The Soviets could have beaten the Germans without help

cruasder777

realweirdo wrote: »

I hear this a lot and to be honest it's not really supported by history.

The view of some is the Soviets if left to their own devices, would have eventuallly defeated the Germans.

No western or southern front, no lend lease or none of that. Just a straight fight between the Germans and the Soviets.

My own view is it would have been a long drawn out conflict, but the Germans would have eventually won.

90% of fighting in Europe was on the Eastern front. The USSR had a much larger population then Germany and could out produce them in tanks 10-1

Thats the reality, the allies aid to the USSR was marginal.


The USSR could have won WW2 in Europe on its own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2xW6veHY9U

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

90% of fighting in Europe was on the Eastern front. Russia had a much larger population then Germany and could out produce them in tanks 10-1

Thats the reality, the allies aid to the USSR was marginal.


The USSR could have won WW2 on its own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2xW6veHY9U

That's extremely unlikely.

If it came to a straight Germany / USSR war it would probably have played out in a very protracted fashion to a bloody stalemate.

If, for example, Germany could turn all its air power on the Soviets, bring all the divisions, tanks, artillery etc it had to bear on the eastern front, the capacity for the Soviets to make the gains they did would have been limited, especially once you get west of the Vistula.

The Germans would have been falling back on their supply lines (as the Soviet ones lengthened), along a constricting front and into the area of the German's densest railway network (most of which ran East-West). Also the further west you move, the better the roads become which would have been a boon to the Germans. In short the closer you move to Germany the greater their advantages accrue and the more the Soviets diminsh.

The Soviet capacity to disrupt German production and interdict supplies beyond the immediate front was severely limited, meaning the Germans would have been able to move personnel, supplies, equipment with impunity by day and night.

I don't doubt the Red Army could have pushed the Germans out of the USSR but I very much doubt they could have made it all the way to Berlin and forced Germany's unconditional surrender.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

That's extremely unlikely.

If it came to a straight Germany / USSR war it would probably have played out in a very protracted fashion to a bloody stalemate.

If, for example, Germany could turn all its air power on the Soviets, bring all the divisions, tanks, artillery etc it had to bear on the eastern front, the capacity for the Soviets to make the gains they did would have been limited, especially once you get west of the Vistula.

The Germans would have been falling back on their supply lines (as the Soviet ones lengthened), along a constricting front and into the area of the German's densest railway network (most of which ran East-West). Also the further west you move, the better the roads become which would have been a boon to the Germans. In short the closer you move to Germany the greater their advantages accrue and the more the Soviets diminsh.

The Soviet capacity to disrupt German production and interdict supplies beyond the immediate front was severely limited, meaning the Germans would have been able to move personnel, supplies, equipment with impunity by day and night.

I don't doubt the Red Army could have pushed the Germans out of the USSR but I very much doubt they could have made it all the way to Berlin and forced Germany's unconditional surrender.

It was almost a straight USSR/Germany war in Europe.

The USA only became involved in the land war in 44 when it was all but over, it took part in around 5% of the fighting. 90% of German land and air forces were deployed in the East.

The USSR strategy was to let the Germans keep advancing, then cut off their supply lines as the became vulnerable/overstretched, Stalingrad was the key battle of WW2, it was a brilliant strategy. This with the fact the USSR could out produce them in tanks 10-1 meant as the war went on the result became more and more in the Soviets favor.


German air power used against Britain and the allies was minimal, most was deployed in the East.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

It was almost a straight USSR/Germany war in Europe.

The USA only became involved in the land war in 44 when it was all but over, it took part in around 5% of the fighting. 90% of German land and air forces were deployed in the East.

The USSR strategy was to let the Germans keep advancing, then cut off their supply lines as the became vulnerable/overstretched, Stalingrad was the key battle of WW2, it was a brilliant strategy. This with the fact the USSR could out produce them in tanks 10-1 meant as the war went on the result became more and more in the Soviets favor.


German air power used against Britain and the allies was minimal, most was deployed in the East.

Really, I'm sure there's a few vets from the various Marine Divisions and from Big Red One, who'd do a better job at putting you right than I could....

90% of German manpower might have been deployed eastward but significant combat power was tied up in the defence of the Reich and, to a much lesser degree, the defence of Italy and the Balkans.

The Soviets had no strategy for the first 6 months of Barbarossa (before the 10th January Directive in 1942) - in fact at the critical point Stalin thought he was about to be ousted and shot. Geoff Roberts (from the video) covers it in some detail in his books.

The Diabolical Monocle

DazMarz wrote: »

Could the Soviets have done this without the Allies landing in Normandy and Italy? In my opinion, without question. It would just have taken them longer. By the winter of 1946, I would hazard that the Soviets would have conquered all of Germany and Austria, the remaining Nazis being driven into France and Italy. And the Soviets hot on their heels, ploughing through France to Paris.

Tinfoil hat on: The Western Allies only invaded France when it became apparent that the Soviets were winning decisively. They wanted to ensure that the Western European nations did not fall to the Soviets, so acted too late to truly influence the ultimate outcome of the war (Germany's defeat) but entered to ensure that the Soviets would not get all of Germany and thus Western Europe.

Tinfoil hat off...

I truly believe that the Soviets would have defeated the Germans eventually, without western intervention. It would have taken longer (the Germans would have been able to concentrate all their efforts on the Soviets with no western front to deal with), but ultimately the manpower, productive power, pure patriotism, fear of annihilation and hatred of the fascist invaders would have seen the Soviets prevail.
... The Soviets faced dozens of German divisions, dwarfing the amount of resistance that other Allies faced. While many media outlets paint D-Day as the decisive battle of World War II, the reality is that Stalingrad and other battles in the Soviet Union had a much bigger role in the ultimate defeat of Nazism.

Made me think of this chart. A huge percentage of German military casualties was inflicted by the Russians. Certainly they killed more German soldiers than the others combined.

Jawgap

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Made me think of this chart. A huge percentage of German military casualties was inflicted by the Russians. Certainly they killed more German soldiers than the others combined.

Linky McLinky?!??

And please don't ruin this thread with your "typing errors"

The Diabolical Monocle

Jawgap wrote: »

Linky McLinky?!??

And please don't ruin this thread with your "typing errors"

Pick from any of these.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=world+war+2+deaths&tbm=isch&imgil=S6hPshUHYuNy_M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcTFSOhE24eNVQPV-MTQAC3MnBNqc-aOOh0gsqmoqnAoEYlMvAJ53g%253B480%253B400%253B6mskaE8fo10jQM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fredredmouhopero.blogspot.com%25252F2011%25252F06%25252Fallies-of-world-war-1.html&source=iu&tbs=simg:CAESZxplCxCo1NgEGgQICAgKDAsQsIynCBo8CjoIAhIU0AzhDNILuBbjC9sL0hbZC5YV0g0aIEaOQkCOW1Wkl3_1yg3kpUB0KON_1hOtwpBWyFFh8c2URIDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIEUpk5TAw&usg=__UJaDOuvPosgUZEWeuTyzCWVb3pU%3D&sa=X&ei=6y5FU9C-JoWM7AbbroCgDw&ved=0CDwQ9QEwAw#imgdii=_


Typing errors ?? - heaven forbid.

Tried Specsavers ??

Jawgap

TBH, your chart doesn't really show " A huge percentage of German military casualties was inflicted by the Russians." does it.

It shows the number of military deaths in WWII and confirms what we all know that the Russians - to borrow Stalin's phrase - provided the blood.

It doesn't show what proportion or percentage of 3.25million German deaths were caused by the Russians, unless I'm reading it wrong?

The minimum figure I've seen cited is that about 80% of German combat deaths occurred on the Eastern Front, but you can find some studies that put the figure in excess of 90%.

The Diabolical Monocle

Me - "A huge percentage of German military casualties was inflicted by the Russians"

Jawgap wrote: »

The minimum figure I've seen cited is that about 80% of German combat deaths occurred on the Eastern Front, but you can find some studies that put the figure in excess of 90%.

Hmm ok so you're saying a huge percentage of German military casualties weren't inflicted by the Russians..... buuuut at the same time admit that 80% of German combat deaths occured on the Eastern front. :pac: lololol

I've at no point mentioned 90% of anything. Another strong point of yours addressing people on things they never said.

Also, I would think when you have that many Russian deaths and the figure of minimum 80% German casualties casualties for the Eastern front, where Russia was by far the biggest of the allied ground forces you might be able to figure it out.

Or not.

Last edited by The Diabolical Monocle; Today at 11:04.

Jawgap

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Me - "A huge percentage of German military casualties was inflicted by the Russians"




Hmm ok so you're saying a huge percentage of German military casualties weren't inflicted by the Russians..... buuuut at the same time admit that 80% of German combat deaths occured on the Eastern front. :pac: lololol

I've at no point mentioned 90% of anything. Another strong point of yours addressing people on things they never said.

Also, I would think when you have that many Russian deaths and the figure of minimum 80% German casualties casualties for the Eastern front, where Russia was by far the biggest of the allied ground forces you might be able to figure it out.

Or not.

Last edited by The Diabolical Monocle; Today at 11:04.

No, I know of plenty of sources that discuss the number and type / cause of combat deaths inflicted by the Soviets on the Germans; the total number of German and Axis fatalities on the Eastern Front; the Soviets and the Axis; and even the Soviet blocking units on the Soviet line units.....

what I'm saying is that the pie chart you put up from this blog shows the overall number of military deaths - it does not show who inflicted them or where (in which theatre of operations) they occurred.

Are the figures you cited Wehrmacht only or do they include all ethnic Germans.

And as a general observation, the chart seems to under-estimate USSR, German, UK/Commonwealth and US losses.

The Diabolical Monocle

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I know of plenty of sources that discuss the number and type / cause of combat deaths inflicted by the Soviets on the Germans; the total number of German and Axis fatalities on the Eastern Front; the Soviets and the Axis; and even the Soviet blocking units on the Soviet line units.....

what I'm saying is that the pie chart you put up from this blog shows the overall number of military deaths - it does not show who inflicted them or where (in which theatre of operations) they occurred.

Are the figures you cited Wehrmacht only or do they include all ethnic Germans.

And as a general observation, the chart seems to under-estimate USSR, German, UK/Commonwealth and US losses.

Dont just rely on that one source. Theres plenty more interesting stats out there backing what I said, just go google them if you dare.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

TBH, your chart doesn't really show " A huge percentage of German military casualties was inflicted by the Russians." does it.

It shows the number of military deaths in WWII and confirms what we all know that the Russians - to borrow Stalin's phrase - provided the blood.

It doesn't show what proportion or percentage of 3.25million German deaths were caused by the Russians, unless I'm reading it wrong?

The minimum figure I've seen cited is that about 80% of German combat deaths occurred on the Eastern Front, but you can find some studies that put the figure in excess of 90%.

They also built more military hardware(tanks, etc) as all the allied nations inc the USA combined.

Jawgap

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Dont just rely on that one source. Theres plenty more interesting stats out there backing what I said, just go google them if you dare.

Oh dear, I see we're having trouble with the reading again.....

Here's what I actually said (I've added some emphasis to aid legibility)

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I know of plenty of sources that discuss the number and type / cause of combat deaths inflicted by the Soviets on the Germans; the total number of German........

Try and read what's written, not what you'd like to be written.

The blog I referenced in the post appears to be the source of the pie-chart you posted up. It used the following url

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/wartwomilcas.gif

I assumed you got it from the rationalrevolution.net blog and specifically the author's 2003 piece - "Casualties of War - Putting American Casualties in Perspective"

Feel free to post up a link that shows you did not get it from there.......

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

They also built more military hardware(tanks, etc) as all the allied nations inc the USA combined.

Really, have you got a source.

Because once you strip out the assault guns (not really tanks are they?) I think you'll find the US produced the most tanks.

By my Stephen Hart's reckoning (Atlas of Tank Warfare From 1916 to the Present Day) the US produced 88,410 light, medium and heavy tanks over the course of WW2 (1940-45).

Whereas, the USSR "only" produced just shy of 84,000 (1940-45). They produced an estimated 23,000 to 24,000 SP Assault Guns and they imported about 15,000 tanks of all types, mostly in 1941, but some in '42 and '43.

They also lagged behind the US in aircraft and aero-engine production (and their naval output was not very significant), but there's no doubt that in terms of small arms and artillery they were ahead by a good margin.

singledad80

You also have to take into the count how much resources that came from america to help the Russians up trough Alaska If the Americans had not got involved they be speaking German right now

cruasder777

singledad80 wrote: »

You also have to take into the count how much resources that came from america to help the Russians up trough Alaska If the Americans had not got involved they be speaking German right now

Total propaganda myth, resources from the US were minimal.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

Really, have you got a source.

Because once you strip out the assault guns (not really tanks are they?) I think you'll find the US produced the most tanks.

By my Stephen Hart's reckoning (Atlas of Tank Warfare From 1916 to the Present Day) the US produced 88,410 light, medium and heavy tanks over the course of WW2 (1940-45).

Whereas, the USSR "only" produced just shy of 84,000 (1940-45). They produced an estimated 23,000 to 24,000 SP Assault Guns and they imported about 15,000 tanks of all types, mostly in 1941, but some in '42 and '43.

They also lagged behind the US in aircraft and aero-engine production (and their naval output was not very significant), but there's no doubt that in terms of small arms and artillery they were ahead by a good margin.

Germany produced around 23,000 tanks in WW2. Lets not also forget German tanks could not operate properly freezing Russian winter temperatures. The biggest factors in the halt of the German army was the weather and over extended supply lines.

The USSR produced around 84,000, at the start of the war they only had around 2,000.

Once the 6th army was halted at Stalingrad, as time went on and Soviet production increased victory became inevitable.

Without allied help, they would have still won, it would have just taken a bit longer.

The Diabolical Monocle

Jawgap wrote: »

The blog I referenced in the post appears to be the source of the pie-chart you posted up. It used the following url

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/wartwomilcas.gif

I assumed you got it from the rationalrevolution.net blog and specifically the author's 2003 piece - "Casualties of War - Putting American Casualties in Perspective"

Feel free to post up a link that shows you did not get it from there.......

I did I posted the google search page from which I chose it out of the many available. There were many there. Any of them were good and all told the same story.

You assume much indeed. Happy nit-picking.

11:04. Adios.

beauf

Be some humdinger of a air battle if the Germans had there un divided attention on the Russians.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Really, have you got a source.

............

cruasder777 wrote: »

Germany produced around 23,000 tanks in WW2. Lets not also forget German tanks could not operate properly freezing Russian winter temperatures. The biggest factors in the halt of the German army was the weather and over extended supply lines.

The USSR produced around 84,000, at the start of the war they only had around 2,000.

Once the 6th army was halted at Stalingrad, as time went on and Soviet production increased victory became inevitable.

Without allied help, they would have still won, it would have just taken a bit longer.

So that's a "no" then?

long range shooter

singledad80 wrote: »

You also have to take into the count how much resources that came from america to help the Russians up trough Alaska If the Americans had not got involved they be speaking German right now

Not so much trough Alaska,more with the artic convoys.
They contributed with 23 % of the total aid sent to Russia during ww2.

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

Jawgap

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

I did I posted the google search page from which I chose it out of the many available. There were many there. Any of them were good and all told the same story.

You assume much indeed. Happy nit-picking.

11:04. Adios.

Tony EH

long range shooter wrote: »

Not so much trough Alaska,more with the artic convoys.
They contributed with 23 % of the total aid sent to Russia during ww2.

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

But the total aid (ie everything) was only around 15% of what the Russians actually used and that's being generous.

If lend lease didn't exist and even if the western allies had not gotten involved, the Russians probably would still have won. It would have taken a little longer.

Lend lease was helpful, but not decisive.

As for armour production rates, the Soviets couldn't have outproduced the entire allied output. However, they did outnumber the Germans by a great deal. They produced over 105.200 tanks and SPGs compared to Germany's 65.000. One Soviet zavod outproduced the total German tank output for the entire war, IIRC and their artillery production (which is often a forgotten element of war) was greater by a huge margin.

Regarding German tanks unsuitability to the Russian winter, this was a factor, but it wasn't an insurmountable one. The Germans found out very quickly that heating engine oil etc, got their tanks and aircraft rolling again. But this problem affected the Soviets too. They were just more experienced at maintaining their equipment during freezes. Soviet tanks actually used diesel engines and they had a worse freezing (or gelling) temp than the German petrol engines. What helped the Soviets was the fact that their tanks were of a more simple, straightforward, design. German tanks were often over-engineered and suffered a myriad of difficulties in harsh weather. Not just the gelling of liquids in their engines.

Stovepipe

The Germans had no large scale corporate experience of living in and fighting in extreme weather conditions, whereas the Russians had. They had found out the hard way and had taken suitable remedies, which is why Russian tanks, guns and artillery pieces used greases and lubricants that did not freeze when German equivalents did. The Russians used a kind of sulphur paste, very sparingly, on their small arms which is why rifle bolts could still be opened and machine-guns could continue to cycle their cartridge belts. German optics froze and failed whereas Russian optics, ie, telescopic gunsights in tanks had better seals and lubes and survived. Russian field clothing was simple but tougher and much more useful than tunics and other items of uniform designed for parades in Berlin. German nailed boots, worn with socks, were useless whereas Russian soldiers wore footcloths inside loose-fit leather boots with no nails and worn with felt valenkis for snow work. The Germans were not slow to learn and copied the behaviour of the Russians in many respects.

Tony EH

There's a guy I interviewed a number of years ago. Sadly, he died a few weeks ago. He was part of the RAD. He was called up for service in Russia after Barbarossa had stalled. He mentioned that the HiWi's were absolutely indispensable to survival on the eastern front during the winter months as the German army was effectively a summer army.

He mentioned that in minus 40 degree conditions any notion of enemy or German v Russian disappeared and all that matter was pure survival. Even going out for a piss was a matter of life or death.

He and his men were billeted with Russian families and were absolutely bowled over by how they coped with the incredible conditions he witnessed there. It led to him developing a huge admiration for the Russian people, even though he spent 10 years in a prison camp after 1944.

He also mentioned that the trucks he drove were pretty much useless when the temp dropped. He was driving British Army trucks, presumably captured in France in 1940. They would end up using Russian ZIS trucks, some of which were made of wood, as they ran better.

He was one of the most interesting people I've ever talked to regarding the war.

The Diabolical Monocle

cruasder777 wrote: »

Total propaganda myth, resources from the US were minimal.

+ 1


Monocle

Jawgap

^^^^^^^@The Diabolical Monocle & @cruasder777.......

......talk about a match made in heaven..........:D:D:D

The Diabolical Monocle

Wurzelbert

Tony EH wrote: »

However, by 1943 the war was effectively over for the Germans [...]

a war between germany and russia only without any other german military commitments would have been over in 41 or 42 at the very latest…

Tony EH

Only in a fantasy, I'm afraid.

Barbarossa failed completely and even if Germany had absolutely no commitments in the West, it still would have failed, as the units gained simply wouldn't have been enough. She only left behind a skeleton crew to "watch the backdoor".

Unless Germany could have knocked out the Russians completely in the first go, they had to settle for a long protracted war, in which the Russians would have the upper hand.

But, the facts remain that in 1941, the Germans just didn't have enough resources to do such a thing.

By 1942, it was just too late.