Would the Soviets still conquer Nazis without USA?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32344
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2024 at 16:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Would the Soviets still conquer Nazis without USA?
Posted By: heyamigos
Subject: Would the Soviets still conquer Nazis without USA?
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2012 at 20:57
|
When the American forces landed on Normandy, the Soviets were already on the offensive against the Nazis. One can argue, that had the Americans and British not got involved on the western front, the Soviets themselves may have singlehandedly defeat the Nazis or forced them into a hasty surrender? But, the British victories in Northern Africa were factors too.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2012 at 21:06
|
No outside help=Nazi Germany conquers the Soviet Union. Without the diatractions of Africa, Western Europe and Asia Germany could've easily crushed Russia. Not to mention the US supplies sent to Russia. ------------- |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2012 at 21:14
|
It's not really an argument, I don't know any modern military historian that thinks otherwise. 80% of all the fighting in the whole war took place on the eastern front, not to mention, most of the best troops and equipment. The D-Day landings undoubtedly hastened the German defeat, but by no more than 6 months. Probably a more telling analyses of WWII is military production and economic bases. In these very interesting figures emerge, that the US, Britain and the USSR were each outproducing Germany individually in equipment and arms by at least double. The Germans never really had any hope they were so far outmatched, however a completely outmatched Germany doesn't make for great TV and film so they have to be made to look stronger than they really were. Another interesting fact that completely rewrites the Hollywood telling of the war is 80% of the Japanese of army, all their best troops and heavy equipment were in China and over over 60% of all the fighting in that theatre happened there.
------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2012 at 05:49
|
No. Russia was in a very dire position, with the military force decapitated during Stalin's political cleansings; the infrastructure was in ruins, in terms of military equipment was pituful. What Russia had was soldiers - underfed, underprovided with weapons, just ive meat to stop the bullets, millions of those; and no regard for human life. That's why USSR could afford to weather Germany, but wihout the USA in the game even she wouldn't make it for too long, there is only so much people can do against mashines. The epic 'Katuisha"s for example, AFAIK, were an American engineering, the Americans gave the plans to the Russians. of course in all Russians history books is explicitely said that no one fought the Germans but they. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2012 at 06:29
If ya believe in the academic credentials and research efforts of the noted scholar, author and historian on Russia (WW2 in particular), Geoffrey Roberts...the answer is yes. But this presupposes no conflict in the east. And like everyone else, he has his critics to include J. Haslam. A noted Professor of International Relations viz Stanford and the Un. of Cambridge. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2012 at 12:35
|
Based on what I have read, and what I have determined about the sheer volume and type of materials sent to the Soviets through Lend Lease, I think the best that could have been achieved would have been a stalemate. The Soviet war industry depending on not having to manufacture all of the items they received from the Allies. Without those materials, the Soviet industry had to cover all of the bases, and that would have been a huge additional burden unlikely to be adequately met. ------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: heyamigos
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2012 at 07:07
| I read some Nazis were only half heartedly fighting the Anglo American forces and often surrendered in hopes that they would take Berlin before the Soviets did? |
Posted By: Bobby
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2012 at 11:18
I would agree with the above. I did a research paper on this very issue some time ago and I remember being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of materials entering the Soviet Union from American hands. I remember something like 100 18 wheelers a day with all manner of goods, including food, medical supplies, and military stuff. Without this aid the Soviets would have been hard put to mount a counter-offensive. Clearly America's entry into the war tipped the scales, without her entry the outcome would have been in doubt. ------------- I am wiser than he in that I do not think I know that which I do not know. - Socrates |
Posted By: Bobby
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2012 at 11:26
|
Here is a link which speaks to the massive amount of aid from America to the Soviets.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts ------------- I am wiser than he in that I do not think I know that which I do not know. - Socrates |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2012 at 11:59
|
Most American aid arrived long after the course of the war had changed in Russia favour and the Soviets were winning. Also the earliest American aid was extremely poor quality, obsolete equipment the Americans were scrapping and replacing in their own army. For example the Russians who were using KVs and T34s found the Stuart tank to be somewhat of a joke and it's only real value in its steel, America's latest tanks were inferior to Soviet ones and it were sending its oldest ones. On the other hand British aid arrive a couple of years when Russia was desperate and the quality of it was higher than the early American stuff. American aid didn't effect the outcome of the war, the Russians were winning, but it did effect the speed of this Russian victory.
There used to be a great list of aid to the Soviets online listing equipment and more importantly arrival date. Sadly the website has gone and now we only have lists of equipment which omit the date it arrived lending a false impression to its importance. I often wonder if this is deliberate.
------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Bobby
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2012 at 13:20
The following is a list of shipments to the Soviets beginning in 1941 from Wikipedia. Not all of this got there of course, and there might be discrepancies between this and other lists. But you can see from the list the massive volume of aid that fed the Bear in a time of great need. The massive amounts of food alone enabled the Russians to pull the trigger. America gace tremendous resources to the allies during WWII and when it was all over rebuilt Europe and forgave the loans. These facts should not be belittled.
Aircraft.............................14,795 Tanks.................................7,056 Jeeps................................51,503 Trucks..............................375,883 Motorcycles..........................35,170 Tractors..............................8,071 Guns..................................8,218 Machine guns........................131,633 Explosives..........................345,735 tons Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000 Railroad freight cars................11,155 Locomotives...........................1,981 Cargo ships..............................90 Submarine hunters.......................105 Torpedo boats...........................197 Ship engines..........................7,784 Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000 Noniron metals......................802,000 tons Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons Chemicals...........................842,000 tons Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons Leather..............................49,860 tons Tires.............................3,786,000 Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs ------------- I am wiser than he in that I do not think I know that which I do not know. - Socrates |
Posted By: Bobby
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2012 at 13:42
It's interesting that the American government does not publish the amounts of lend lease, quite curious in fact. But in doing some research I cam across the following link, from a Major Jordan who worked with the Soviets and wrote a book about it after the war. He compiled a list with amounts and dollars amassed from what he said were Soviet records. The list is quite impressive and lends credence to the massive aid Americans sent to Russia.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html - http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html
------------- I am wiser than he in that I do not think I know that which I do not know. - Socrates |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2012 at 19:52
|
Ivan's own vehicles weren't bad either. Vast quantities of T-34s were manufactured in factories beyond the Urals that ultimately overwhelmed the Huns
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Bobby
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2012 at 23:26
True, the T's coming off the lines in Russia were impressive. But I think what ultimately overwhelmed the 'Huns' was their overreach. Too many fronts, the inability to kill Russia quickly, England's will to fight, backed by her Empire, weak allies in the European theater, and of course America's decision to fight with the allies. The T-34's were mopping up.
That said the Russian people were instrumental in destroying the two great tyrants of modern European history. The cost to Napoleonic and Nazi armies in trying to subdue the Great Bear was catastrophic strategically. Hitler didn't know his Napoleon, or perhaps he wanted to surpass him. The Russians didn't care either way, they just took care of business. ------------- I am wiser than he in that I do not think I know that which I do not know. - Socrates |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2012 at 00:06
|
There is a theory that Hitler never intended to invade Russia until he got diagnosed with a terminal illness around 1940 and was given 5-6 years to live. The doctors report is in the archive so the theory could be sound. ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Bobby
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2012 at 13:23
I've never heard that theory, turns out he did indeed only have 5-6 years to live, disease or not!
Hitlers decision to invade Russia, AND his decision not to take Moscow, are two of the most hotly debated military decisions of all time. The man was consumed by hatred, hatred towards Jews, towards communism, and towards non-Aryans. In my view these were handicaps, and led to his inevitable defeat. ------------- I am wiser than he in that I do not think I know that which I do not know. - Socrates |
Posted By: Cheops
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 06:52
|
No, the Nazi's lost because they were forced to fight at two fronts in Europe: the American, Canadian, British etc. from the west and the Soviets from the east. If this didn't happen, the Soviets would not have won from Germany, they probably rather got overrun by German forces themselves! ------------- In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons. -Herodotus |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 09:23
|
Russia is a vast country. Even if its armies are defeated an invader would have to contend with the terrain and weather. ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 09:48
|
If t
If its primary cities fall Russi is impotent. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 12:40
To a point yes. But terrain is as does momma says. Occupation of terrain is not necessarily a game winner. Destroy or occupy the industrial regions-centers of commerce and communications. Not to mention production sites of raw materials....in the west and Caucus. Anything beyond the Urals as of Dec 41...may or may not make a difference. This is what they attempted and they failed. The Sov counter offensive of Winter 41 saw to that. And before you remind me of the transference of same same beyond the Urals and its subsequent impact; review and research the aid received to do it and the initial impact it had before the aforementioned and in particular that it had after the Stalingrad debacle and Kursk. The Hun had shot his bolt. Period. Anybody who believes they were capable of continuing is either delusional or not realizing the now severely restricted options left to them. And these were not most decidedly offensive....cant even make that claim. Certainly not after the Autumn and Winter Sov Ops of 43-44 and the loss of Bryansk and Smolensk. The only minor success was at Kiev and that went nowhere as within weeks the Dnieper line was done by Christmas 43. Hell by Jan 44, the Socs have knocked then silly and are back on the old Polish-Sov border and the Crimea is only weeks away from falling (with Hube's pocket falling by March this leads to Odessa and then Vestapol). Couple this with still no threat in the east from Nippon and all the rest belongs in alternate history. Not here. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 13:18
The Soviets themselves have always given credit for defeating both Napolean and Hitler to their two "Generals" - General Mud and General Winter. Had Hitler settled for conquering the Ukraine and the Balkan nations, plus the Caucusus oil fieldsand solidified his position, Russia would have been left with a fait accompli. Hitler over-reached, and that never ends well, but Hitler defeated himself due to his insistence on fighters and fighter-bombers. Without a long-range, strategic bomber, the Reach couldn't reach those factories in the Urals. The He-177 Grief was a poor design prone to engine fires. ------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 13:22
------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 13:39
they have indeed but I would disagree with the Soviet assessment of both campaigns. Napoleon invaded in summer and lost all his troops marching to Moscow in good weather. It was logistics that broke his army. Also with the Germans, on paper they had mobile divisions but overwhelmingly the supplies for these divisions were horse drawn carts. A divisions of panzers bursting through Russian lines may look great on paper but when the fact they would then have to stop and wait for horse drawn carts to catch up to resupply and fuel them, it's not so impressive. I would say distance destroyed both the French and Germans. this can be seen in the Crimean War where Britain and France used distance against Russia. Russia had terrible problems getting armies to the Crimea.
------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 20:26
|
Toltec is right. Not only were Russia's cities separated by many miles, but the railways were a different gauge to the rest of Europe to prevent enemy armies using them
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2012 at 16:19
Interestingly, the railway gauge difference wasn't that significant. Germany has Railway Pioneer battalions that specialized in re-gauging the rails to Standard European Gauge, which is 4 ft 8.5 inches, same as ours. ------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2012 at 16:56
|
I think Toltec hit on something that has always stood out in my mind. It appears that the German Army was only half modernized. They had the most advanced Artillary pieces, but in most cases used horses to pull them. Lack of long range planning? Or just not enough resources?
|
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2012 at 00:20
|
I tend to think lack of long range planning. Germany went to war with Russia early, its economy didn't even go on a war footing till 1943. Hitler's illness as pointed out above coupled with a misguided belief in what they labelled 'psychological warfare' a fallacy the Germans invented in their own minds after the fall of France, that a major army would be defeated if armoured units could burst through the lines. They burst through Russian line a couple of dozen times, the Russian army didn't collapse, they burst through the US army at the Bulge, no effect again. It was a misguided analyses of France's collapse and led them to believe they could get a quick victory over Russia they way they did Poland and France. Many of the top German planner even realised if they failed to get a quick victory they would lose a prolonged war, Ribbontrop said as much. ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: nickherc
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2014 at 05:06
|
I think Germany would triumph if it weren't for the USA aid. From boots to cans of food, there was a lack of everything. German military really kicked the door hard. The Germans should have been a lot nicer to Ukrainians and mobilize them to fight the Russians. D day didn't determinate anything. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2014 at 09:49
|
I would advise not voicing that sentiment to any remaining survivors or their family members.
You might not be welcomed to the next picnic or tour of the Normandy American Cemetery. And any free beer at any VFW is out. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2015 at 02:57
|
Hitler fought his WW 1 infantry combat career in the West.. Germany lost in the West in WW1, but won against Russia. The strategic bomber, D-day invasion & Ardennes offensives saw the best Panzer/Luftwaffe units expended fighting the Western Allies, if these forces had sole responsiblity for the East, Red Army advances likely would've been checked.. Churchill foolishly sacrificed Singapore to supply Stalin instead, & IMO - it'd have been better all round to allow the two vicious dictators to have at it, & look after Britain's interests instead..
|
Posted By: Andrew Roosevelt
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2015 at 06:53
I don't think so for several reasons. To start with the Soviets were not even in position to defend themselves when the Hitler gave the go for Operation Barbarossa on Dec-1941.
To me the most important contribution US made to USSR's War effort is bombing of Germany, once Germany lost it's Industrial Power the chances of out producing USSR (via Quality to Quantity basis) was almost impossible. Western Allied Bombing also diverted considerable amount of man and material to Anti-Aircraft defense for the Home Land (Germany) which would other wise be available on the eastern front (were they were needed the most). Lend Lease Program: US also sent a massive amount of material aid for USSR, although later USSR was able to develop it's own industries in a massive way, during the initial stages the US aid was more than important for USSR's war effort.Information and Secret Codes: Apart from actively fighting, and providing financial aid for USSR the US and the western allies also provided crucial information about German plans and strategies as the western allies had cracked both German and Japanese codes. Troop Dispersal: Since US and British forces fought the Germans (although in very little number compared to what the Soviets faced) they did helped to Disperse the German troops and the focus of the High command to some degree. Engaging The Japanese: Adding more to that, if US didn't join the war, the chances are the Japanese factor would have remained and Stalin would not have had a free hand in bring the Siberian reserves. Without all these factors the USSR would have faced several handicaps against the Nazi war machine, USSR would have still managed to defend itself, but pushing the Germans back would have never been possible. ------------- I am not a http://www.philyoungconsulting.com - Business Acumen expert, I just share what little I know. |
Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2015 at 22:55
|
Fair summary, A.R.. Hitler did not hesitate to use his best available fighting formations & equpment against the West, & it was recognised that, climate/infrastructure issues apart, the actual combat was much tougher there.. ------------- Be Modest In Thyself.. |
Posted By: Drang nach Osten
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2015 at 12:56
|
Without the US fighting Japan Japanese would've made "Siberian campaign" and cooperated with the Nazi. ------------- There is nowhere to retreat - Moscow is ahead of us! |
Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2015 at 17:33
|
Likely that would've been better for both of them..
Except that the US was determined to have/provoke war.. ------------- Be Modest In Thyself.. |