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.
Good post. Just wanted to post a couple of comments / questions.
Quote:
So, in many ways the army that Hitler attacked in his 1941 invasion of Russia was a "sitting duck". It was huge and had enormous potential, but was frozen to ineffectiveness by fear - not of Hitler, but of Stalin. To make matters worse, Stalin's leadership during the first critical weeks was almost non-existent. Considing these facts, it is no wonder then that the German Army was halfway to Moscow in 2 weeks.
They never made it the rest of the way though.
Hitler had correctly calculated that the Russian military was (to a certain extent) a paper tiger, but he vastly underestimated the difficulties of conquering and holding a territory so incredibly immense. Once the initial shock of the German attack had passed and Stalin realized he needed skilled officers in charge instead of political lackeys, Germany's fate was sealed. The USSR was simply too big to conquer. The Germans conquered lots of land and took plenty of prisioners, but in each battle the Soviet officer core learned. Battles were lost by the Soviets - usually with enormous losses - but after each loss the leadership was changed until younger, bolder, more talented commanders eventually rose to the top. Vast areas of territory were lost - but it really didn't matter, for the USSR was vast, and space (like manpower) was something it had plenty of. Threatened war factories were simply dismantled and shipped to the rear to be rebuilt and put back into production. The Germans conquered land - lots of it - but very little else since everything of value was destroyed by the retreating Soviets.
Eventually the Germans found they could just go no further and the tide turned. The fact is, even without America in the war, Germany would probably have been defeated by the Soviet Union. It would have taken longer, no doubt, but the potential of Russia was so much greater than that of Germany, that Germany's fate was pretty much sealed when Operation Barbarossa was launched against Stalin in 1941.
Wasn't the harsh Russian winter also a major factor in Germany's failure in caputring Russia? I always thought that was a fairly well-known fact that was notable because Napoleon made the exact same mistake. Hitler basically tried to advance towards Moscow in the dead of winter when the temperatures were well below zero and it was dangerously cold.
Second, you mention several times that the U.S. role in World War II is overrated because the Soviet Union could've theoretically defeated the German Army by itself. But there's two things to consider, 1) the Soviet Union had become weakened by the end of the war (i.e. 1944-1945). Wouldn't you agree that D-Day was needed in order to help break down the German army? Though at the beginning of the war the Soviets probably had the numbers to have D-Day operation by themselves I think they were too weakened by the summer of 1944 to have done that alone. Second of all, the Soviets couldn't have defeated Germany AND Japan. Japan is who we wanted to go after in the war, not so much Germany.
Good post. Just wanted to post a couple of comments / questions.
Wasn't the harsh Russian winter also a major factor in Germany's failure in caputring Russia? I always thought that was a fairly well-known fact that was notable because Napoleon made the exact same mistake. Hitler basically tried to advance towards Moscow in the dead of winter when the temperatures were well below zero and it was dangerously cold.
Second, you mention several times that the U.S. role in World War II is overrated because the Soviet Union could've theoretically defeated the German Army by itself. But there's two things to consider, 1) the Soviet Union had become weakened by the end of the war (i.e. 1944-1945). Wouldn't you agree that D-Day was needed in order to help break down the German army? Though at the beginning of the war the Soviets probably had the numbers to have D-Day operation by themselves I think they were too weakened by the summer of 1944 to have done that alone. Second of all, the Soviets couldn't have defeated Germany AND Japan. Japan is who we wanted to go after in the war, not so much Germany.
_
1) Yes indeed the harsh Russian winters were an almost unbeatable foe. I say almost though because without the vast size of the USSR, the war would have been over before the first winter arrived. The problem was, the USSR just wasn't conquerable in a single year, so facing a Russian winter was inevitable - resulting in Germany's near certain defeat before the first shot was fired.
2) Actually the USSR was at it's very strongest at the end of the war (much like the US was). In regards to Japan, Stalin didn't need to take on both at once, since the Japanese were anxious to avoid war with the USSR (they'd been badly beaten in a series of pre-war skirmishes and had their hands full already). Consider the fact that when the USSR did finally go to war with Japan they flattened the 1/2 million man Japanese Kwantung army in something like 10 days - reaching the 49th parallel in Korea and seizing large portions of occupied China. The fact is, the Japanese army was not nearly a match for the battle-hardened Soviets and their world-class battle tanks (t-34/85's etc). So great was the shock to the Japanese army that this battle against the attacking Soviets is the only time the Japanese surrendered in large numbers. They were simply crushed.
The Japanese army fought very well from dug-in entrenched positions where they were more or less forced to hold their ground to the death, but in the wide-open mobile combat of the Manchurian Plains, they had no clue how to fight. They were outmanuevered and overrun and their vastly inferior equipment was not nearly a match for the Russians.
PS - I just realized I'd not addressed your question about D-Day being needed in order to break down the German:
While Stalin obviously badly wanted the allies to launch the second front, the fact is the Soviets were already well on their way to victory by D-Day. In fact, they had pretty much kicked the Germans out of the pre-war USSR and were about to reclaim the territories siezed from Poland and the Baltic States - and their momentum was speeding up. Prior to 1943 the Germans had "owned" the summer and the Soviets the winter. Starting in 1943, in the battle of Kursk, the Soviets went on the offensive year-round, so by June of 1944 the Germans were in a more or less constant state of retreat, with only the occasional local counter-attack.
In addition, by this time the Soviet military production was drastically outproducing that of Germany - and of course the Germans couldn't begin to match the Soviet manpower. All in all, Germany was pretty much doomed already, even without the D-Day invasion.
lordbalfor - are you a history prof? lol. Great posts.
No, I'd intended to be though. My first bachelor's degree was in History (with special emphasis on WW II). I'd wanted to teach but at the time there were no jobs, so after taking a break I went back to school and got a second bachelors in Computing. Easily got a job then.
PS - I just realized I'd not addressed your question about D-Day being needed in order to break down the German:
While Stalin obviously badly wanted the allies to launch the second front, the fact is the Soviets were already well on their way to victory by D-Day. In fact, they had pretty much kicked the Germans out of the pre-war USSR and were about to reclaim the territories siezed from Poland and the Baltic States - and their momentum was speeding up. Prior to 1943 the Germans had "owned" the summer and the Soviets the winter. Starting in 1943, in the battle of Kursk, the Soviets went on the offensive year-round, so by June of 1944 the Germans were in a more or less constant state of retreat, with only the occasional local counter-attack.
In addition, by this time the Soviet military production was drastically outproducing that of Germany - and of course the Germans couldn't begin to match the Soviet manpower. All in all, Germany was pretty much doomed already, even without the D-Day invasion.
So why was D-Day needed in the first place? For the same reason that the atomic bombs were needed in Japan, in order to "seal the deal" and prevent the war from prolonging?
So why was D-Day needed in the first place? For the same reason that the atomic bombs were needed in Japan, in order to "seal the deal" and prevent the war from prolonging?
_
Oh yeah, those things definitely ended the war sooner. In the case of D-Day it also kept Western Europe from suffering the same ugly fate as Eastern Europe. Soviet domination was no picnic.
I'm not saying we didn't contribute to victory in Europe - obviously we did. But whereas in the Pacific we were by far the dominant player on the Allied side, in Europe we (the western allies - including Britain and her colonies) maybe contributed 40 percent towards the victory, with the Soviets facing most of the German forces. We certainly helped win the war faster in Europe, but I think the Soviets would have won on their own anyway (say in 1946 or so)
Oh yeah, those things definitely ended the war sooner. In the case of D-Day it also kept Western Europe from suffering the same ugly fate as Eastern Europe. Soviet domination was no picnic.
I'm not saying we didn't contribute to victory in Europe - obviously we did. But whereas in the Pacific we were by far the dominant player on the Allied side, in Europe we (the western allies - including Britain and her colonies) maybe contributed 40 percent towards the victory, with the Soviets facing most of the German forces. We certainly helped win the war faster in Europe, but I think the Soviets would have won on their own anyway (say in 1946 or so)
Ken
Well in that case it made a huge difference. Had we pulled out of the war in Europe, and just worried about the war in Japan, then that would've allowed for a Soviet victory over Germany. Meaning that there would've been no Iron Curtain because all of Germany would've been given to the Soviets. Possibly another war may have ensued if the Soviets tried to take over Western Europe as well. They could've won, in which case the Soviets could've came out of the war even bigger and stronger than what they actually did. This would not have bode well for the U.S. and capitalism in general, but that's a whole nother story I guess.
Without a doubt good conversation, but also a good ways off the thread topic.
City Data has recently added a History Forum to its stable. Discussions such as these really belong over there.
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.
