Could the Russians have whipped Hitler without the West? (1980s, state, Japanese)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most advanced... that's a bit much too much to chew. I would argue that Russian and the nascent Soviet Union possessed some of the brightest minds in the world, but the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1941 while having made incredible strides in industrialization was no match for the pre-Depression industrial capacity of Canada, the U.S. or Western Europe.
But if you can show me that I'm wrong, I would welcome the information.
You are wrong. Russia was indeed a very important industrial power before Bolsheviks, with high technology and bright scientists. Scientist like Sikorski, inventor of helicopters, Polykarpov, planes, the designer of Soviet weapons, Rocket technology, and the planners of the INMENSE Soviet Industrial transportation to the URALS were all from the OLD ORDER. They did not grow on trees.
Stalin did not industrialised Russia, it was already pre-industrial.
More so, had Hitler tried to invade Russia in 1910 (in case there had been a Hitler and a German Nazi government in 1910), he would have been beaten by the Tzar.
You are wrong. Russia was indeed a very important industrial power before Bolsheviks,
Again, just saying that it is so don't make it so.
Russia had ceased being a great power as a result of the Crimean War of 1854-1856 and despite rapid economic achievements under which set its previous attempts at industrialization on its heals. And while Russia experienced rapid economic growth between 1891 till the turn of the 20th Century it wouldn't be until 1903 did the Tsarist government embark on a ambitious plan of industrial development designed to "bring Russia fiscally and industrially into alignment with the other European powers."
How you can argue that autocratic Russia, with little to no source of internal captial could have achieved in the early part of the 20th century industrial parity with Germany, Great Britain or the United States, when the country was in virtually constant state of civil unrest from 1905 until 1923 is just not believable.
Quote:
Scientist like Sikorski, inventor of helicopters, Polykarpov, planes, the designer of Soviet weapons, Rocket technology, and the planners of the INMENSE Soviet Industrial transportation to the URALS were all from the OLD ORDER. They did not grow on trees.
I didn't nor will I deny the brilliance of many Russia engineers or scientist, but engineers and scientist industrialist do not make (Sikorsky gained his expertise in aeronautical engineering in Paris and left the Soviet Union in 1919 because of the lack of what he saw as a lack of opportunity - absence of an aviation industry). Which is why Soviet efforts of industrialization were so dependent upon the significant assistance by Austin, Autocar, Brandt, Ford, and Hercules, who from 1929 help to design, build and operate Soviet manufacturing.
Again, just saying that it is so don't make it so.
Russia had ceased being a great power as a result of the Crimean War of 1854-1856 and despite rapid economic achievements under which set its previous attempts at industrialization on its heals. And while Russia experienced rapid economic growth between 1891 till the turn of the 20th Century it wouldn't be until 1903 did the Tsarist government embark on a ambitious plan of industrial development designed to "bring Russia fiscally and industrially into alignment with the other European powers."
How you can argue that autocratic Russia, with little to no source of internal captial could have achieved in the early part of the 20th century industrial parity with Germany, Great Britain or the United States, when the country was in virtually constant state of civil unrest from 1905 until 1923 is just not believable.
Although Russia didn't "cease to be a great power as a result of the Crimean war," and remained one of the major players on the European arena ( because soon after the Crimean war, there were Russo-Turkish wars, where Russia managed to regain her interests on Balkans,) but because she was so dependent on foreign capital ( one of the major negative factors, among others,) she couldn't of course achieve industrial parity with Germany or England.
Quote:
I didn't nor will I deny the brilliance of many Russia engineers or scientist, but engineers and scientist industrialist do not make (Sikorsky gained his expertise in aeronautical engineering in Paris and left the Soviet Union in 1919 because of the lack of what he saw as a lack of opportunity - absence of an aviation industry). Which is why Soviet efforts of industrialization were so dependent upon the significant assistance by Austin, Autocar, Brandt, Ford, and Hercules, who from 1929 help to design, build and operate Soviet manufacturing.
You need to keep in mind of course that a lot of the "old order" ( as Cojoncillo puts it) engineers and other educated people left Russia after the civil war. The country was badly lacking the specialists at that point, so Bolsheviks had to "grow them on trees," lol.
Although Russia didn't "cease to be a great power as a result of the Crimean war," and remained one of the major players on the European arena
Pure nepotism. It would have just been rude to exclude the Romanovs from family gatherings.
I love this weasel quote from a white Russian revisionist website:
Many commentators now agree that even based on a modest extrapolation of her prerevolutionary industrial growth-rate, Russia would have become a great industrial and military power without revolution and the communist planning.
Pure nepotism. It would have just been rude to exclude the Romanovs from family gatherings.
No, not really - just for the sheer size of the country, plus the fact that it was still the main supplier of grain to Europe, plus the growing industrialization, plus Russo-Turkish wars - those are the factors why Russia didn't stop to be a major player in European affairs. ( I am not sure why do you consider the Crimean War as the "end of it.")
Quote:
I love this weasel quote from a white Russian revisionist website:
Many commentators now agree that even based on a modest extrapolation of her prerevolutionary industrial growth-rate, Russia would have become a great industrial and military power without revolution and the communist planning.
This is a common sentiment among today's opposition to Putin, that "if not for Bolshevism, Russia would have been bla-blah."
When I lived back there in Soviet times, I thought that the whole "Soviet Experiment" was a plain crazy thing, but with time however I've realized that it wasn't all that crazy as it seemed and for such country as Russia that was sinking in debt to European nations, it was a radical, but justified decision. In fact now when I think about it, the think-tank of the early Bolsheviks consisted of well-educated people for the most part, starting from Lenin himself. Same can't be said about the Soviet leadership of the latter days, because at this point in time they've already lost touch with European train of thought big time. Had they been smarter and more flexible in their decisions, they could have dropped the rigid dogmas of "no private property" and allow the small businesses ownership in service industry, light industry - things like that, while still keeping heavy industry and natural resources under the state control. That would have alleviated the hardship of population in "stagnation times," revived the economy - things like that, and would keep the Socialist system going for indefinite time. After all for Russia that system brought a lot of positive developments, not only negative ones, plus the concept itself behind it is quite strong and appealing I think.
I've realized that it wasn't all that crazy as it seemed and for such country as Russia that was sinking in debt to European nations, it was a radical, but justified decision. In fact now when I think about it, the think-tank of the early Bolsheviks consisted of well-educated people for the most part, starting from Lenin himself.
There are some who would argue, I include myself as one of them, that Lenin was far more sensitive to the shortcomings of initial Communist economic orthodoxy and would have moved more towards the post Mao-Chinese model of economic development.
But Stalin killed off the best and brightest (or at least scared them shiitless) and the surviving apparatchiks from Brezhnev to Chernenko. Nikita Khrushchev was a unique character and deserves as much study as Stalin.
I don't know, but the West could have whipped Hitler without the Russians. Remember that we finished the atomic bomb first......
By the time the U.S. dropped the A bomb on Japan, Japan had pursuing a negotiated settlement (funny thing is despite claims to the contrary, they got pretty much what they asked for to begin with) and were pretty much bottled up on the their home island. In contrast by 1945, absent the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany would have consolidated its hold over the entire expanse of the Soviet Union and all of Western Europe all the way to the Mediterranean. Where exactly would the use of the only two atomic bombs in U.S. possession would have been all that affective at bringing the Nazis to the peace table considering the size of the Reich absent Soviet opposition?
PS given such counterfactual arguments, had the Nazi's effectively defeated everyone but Britain by 1941 how willing do you suppose the American people would have been to enter into war with Nazi Germany? And given the fact that having defeated the Soviets in 1941 with not much else standing in there way, who says that the Germans would have both the time and inclination to pursue the atomic weapons research that they simply lost interest in?
By 1942, hadn't the Soviets pretty well blunted the Wehrmacht's drives eastward and gone over to the offensive from the Baltic to the Black Sea?
The total surprise of the hundreds of previously unknown armor and infantry divisions that Stalin was able to throw against the Germans, coupled with Hitler's ignorant mishandling of his own army (e.g., his willingness to waste crucial weeks punishing the Yugoslavs prior to launching Barbarossa, the greediness he showed by trying to capture Moscow, Leningrad, and the Rumanian oilfields simultaneously, his unwillingness to permit the relief columns to punch through the encircling Russians at Stalingrad in time to save what was left of his Sixth Army), would seem to have spelled doom to the Reich --- regardless of when the Western Allies were able to muster their forces to invade Europe (nearly two years later, when the Soviets were well on their way to overrunning East Prussia and bludgeoning Army Group Center and the other Wehrmacht formations into submission on the eastern front).
Surely the Red Army might have taken longer than four years to conquer Germany, but were the contributions of the Allies really critical to that outcome, or did they simply bring it about sooner?
Apologies if this has already been addressed in previous posts. Thanks in advance for comments.
NO, without American aid in equipment, oil and cash/credit. The Soviets would have been on the rocks. If the Allies had not opened up the North African and Southern fronts. Hitler would have overrun the Soviet Oil fields of
Baku, leaving the Soviets with an insurmountable shortage of gasoline to run their T-34 tanks and personell vehicles IMO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
