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.
That writer was very biased as if having casualties wins wars.... actually having the opponent have casualties and logistically destroying their ability to make war wins wars. In the case of WW II, the US and UK domination of the skies and daily bombing took away Germany's ability to make war and the Russians army fought heroically on the ground (as did Americans).
My Father was an 18 yoa soldier that hit Omaha Beach during the invasion and was shot there...after being patched up in the UK, he returned to the battle and was shot and captured on a scouting mission in Germany and was freed by Russians at the end of the war. He did have a high opinion of Russian soldiers despite how poorly they were armed and equipped.
I don't believe Russia would have defeated Germany in a 1 on 1 battle.
It's interesting speculation, sure, but mostly a moot point. The Nazi ideology was pretty much based on expanding eastwards and gain lebensraum at the cost of the inferior Slavs - going east was the essential purpose of the Wehrmacht.
The Nazis completely expected the UK to settle for peace - the western front (apart from contested territories like the Rheinland etc.) was a preliminary to make sure the eastwards expansion could take place without having to fight on two (major) fronts, not really a goal in itself.
Didn't help that Mussolini got himself into Greece and needed bailing out - I'd love to have heard that phone call.
Assuming the lend-lease supplies still arriving - doubtful. Germany's sophisticated weaponry didn't do too well at the end of their overextended supply line. And Soviet production kept muddling on, somehow - USSR built more T-34s alone than Germany managed to build tanks, total.
The war would have been longer, grimmer and probably end with all of Europe under Soviet control, but Germany had to win quickly or not at all. They simply did not possess the strategic resources - particularly oil - for a long war. Now, if Germany had deliberately gone to secure the oil fields in Caucasus, it might have been a different picture. But that decision far predates the opening of the second front, and of course the scenario comes with its own set of problems.
Majority of the Soviet logistics was provided by the US. Refined gas, steam engines, oil, food, trucks. Hard to fight a war stuck on the ground with your troops frozen and starving.
Majority of the Soviet logistics was provided by the US. Refined gas, steam engines, oil, food, trucks. Hard to fight a war stuck on the ground with your troops frozen and starving.
I guess I should have put in something like "Assuming the lend-lease supplies still arriving" then. Wait - I did.
That writer was very biased as if having casualties wins wars.... actually having the opponent have casualties and logistically destroying their ability to make war wins wars. In the case of WW II, the US and UK domination of the skies and daily bombing took away Germany's ability to make war and the Russians army fought heroically on the ground (as did Americans).
My Father was an 18 yoa soldier that hit Omaha Beach during the invasion and was shot there...after being patched up in the UK, he returned to the battle and was shot and captured on a scouting mission in Germany and was freed by Russians at the end of the war. He did have a high opinion of Russian soldiers despite how poorly they were armed and equipped.
I don't believe Russia would have defeated Germany in a 1 on 1 battle.
Agreed if talking just Germany and Russia IF Hitler was a real leader instead a "N Korea Kim" with a much richer country. Too; word was Germany didn't take out England 1st, IF that was even possible.
Certainly lend lease was a major help to the Soviets. However, U.S. air domination didn't play a role in keeping them afloat because the Soviets began taking back territory a year before the U.S. gained air dominance.
Uh; I'm quite sure had Hitler NOT had to deal with a pissed off US after Pearl Harbor, I'm pretty sure Germany would've murdered enough Russian soldiers that Stalin would've begged for peace. Instead of 20 million young Russian dudes being killed, it could've been more like 30 million.
The Red Army held off the Germans at the critical point in the war, allowing the Americans and Brits to get organized and open up a second front.
but but but..
a western Europe left to shift for itself in the 1940s would have been screwed either way – if not screwed by Hitler, then screwed by Stalin, like Poland and Czechoslovakia and all the other countries “liberated” by the Red Army.
No?
Agreed and HOW! My grandfathers told me lots of WW 2 stories even tho I was born much later.
This correct - the Soviets did the VAST majority of the heavy lifting in Europe. No question about it.
That said, the US should have followed Patton's advice, marched into the USSR and overthrown the Soviet regime when they were completely exhausted. Instead, good old fellow traveler FDR gave Stalin permission to enslave half of Europe for 45 years.
Russia would've fallen in 1 year or less IF the US went after them in 1945, especially after Japan was crippled.
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.
