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.
Soviet efforts in WW II were greatly aided by American shipments of trucks, food and clothing. It's doubtful the Red Army could have fought it's offensive "deep" war without the logistic support provided by The United States. One must also wonder if the USSR could've won it's war had the Germans been able to put all their resources into the war in the east and not had to fight in Africa, Italy, the Atlantic Ocean and over their own skies. Indeed, huge resources of manpower and equipment were dedicated to fighting the British and American air forces over Germany.
That said everyone who understands the war knows the Russians did most of the German killing. But statements that without the USSR it would've taken Britain and The United States much longer to win the war sidestep the fact that German conquest eastern Europe, including the USSR, was the very reason for the war. Had France and Britian not backed Poland the Germans might well have been happy to go about their nasty business in the east while leaving western Europe alone.
The Russian GIs knew they were fighting a race war, that no mercy was to be expected and that not just the independence, but the very existence, of the Russian people was possibly at stake. This unusual racial German goal gave the Russain soldier a very strong motivation, a motivation that's not present in most wars.
There would be no "winning" a war with Russia. Between nuclear weapons and who knows what other WMDs, we'd be lucky if it didn't ruin the whole planet.
Now, where the Russians get the least credit is how quickly and completely they were able to recover from this "total war". They went from that stage to world superpower in a couple of years. They rebuilt their industry, their agriculture, their cities and towns and their national life in short order.
This is certainly possible when a relatively small elite is able to treat the population like slaves. As well, the actual damage the Soviets did to the Russian environment is not widely known.
This is certainly possible when a relatively small elite is able to treat the population like slaves. As well, the actual damage the Soviets did to the Russian environment is not widely known.
That logic is true everywhere. Our "Occupy Wall Street" protestors were also complaining about Top 1% and 99%. In USA also, we have a small elite.
Soviet efforts in WW II were greatly aided by American shipments of trucks, food and clothing. It's doubtful the Red Army could have fought it's offensive "deep" war without the logistic support provided by The United States.
I advise you to read Wages of Destruction - the Making and Breaking of the NAZI economy by Adam Tooze. The USSR out-produced the USA in war production in 1942, the critical year. The UK and USSR could have finished off Germany alone, as the combined economies were far larger. The USA shortened the war and was not decisive it its outcome.
Germany gambled that they could crush the USSR in 6 months thinking they could emulate what they did in France. The gamble failed. From Dec 1941 when Soviet T-34 tanks counter attacked at Moscow the outcome of WW2 was clear. Germany were checked in the west by the UK at the air battle over southern England and the might of the Royal Navy on the western seas, and now checked in the east.
In early 1941 the UK had defeated the Luftwaffe, wiped out most of the German surface fleet, Wiped out a large section of the French fleet, wiped out large sections of the Italian fleet, was freely sailing the Mediterranean Sea, routed the Italian army in North Africa, bombing Germany by air, building up a massive air fleet and were ready to take all the south coast of the Mediterranean. By the end of 1941 the USSR had checked Germany and the end result was all to clear to see.
Had France and Britian not backed Poland the Germans might well have been happy to go about their nasty business in the east while leaving western Europe alone.
I advise you to read Wages of Destruction - the Making and Breaking of the NAZI economy by Adam Tooze. The USSR out-produced the USA in war production in 1942, the critical year. The UK and USSR could have finished off Germany alone, as the combined economies were far larger. The USA shortened the war and was not decisive it its outcome.
And that is, of course, why the UK and USSR together continued to outproduce the US in production even after the war and into the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
I advise you to read Wages of Destruction - the Making and Breaking of the NAZI economy by Adam Tooze. The USSR out-produced the USA in war production in 1942, the critical year. The UK and USSR could have finished off Germany alone, as the combined economies were far larger. The USA shortened the war and was not decisive it its outcome.
The resources sufficient to check the Germans and the resources needed to go on the attack and conquer Germany were two different things. I too think Britain and the Soviet Union had a decent chance of defeating Germany by themselves but in the event it did happen with American aid, both in resources and fighting power.
I think Britain had no chance of defeating Japan by itself.
Of course. And given that France and Britain were of no help to Poland anyway perhaps their staying out would've been better in the long run. Imagine if Germany and the Soviet Union had fought a war in which only they were involved; it could've been the ruination of both Nazism and Soviet communism. Idle speculation, I know.
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.