victory - they did that themselves without any help whatsoever. In my view History has let them off lightly all things considered.

That the US "saved Europe" and won the war for example, via D-Day?

RedPlanet

FiSe wrote: »

If you can find it, I'd be very interested to hear that.

It looks like it's gotten buried in google's database as a result of the aniversary of the invasion of Poland.
Anyway, he's some history professor, wrote a book that drew an alternate view of the war, said basically there were 2 ideological and totalitarian goliaths clashing: Fascism of the Nazi's and Communisim of the Soviets.
Europe was like piggy in the middle.
Later the author was accused of being a holocaust denier, i read a wikipedia article about him. But alas, my internet history is not so deep.
Was hoping a WWII history buff round these parts may know of the book.

asdasd

OK Red Planet.

1) The claim is that the Soviet Empire could possibly have won WWII on "it's own" - i.e. with it's own forces
2) it couldnt have done it without Allied Equipment.
3) Ergo It couldnt have won it on it's own.

Russia's sacrifices are not that important in the West because it was - unlike the American or Britain ( both of which were fighting an elective war to some degree) - the Soviet Empire was fighting a war of self preservation and (later) imperial expansion, after spending the first few years as an ally of Nazi Germany - effectively part of the Axis.

And clearly the West - which now includes significant parts of what used to be the East in the EU - is not going to celebrate that. I see DDay as an attack on Europe to defeat the German's and stop the Russians. Without DDay we would not be speaking German - as the Americans sometimes say - but Russian. I say "we" but really the Continent.

Spiritoftheseventies

RedPlanet wrote: »

I've read that the Russians fought 80% of Germany's forces in the big battles of the east.
They took Berlin and got to Hitler ahead of anybody else.
After the war they helped themselves to nearly half of europe.
While the Allies took a comparitively small piece of Germany and the US took a scattering of islands in the Pacific. But these pale in comparison with what the Russians took.

In the west we get bombarded with D-Day myth making, or the Battle of Britain, take your pick.
But seriously, the Russians probably could have done it without British or American boots in Europe at all.
If one country took the gold, it's got to be Russia.

Flip side of that is that Stalin and Hitler entered a pact to carve up Poland before the war.
But given that the battle of Stalingrad was arguably one of the major the turning points in the war, you could say Russia had a major hand in defeating the Germans.
Of course war was also fought in pacific as well.

FiSe

RedPlanet wrote: »

...said basically there were 2 ideological and totalitarian goliaths clashing: Fascism of the Nazi's and Communisim of the Soviets.
Europe was like piggy in the middle...

That's well known fact and you always choose the less threatening evil, from the two, if you can choose.
The only point I would make is, that Nazism has closer to Communism as both of those are left wing movements. Fascism, although pretty much the same is ultra right wing movement.
As far as I am aware, there was only one country in Europe which was Communist and one where nazional Socialism reigned.
There were more Fascist countries : Spain, Portugal, Italy

But, I think that you've got a few answers on the topic question. Everybody said that Soviet Union did win the war, but not on it's own.

Spiritoftheseventies

FiSe wrote: »

That's well known fact and you always choose the less threatening evil, from the two, if you can choose.
The only point I would make is, that Nazism has closer to Communism as both of those are left wing movements. Fascism, although pretty much the same is ultra right wing movement.
As far as I am aware, there was only one country in Europe which was Communist and one where nazional Socialism reigned.
There were more Fascist countries : Spain, Portugal, Italy

But, I think that you've got a few answers on the topic question. Everybody said that Soviet Union did win the war, but not on it's own.

Yes i recommend anyone interested in subject should read Berlin 1945, the Downfall by Anthony Beevor. chronicles the last months leading up to eventual invasion of Berlin. It was all choreographed who would arrive in Berlin. The "honour" was given to Russians as they had suffered the heaviest losses.

marcsignal

RedPlanet wrote: »

But i read a little blurb that the Russian advance checked-up for a while either outside Berlin, or at some river and waited for the allies to catchup.
Don't have the link atm.
I think it was from a book written by this polish-born professor(?) whom was later accused of being a holocaust-denier (however that is irrelevant to current discussion). If any of ye know who i am on about.

Actually RedPlanet, that jogs something in my memory too. I know the Russians lost a lot of men and tanks at the battle of the Seelow Heights, and the initial stages didn't go to plan for the Russians at all. I wonder would that have some connection with what you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Seelow_Heights

Or could you mean the Russians 'accidentally on purpose' failing to advance in time to help the Warsaw Ghetto fighters, allowing the Germans to masaccre them? That would make sense that a Polish Professor had spoke about it.

On the subject of the OP, it's clear the Russian contribution was downplayed, and sometimes bearly mentioned at all (with the exception of Stalingrad) for many many years, during the Cold War. Personally I believe that without the Russians, that war could not have been won by the Allies.

TerrorFirmer

Seelow Heights was a temporary disaster for the Russians because Zhukov threw in all his reserves into an already poor position in the hope of bludgeoning through the German front lines. It eventually became unhinged because of poor leadership on one of the flanks, can't remember which. I wouldn't say it was 'checked' exactly, because after Seelow there simply was no German front line at all.

If you mean in front of Warsaw, it is true that the Germans threw in a lot of armour, which caused the Soviets to slow their advance down out of caution. I wouldn't call that 'checked' either, merely precautionary for the most part. Another incident that might have been was in february, the Germans managed to string together about 1,000 armored vehicles to launch a counter offensive which turned into a disaster thanks to weather/thaw. Hard to find info on that one, it's not even given much coverage in 'Berlin: The Downfall', but I think it was the starsgrad offensive or the skarsgrad offensive, something like that.

On a very fundamental level, the allies wouldn't have the faintest hope of winning the war without the SU involved. It goes both ways, and aside actual combat contributions, you have to remember that the allies supplied the SU with incredibly vast amounts of equipment that were vital for the rapid offensives that crippled the Germans between late 43 and mid 44.

A big one is operation Bagration, that occurred in the same period as D-Day but was completely overshadowed by said operation. Bagration was the end of the German army in the east, their entire front was smashed, Army group center was virtually annihilated with the loss of something like 400,00 to 500,000 men - it (the army) never recovered. Because the other Army groups had to rapidly retreat, they also left behind absolutely massive quantities of weapons, armour and equippment. Bagration was the biggest defeat suffered by the germans in the entire war, and at a time they would little afford it. By comparison, the Germans recovered remarkably well after Stalingrad and maintained the offensive capability to defeat the SU despite suffering a large defeat.

Had D-Day failed it wouldn't have made any difference at all (in terms of the wars outcome rather then geographic changes) - by July 1944 the Germany army was in no state to hold the red army, let alone defeat it. Not to mention, allied air supremacy was crippling German industry and in particular, fuel sources - leading to crippling shortages for both air and ground forces. I think by late 44 or early 45 it was something like 10% of 1942 levels, entirely attributable to allied air offensive, though I'm not positive on that figure, it was something along those lines. Had they correctly predicted the thrusts in bagration (against army group north) they might have blunted the offensive and stabilized the front for a few more months, but with everything factored in, by mid 1944 Germany was fighting an utterly lost cause, regardless of whether d-day succeeded or not.

FiSe

...and let's not forget that allied troops were in Italy and France long before the D-Day.
6 of June just made it all much easier.

RedPlanet

marcsignal wrote: »

Or could you mean the Russians 'accidentally on purpose' failing to advance in time to help the Warsaw Ghetto fighters, allowing the Germans to masaccre them? That would make sense that a Polish Professor had spoke about it.

Don't think so. This guy was criticised by his fellow Poles for not looking through their coloured lenses.

Spiritoftheseventies

RedPlanet wrote: »

Don't think so. This guy was criticised by his fellow Poles for not looking through their coloured lenses.

To be honest, Germany were stretched on all fronts. With the Allies attacking from the West and Russians from the East, they were unable to fend off either with adequate numbers. Also Allied Forces were able attack them from the air and knock out the munitions factories while also knocking out some key bridges along the Rhine.
Russians would not have won war against Hitler single handedly.

Manic Moran

On a very fundamental level, the allies wouldn't have the faintest hope of winning the war without the SU involved.

I'm not convinced that's true. The UK would have survived pretty much indefinitely, and, of course, the Germans would never have been a threat to the US. They'd just have faced off each other on opposite sides of the bodies of water until the Americans came up with the first A-Bomb and dropped it on Hamburg.

NTM

Spiritoftheseventies

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not convinced that's true. The UK would have survived pretty much indefinitely, and, of course, the Germans would never have been a threat to the US. They'd just have faced off each other on opposite sides of the bodies of water until the Americans came up with the first A-Bomb and dropped it on Hamburg.

NTM

Again the war against Germans was waged on two fronts. Russians invaded from East, American and British from West. So the two went hand in hand

TerrorFirmer

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not convinced that's true. The UK would have survived pretty much indefinitely, and, of course, the Germans would never have been a threat to the US. They'd just have faced off each other on opposite sides of the bodies of water until the Americans came up with the first A-Bomb and dropped it on Hamburg.

NTM

I'm talking about if the SU was never involved from the beginning. Britian would have survived indefinitely? Hardly. The Battle of Britain would have been the first phase in a conflict that the British could never win. However long it took, the Luftwaffe would have eventually destroyed the RAF. Simple trial and error nearly won them the battle of Britain itself, the RAF was only saved by the Germans switching from attacking airfields to centers. The losses sustained by the RAF during that period were critical.

Manic Moran

There's no reason to believe that the Germans wouldn't have moved to population centres had they not invaded Russia either. After all, they'd already moved to population centres by the time Barbarossa kicked off.

NTM

W1ct0ry

The russian winter won WW2.

That and hitler making silly mistakes.
-Not finishing off the UK before entering Russia.
-Trying to advance during Russian winter.
-Planned to just connect the German train line onto the Russian line and running supplies straight in but the guage was different, so had to lay all new track.
-Having a great defensive position outside Stalingrad, but ordering the troops to take the city even though it was an empty shell.
-Allying with Japan

Silly Germans. :rolleyes:

The UK would have survived pretty much indefinitely

I doubt that. They only survived because Hitler got bored. All their airfields were destroyed. Germany could easily have got enough troops across to secure a front. And once that happened they would have fallen quickly.

TerrorFirmer

But without Barbarrossa, the Luftwaffe would never have been diverted elsewhere, and would have continued to attack England relentlessly until inevitable victory. A war of attrition - which is what it would have been - would have been utterly impossible for England to win. Germany had - and in massive quantities - more manpower from which to draw, more industry, more raw materials and resources, a larger air force....The battle of Britain was not so much a victory as it was a checking action, it only really became a victory when Britain was saved from invasion and serious attack by the involvement of the SU in the war.

Ping Chow Chi

If Germay hadn't attacked Russia I dont think that the allies would have lasted too long in North Africa though.

I think Russia played by far the main part in the defeat of the Nazi's, it's hard to say if they could have done it on their own though.

meathstevie

It might be oversimplified but in my opinion this is roughly the factors bringing Germany down :

- RAF broke the back of the Luftwaffe.
- American equipment and food supplied the Soviet Union.
- The Soviet Union ruthlessly sacrificed millions of it's people fighting the
Nazi's.
- The Royal Navy and the US Navy's success in countering the U-boat
treath.
- And last but not least Hitlers' head first jump into insanity from Stalingrad
on didn't help the German military with too many noddy dogs on the general
staff to counter the wave of irrational drivel from the fuhrer hq. Had Paulus
for example been allowed or had the balls to break out himself from the
Stalingrad encirclement while he still could the war in the East might have
looked significantly different. As the allies were outproducing the Nazi's in
just about any goods essential for warfare and had vast amounts of
manpower left the final outcome is not in doubt but the Cold War could
have been fundamentally different.

Manic Moran

W1ct0ry wrote: »

TGermany could easily have got enough troops across to secure a front.

With what?

There's some 20 miles of water between the two coasts. Even if the Germans could somehow mass enough equipment to transport enough soldiers to keep a foothold for a while in the UK, they'd never be able to support it. Not least, the Royal Navy would probably object to the use of the Channel. (And don't go overestimating the Luftwaffe's ability to prevent RN interruption, either). Look at the size of the effort it took to go the other way four years later.

NTM

RedPlanet

meathstevie wrote: »

It might be oversimplified but in my opinion this is roughly the factors bringing Germany down :

- RAF broke the back of the Luftwaffe.

Oops, more western rose-tinted glasses aka myth making there.
Six months later the Luftwaffe were back at the same strength they had before the Battle of Britain.
Although historians say they didn't have the same calibre of pilots.
Long after the Battle of Britain, the German Luftwaffe were still operating over Britain with virtual impunity.

FiSe

LW flew the occasional bomb raid, recce or weather flight, but it was nothing in comparison to the full scale air offensive of BOB.
Apart from Condors, which stayed well away from the British mainland, I wouldn't be too excited over the LW over UK after the BOB.
This doesn't mean, that RAF destroyed LW during the BOB. After all it was only one battle.

From the other hand, Stalingrad, more famous as the 1st significant victory of the RA over WH, then for the destruction of the WH as a such... I see Kursk as being more important, but it always will be open to discussion without end.

Now, a bit of 'what if...' I personally don't think that USA would be too pushed to enter war on their own on different continent and against enemy which doesn't bother them. They had their own trouble with Japan and that was enough.
If Germans hadn't attack USSR, they could put more time and resources into industrial development of the Reich. They might be able to develop long range bomber, they might be able to speed up their A bomb research, they might be able to starve UK through U-boot blockade...
Or, they themselves and whole Europe could be attacked by hungry Russian Bear and perhaps there will be totally different enemy for USA over time. But it is a fiction and always will be.

McArmalite

Interestingly, Napoleon and Hitler launched their invasions of Russia on almost the same date
Napoleon 24 June – 1812

Operation Barbarosa - 22 June 1941

( Granted Hitler was delayed because of Mussolini's failed invasion of Greece )

Tony EH

RedPlanet wrote: »

I've read that the Russians fought 80% of Germany's forces in the big battles of the east.
They took Berlin and got to Hitler ahead of anybody else.
After the war they helped themselves to nearly half of europe.
While the Allies took a comparitively small piece of Germany and the US took a scattering of islands in the Pacific. But these pale in comparison with what the Russians took.

In the west we get bombarded with D-Day myth making, or the Battle of Britain, take your pick.
But seriously, the Russians probably could have done it without British or American boots in Europe at all.
If one country took the gold, it's got to be Russia.

1. Russia won WWII in Europe.
2. It would have done so with, or without Western Allied help. Lend Lease has been overstated incredibly. It constituted at most 15% of the equipment used by the Russians. The vast majority of which was second line war material, such as P-40's and P-39's, both rejected by the Western Allies for ops over Europe. The most important LL vehicle was the excellent Studebaker trucks, but these didn't make their presence really felt until the Summer of 1944 and Bagration. By which time the Russians had effectively defeated the Germans in the East. In addition, the men and material that the Western campaigns tied down was NEVER enough for a decisive outcome for the Germans in Russia.
3. The best the Germans could have hoped for was a stalemate situation. After 1943, that hope was never going to be fulfilled and a defeat was all that was on the cards.
4. D-Day is very much about "myth making", so much so that Steven Ambrose (one of its chief myth makers) once claimed that it decided whether "...this world was going to be democratic or nazi", which is an appalling misrepresentation of the war AND the operation itself. The outcome of the war in Europe (as far as the Germans were concerned) was already sealed with Kursk in 1943, nearly a year before the first Western Allied soldier put a foot on a Normandy beach. In the end, D-Day was more about the shape of post-war Europe and getting a "Western" influence on the continent before the Russians held all the cards.

It's obvious that the Russian participation in WWII has been downplayed immensely during the post-war period, for obvious reasons. The Communist's work was done. They soaked up the lions share of the Wehrmacht and were no longer needed and they were going to be the new "badguys" once the Germans had succumbed to their inevitable defeat. Even today, with a much better representation of the Eastern Front, it's still difficult to get a completely unbiased study of that area of WWII, but things are getting better.

Tony EH

RedPlanet wrote: »

Oops, more western rose-tinted glasses aka myth making there.
Six months later the Luftwaffe were back at the same strength they had before the Battle of Britain.
Although historians say they didn't have the same calibre of pilots.
Long after the Battle of Britain, the German Luftwaffe were still operating over Britain with virtual impunity.

Not only that, but the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft during the first three months of Barbarossa, than the whole of the Battle of Britain period (July - October).

asdasd

OK, then. the Russians won WWII. Thank God the Empire did not extend to France or the Atlantic, for then the whole of Europe would have been a Marxist prison camp.

For that we owe the soldiers in D-Day an immense amount of gratitude.

asdasd

that said, of course, it is likely that if the Russians had marched to the Atlantic ( and what would have stopped them?) that the Americans and British would have blackmailed Russia to withdraw with atomic bombs. If that had meant a withdrawal of the Empire to its borders - in reality the Russian borders since Russia has no claim elsewhere - then it would have been to the good, and Eastern Europe would not have beem imprisoned for a generation.

marcsignal

I think a huge mistake Hitler made was not getting the Ukranians fully on side. When they were looking for volunteers to form a Ukranian Waffen SS Division, they actually would up with enough men for 2 full divisions. Other than that, their mistreatment of the population only served to act as a recruiting office for the Partisans. They then ended up having thousands of troops tied up in Anti Partisan actions, which just further hardened the resolve of the Soviets.

Other that that, I can't help feeling that if they didn't subdue Russia by the end of 1942, that game was up. Although the Germans fought some good defensive actions, and went on the offensive again at Karkhov, just after Stalingrad, they couldn't keep up with the Soviets in terms of manpower and material.

FiSe

Tony EH wrote: »

2. It would have done so with, or without Western Allied help. Lend Lease has been overstated incredibly. It constituted at most 15% of the equipment used by the Russians. The vast majority of which was second line war material, such as P-40's and P-39's, both rejected by the Western Allies for ops over Europe. The most important LL vehicle was the excellent Studebaker trucks, but these didn't make their presence really felt until the Summer of 1944 and Bagration. By which time the Russians had effectively defeated the Germans in the East. In addition, the men and material that the Western campaigns tied down was NEVER enough for a decisive outcome for the Germans in Russia.

I think that's not fully true, P-39's and Kingobras just didn't suit the RAF or USAF, the Soviets from the other hand found it perfect for their needs.
They didn't like Spitfires too much, but liked Hurricanes, They used B-25s, Bostons and those P-40s.
Shermans were almost as common as T-34s and Stuarts were used very often as well. Just from top of my head.

The GMC, Studebakers and other trucks kept RA moving and if you look at almost any picture of RA motorized column you will see those trucks and western equipment everywhere.
Ehh, and all that 'licenced' production with names like Zil, Gaz...

Eastern front is not western Europe and equipment which is brilliant on the West could be found not suited for rough eastern conditions /Spitfire, for example/ and vice versa.
I would say, that lend-lease was very important for SU as were the unlimited raw material resources.

Tony EH

Yes, The VVS liked the P-39 and P-40...to a degree. They knew they were hidiously outclassed by the BF109 however. Also, the fact still remains that these aircraft were still very much second line equipment, to both the Western Allies and the VVS. The most successful area for the P-40 was up in the far North, where engagements were limited compared to other areas on the Russian front. Simply put, the lack of a supercharger hampered the performance of the aircraft. There are stories of some pilots going back to their I-16's, because they didn't rate the P-40. The P-39 was more liked however and there's no doubt that it was a popular machine with those VVS pilots who flew it, in fact the Russian pilots were the most successful operators of the machine. They especially liked the nose mounted cannon for ground attack purposes and the reliable radio equipment.

There were never too many Spits sent to Russia, mostly MKV's but AFAIK, they were liked by those who flew them. But still, they were very much outflown by the BF109F and the FW190A, which were hacking the MkV down both in the West and the East.

Hurricanes were fine and were mostly used for ground attack (MkIIB's), but their operational life was limited. The VVS were very short of 100 octane fuel and what they used caused the Rolls Royce engine no end of problems. The harsh conditions of the far North, where they were mostly used, was tough on the machines too.

Another thing, there was no way at all, that Shermans (mostly M4A2's) numbered the same as the T-34 on the Russian front. When one considers that one factory, Zavod 183 in the Uralmash complex, produced nearly 29,000 T-34 tanks, this is clearly illustrated. Only one frontline company were equiped with Shermans exclusively and that was in 1945 IIRC. The Sherman and Stuart were considered to be absolutely inferior to the T-34. Quite rightly too IMO.

And yes, the GMC's and Studebaker's were appreciated. However, they weren't available in sufficient numbers until 1944. By which time the Red Army had defeated the German's to all intents and purposes.

Lend Lease equipment was helpful to the Russian victory in WWII, but in NO WAY was it either vital or necessary for that victory. The simple fact remans that the hard won early and mid war Russian victories were won with Russian equipment and were possible, the Russian's prefered to use Russian equipment with certain exceptions like the aforementioned Studebakers. But even they didn't supplant the Russian made GAZ trucks.

FiSe

Don't like numbers and am not disputing the above, just out of curiosity, found this on another forum:

Red Army tanks

This is one calculation by Pekka Kantakoski, a Finnish expert on "Red tanks":

Between 1941-1945 Russians built 99 395 tanks of various models.

Lend Lease : 12 482 tanks

Destroyed Russian tanks during the WW2:

About 106 000, of which some 20-30% could be repaired and used again.

Some 212 000 Russian soldiers died with their tanks ( 2 per tank crew )

In the front line as WW2 ended: 20 000 tanks



Limits of vodka expenditure for the troops of Red Army's Field Force from 25th of November to 31st of December 1942
Fronts and Separate Armies Limits of vodka expenditure (in litres)
Karelian Front 364 000
7th Army 99000
Leningrad Front 533 000
Volkhov Front 407 000
North-Western Front 394 000
Kalinin Front 690 000
Western Front 980 000
Brjansk Front 414 000
Voronezh Front 381 000
South-Western Front 478 000
Don Front 544 000
Stalingrad Front 407 000
Total: 5 691 000
Transcaucasus Frtont 1 200 000 (wine)

...worth pointing out that 3 out of 9 Guards Mechanized Corps were equipped with Shermans by the end of the war. These were some high-prestige units, and were given Shermans late in the war. The 3rd Guards was entirely re-equipped with Shermans in June '44, 9th Guards became an all-Sherman unit in December '44, while the 1st Guards handed in their T-34/85s in January '45 for M4A2s

Manic Moran

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, The VVS liked the P-39 and P-40...to a degree. They knew they were hidiously outclassed by the BF109 however.

I'm going to throw a flag on this one, at least where the P-39 is concerned. The BF109 only outclassed the Cobra in certain envelopes, which the Russian front provided few of.

The P-39 was more liked however and there's no doubt that it was a popular machine with those VVS pilots who flew it, in fact the Russian pilots were the most successful operators of the machine. They especially liked the nose mounted cannon for ground attack purposes and the reliable radio equipment.

No P-39s were ever placed into service with Soviet ground attack squadrons, it was considered an interceptor or air superiority fighter. The cannon would do quite a number on any aircraft it hit. Though very maneuverable, the aircraft had a very unforgiving stall characteristic accentuated by the thin air at high altitude, which is why it didn't do so well in Western Europe: The battles tended to revolve around high-altititude fights over strategic bombers, and no sensible pilot would risk going outside the flight envelope. In effect, the aircraft never reached its potential.
The Russian Front, on the other hand, focused its air battles on tactical aviation, with most combat occuring at the resulting much lower altitidues. This suited the P-39 far better, and it was pretty much a match for any of the German fighters it would encounter with the exception of some of the later marks.

The Sherman and Stuart were considered to be absolutely inferior to the T-34. Quite rightly too IMO.

An excellent read which I cannot over-recommend is "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" by Dmitrii Loza. It was translated about ten years ago into English, and is written in a very pleasant style. He leaves no doubt that the Emchisti loved their tanks, and in the course of the book he lists various advantages and disadvantages between the T-34 and the M4. For example, Sherman was quieter, with a better gun, lower ground pressure, and was vastly more user-friendly. On the other hand, it had less armour, higher centre of gravity, and a finicky suspension. Give a little, take a little. The Sherman is a vastly under-rated tank, which was good enough that it replaced the Pershing in US Army service in Korea. The fact that Sherman variants were still killing the best the USSR was exporting in 1973 should be testament to this.

Lend Lease equipment was helpful to the Russian victory in WWII, but in NO WAY was it either vital or necessary for that victory. The simple fact remans that the hard won early and mid war Russian victories were won with Russian equipment and were possible, the Russian's prefered to use Russian equipment with certain exceptions like the aforementioned Studebakers. But even they didn't supplant the Russian made GAZ trucks.

Recent Russian analyses are apparently differing with this formerly relatively unopposed thought. For example, ""without the Western supplies, the Soviet Union not only could not have won the Great Patriotic War, but even could not have resisted German aggression" (A. S. Orlov and V. P. Kozhanov, "Lend-liz: Vzglyad Cherez Polveka" [Lend-lease, A glance across a half-century])

NTM

Tony EH

FiSe wrote: »

Don't like numbers and am not disputing the above, just out of curiosity, found this on another forum:

Red Army tanks

This is one calculation by Pekka Kantakoski, a Finnish expert on "Red tanks":

Between 1941-1945 Russians built 99 395 tanks of various models.

Lend Lease : 12 482 tanks

Destroyed Russian tanks during the WW2:

About 106 000, of which some 20-30% could be repaired and used again.

Some 212 000 Russian soldiers died with their tanks ( 2 per tank crew )

In the front line as WW2 ended: 20 000 tanks



Limits of vodka expenditure for the troops of Red Army's Field Force from 25th of November to 31st of December 1942
Fronts and Separate Armies Limits of vodka expenditure (in litres)
Karelian Front 364 000
7th Army 99000
Leningrad Front 533 000
Volkhov Front 407 000
North-Western Front 394 000
Kalinin Front 690 000
Western Front 980 000
Brjansk Front 414 000
Voronezh Front 381 000
South-Western Front 478 000
Don Front 544 000
Stalingrad Front 407 000
Total: 5 691 000
Transcaucasus Frtont 1 200 000 (wine)

...worth pointing out that 3 out of 9 Guards Mechanized Corps were equipped with Shermans by the end of the war. These were some high-prestige units, and were given Shermans late in the war. The 3rd Guards was entirely re-equipped with Shermans in June '44, 9th Guards became an all-Sherman unit in December '44, while the 1st Guards handed in their T-34/85s in January '45 for M4A2s

Hang on a second, either there's some serious errors of judgement there by this Finnish "expert" or the Russians lost more tanks than they built and had to rely on rebuilds for the end of the war?

Sorry, but that's way off Fise and I'm not buying what Pekka Kantakoski is selling here.

BTW, I don't like numbers either.

Either way, regardless of the handful of units using Shermans in late '44 '45, the vast majority of front units were equiped with Russian equipment. It's true the Russian tankers prefered the 76mm M4A2 to what was on offer before, but I'd say if pushed a T-34/85 was trumps.

Tony EH

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm going to throw a flag on this one, at least where the P-39 is concerned. The BF109 only outclassed the Cobra in certain envelopes, which the Russian front provided few of.

Sorry, but the BF109F had the edge over the P-39 in every respect, bar low speed low altitude turn fighting, even though the P-39 was itself an energy fighter. USAF pilots said it was "...suited for wide, low, and slow circles" and RAF pilots called it a "widowmaker". But since the Jagdwaffe didn't engage in turn fighting and instead used "boom'n'nzoom" tactics, this advantage was negated. Just because the average dogfight in the East took place at lower heights than the Western Europe, doesn't mean that the Luftwaffe abandoned it's primary fighter tactic.

Manic Moran wrote: »

No P-39s were ever placed into service with Soviet ground attack squadrons, it was considered an interceptor or air superiority fighter. The cannon would do quite a number on any aircraft it hit. Though very maneuverable, the aircraft had a very unforgiving stall characteristic accentuated by the thin air at high altitude, which is why it didn't do so well in Western Europe: The battles tended to revolve around high-altititude fights over strategic bombers, and no sensible pilot would risk going outside the flight envelope. In effect, the aircraft never reached its potential. The Russian Front, on the other hand, focused its air battles on tactical aviation, with most combat occuring at the resulting much lower altitidues. This suited the P-39 far better, and it was pretty much a match for any of the German fighters it would encounter with the exception of some of the later marks.

That's true, there were no P-39 dedicated to ground attack squadrons. However, VVS fighter squadrons were regularly called upon do perform this duty regardless of what aircraft they were in, there are numerous accounts of VVS fighter squadrons strafing ground targets. And yes, it's also true that most combat took place at around 15.000ft on the Russian front, but IN NO WAY can the P-39 be considered a match for the BF109F or the FW190A at any altitude. We'll have to agree to disagree on that it seems.

Manic Moran wrote: »

An excellent read which I cannot over-recommend is "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" by Dmitrii Loza. It was translated about ten years ago into English, and is written in a very pleasant style. He leaves no doubt that the Emchisti loved their tanks, and in the course of the book he lists various advantages and disadvantages between the T-34 and the M4. For example, Sherman was quieter, with a better gun, lower ground pressure, and was vastly more user-friendly. On the other hand, it had less armour, higher centre of gravity, and a finicky suspension. Give a little, take a little. The Sherman is a vastly under-rated tank, which was good enough that it replaced the Pershing in US Army service in Korea. The fact that Sherman variants were still killing the best the USSR was exporting in 1973 should be testament to this.

Thanks for the book tip. I'll have a look. But, either way, you'll always get some users of a vehicle who appreciates what it did for them during the war and yes, the Sherman was a great tank, no doubt. However, it certainly was NOT better than a T-34/76 or /85. The tank which Heinz Guderian caled "...the best tank of the war". In addition, I don't accept that the Sherman had a better gun than the T-34 of any mark. The 76mm of the T-34 outclassed the short barrelled 75mm of the early/mid war Shermans and the 85mm was a better gun than anything that was mounted on any Sherman variant, bar the 17 pounder that the British mounted on their fireflies.

In addition, apart from the inferior qualities you already mention regarding the M4, it also had a higher profile than either the /76 or /85, had much poorer performance on soft ground, a far inferior track system and it was slower too (especially cross country).

Manic Moran wrote: »

Recent Russian analyses are apparently differing with this formerly relatively unopposed thought. For example, ""without the Western supplies, the Soviet Union not only could not have won the Great Patriotic War, but even could not have resisted German aggression" (A. S. Orlov and V. P. Kozhanov, "Lend-liz: Vzglyad Cherez Polveka" [Lend-lease, A glance across a half-century])

NTM

Hmmmm...to be frank, whoever gave that quote is talking through their hat. The history of the conflict alone would suggest otherwise. Lend Lease played little to no part in the Russian victories at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. That's 1941, 42 and 43. The bulk of the war. LL only had a truly significant play in Operation Bagration and beyond. But by that time, there was only one way for the Germans to go, back to Berlin.

FiSe

That's what I was thinking first as well... But then I realized that he's talking about tanks built during 4 years of 1941 - 45.
The RA had a plenty of old BT-5s, T-26s, T-28s, T-35s and early T-34s built well before 1941.
So this could add to the total number of destroyed tanks during the whole war.

But that post ment to be a lighthearted one :rolleyes:

Tony EH

FiSe wrote: »

That's what I was thinking first as well... But then I realized that he's talking about tanks built during 4 years of 1941 - 45.
The RA had a plenty of old BT-5s, T-26s, T-28s, T-35s and early T-34s built well before 1941.
So this could add to the total number of destroyed tanks during the whole war.

But that post ment to be a lighthearted one :rolleyes:

Hmmm...even so, it doesn't sound correct on any level.

But as you say...numbers are crap...