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.
the last few months i was listening to all kind of Russian historians, both pro and against Stalin, they do not have firm archival information about Stalin, details is not very clear or disclosed, deep state had bloody hands, very bloody and were eager to pour dirt on Stalin to bleach themselves, eventually deep state killed the USSR.
I recommend reading the Essad Bey book, hard as it may be to find. It is a real eye-opener. The guy's roots were in fist-fighting in his native Georgia.
I recommend reading the Essad Bey book, hard as it may be to find. It is a real eye-opener. The guy's roots were in fist-fighting in his native Georgia.
I will if ever get a hold on it. Note, that Bey died in 1942 so, he described only part of the Stalin's story (1932?).
I will if ever get a hold on it. Note, that Bey died in 1942 so, he described only part of the Stalin's story (1932?).
I think it was as of 1931. I could be mistaken. But his start was not promising and things with him got worse, not better, despite his moniker, Uncle Joe, in the U.S., with FDR's help. May be off topic but I consider FDR to have been a low-life.
I think it was as of 1931. I could be mistaken. But his start was not promising and things with him got worse, not better, despite his moniker, Uncle Joe, in the U.S., with FDR's help. May be off topic but I consider FDR to have been a low-life.
looks like typical financial capitalism : loan to every side...US built a big part of the USSR.
Stalin was ready for that event, some million of equipped Soviet troops were kept in Manchuria untouched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19
Like he was ready for Barbarossa?
I’ve always thought the axis would have won the war IF they had not bit off more than they could chew. First it was a mistake to invade the Soviet Union while still fighting a powerful enemy in the west (U.K.). Secondly it was disastrous to up and declare war on another great power when it was unnecessary (US). Had Germany and Japan both worked together to defeat the USSR they would likely have won. Once the US was provoked from its isolationist slumber and the great might of US manufacturing abilities was brought to bare against the AXIS powers their days were numbered.
To answer the OP however, “could the Soviets have beat the Germans on their own?” Probably, but it would have ruined them to do so. Unfortunately the German attack had taken vast territory and pushed them to the brink of defeat in a short time. Once the Soviets regrouped for a real resistance they found themselves way behind. Still they were a big powerful country that had people willing to die to protect the homeland. When you kick in someone’s front door they are going to fight you to the death. Russian weather and landscape also allied themselves with the Soviet troops. Obviously Hitler did not read “An idiots guide to invading Russia” as it would have told him of Napoleons doomed adventures there. For the reasons I listed I do believe they had a good chance to fight back and still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Given how bad of a position they were in by 41 it would have been a LONG fight. Still they had the numbers to grind out a war of attrition. It could have gone on until 1950 without the US and U.K. involved. Even after any Soviet victory the nation would have been bled dry and not would have faced a much longer recovery from the war than what they faced in 45. Still the answer is yea they probably could have beat Germany on their own.
To answer the OP however, “could the Soviets have beat the Germans on their own?” Probably, but it would have ruined them to do so. Unfortunately the German attack had taken vast territory and pushed them to the brink of defeat in a short time. Once the Soviets regrouped for a real resistance they found themselves way behind. Still they were a big powerful country that had people willing to die to protect the homeland. When you kick in someone’s front door they are going to fight you to the death. Russian weather and landscape also allied themselves with the Soviet troops.
You nailed it when you said "Russian weather." The Russian summer is simply not long enough to allow a foreign land victory and the winters are too brutal.
You nailed it when you said "Russian weather." The Russian summer is simply not long enough to allow a foreign land victory and the winters are too brutal.
There were many factors that caused Germany to lose the war with Russia. I see them as these:
1. The invasion date of June 22nd was too late in the year. The invasion had been planned for May, but Hitler decided to deal first with a threat in the Balkans (Yugoslavia) and that delayed the start of the invasion. Winning before winter came became nearly impossible.
2. The sheer size of the USSR made a victory difficult. Any invading army has to deal with the issues of maintaining a supply line to the troops at the front. The longer this line the more difficult it becomes to bring up supplies from the rear. In this case, Russian partisans continually disrupted railroad lines, roads, and bridges preventing the delivery of reinforcements and new supplies.
3. A successful military campaign of any length depends on good intelligence. German military intelligence continually underestimated Soviet forces. At the beginning of the invasion they thought Soviet forces were half the size they turned out to be. The size of the Soviet air force was underestimated as well.
4. Failure of the Germans to enlist support from the population of the territories that they conquered. The German conquest of the western USSR was particularly ruthless. The Germans murdered Russians in these territories by hundreds of thousands. They took hundreds of thousands of others back to Germany to labor as slaves for the duration of the war. Many Russians would have loved to be rid of Stalin and the communists. However, they were never given a real alternative.
5. The failure of Japan to join its German ally and participate in the attack on Russia. This allowed Stalin to move troops from eastern Russia to fight in the Battle of Moscow in 1941.
6. American support of the USSR through Lend Lease.
7. The Russian winter.
Germany probably couldn't anticipate all of these things. However, their failure to anticipate some of them was virtually criminal negligence on the part of the Wehrmacht.
I'm talking about the military/food etc deliveries whilst the USSR was battling the Nazis during Barbarossa. Would they have eventually righted the ship on their own and driven the Germans from their territory and ended up in Berlin or would they have succumbed?
This is essentially a WHAT-IF? question: "What if the United Kingdom and the United States and have aided the USSR with materiel during World War II?"
But that begs the question as to what circumstances would have resulted in such a situation. The governments of both countries understood that Germany was the greater threat (primarily because Hitler was immune to norms of deterrence, whereas Stalin prioritized personal security over the 'glory' of going down in flames). The American public overwhelmingly preferred the Soviets to come out on top, as evidenced by Gallup polling taken after Barbarossa had launched but before the U.S. entered the war. I can only imagine that, in the wake of the Blitz, the British people were even more enthusiastic in their preference for the USSR over Nazi Germany.
So, by what weird logic has Washington and London doing nothing?
In any event, Western aid had little effect in 1941. By the end of that year, a mere 2% of the 17.5 million tons of aid had arrived in Soviet ports. It kicked up somewhat in 1942 (14%) but it wasn't until the last three years of the war that it really began arriving in significant bulk (27%, 36%, and 21%, respectively). [Interestingly, Lend-Lease to the USSR was not terminated until September 20, 1945]
The Battle of Moscow was a turning point in early December 1941. The Red Army held the Germans, and on the 8th of that month Hitler ordered a shift from an offensive to defensive posture of his troops. But the first British convoy hadn't reached the USSR until September of that year, and it carried fighters and support crews for the defense of Murmansk. Lend-Lease was not extended to the USSR until early November 1941. So a fair amount of that 2% never even got to the USSR (to say nothing of the front) before the turning point at Moscow. The German offensive of 1942 strained the Soviets again, but by that time the threat of collapse - upon which everything hinged for Germany - had largely passed, and it was an attritional war.
And that final fact is important. For all of Germany's advantages in leadership (both in the military itself and civilian leadership, mostly early in the campaign) and tactics, as well as the bungling of the Soviets (read: Stalin, as it all hinged on him), the huge expanse of the Soviet landscape and the near-endless supply of cannon fodder gave them an enormous situational advantage regardless of everything else.
I am only speaking of the Soviet ability not to collapse and lose the war. Absent Western aid, it is hard to see them reaching Berlin - or, for that matter, getting anywhere close. Holding against the onslaught and perhaps gradually retaking home territory is one thing, but rolling the Germans all the way back to Germany proper is quite another.
Of course, this was all quite unknowable to the West at the time. After all, the British feared a German invasion of Britain itself, while the U.S. worried about the Japanese landing on the West Coast. These were real fears, held at the highest levels of government, but the former was extremely unlikely while the latter was essentially impossible. But, fog of war and all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
There were many factors that caused Germany to lose the war with Russia. I see them as these:
1. The invasion date of June 22nd was too late in the year. The invasion had been planned for May, but Hitler decided to deal first with a threat in the Balkans (Yugoslavia) and that delayed the start of the invasion. Winning before winter came became nearly impossible.
It should be noted that the spring of 1941 was unusually wet in the region. Heavy rains kept river valleys along the Polish-Soviet frontier flooded into June, and virtually impassable to armor. That's not what delayed Barbarossa, but it did mean that the invasion couldn't have started much before it did anyway.
I’ve always thought the axis would have won the war IF they had not bit off more than they could chew. First it was a mistake to invade the Soviet Union while still fighting a powerful enemy in the west (U.K.). Secondly it was disastrous to up and declare war on another great power when it was unnecessary (US). Had Germany and Japan both worked together to defeat the USSR they would likely have won. Once the US was provoked from its isolationist slumber and the great might of US manufacturing abilities was brought to bare against the AXIS powers their days were numbered.
To answer the OP however, “could the Soviets have beat the Germans on their own?” Probably, but it would have ruined them to do so. Unfortunately the German attack had taken vast territory and pushed them to the brink of defeat in a short time. Once the Soviets regrouped for a real resistance they found themselves way behind. Still they were a big powerful country that had people willing to die to protect the homeland. When you kick in someone’s front door they are going to fight you to the death. Russian weather and landscape also allied themselves with the Soviet troops. Obviously Hitler did not read “An idiots guide to invading Russia” as it would have told him of Napoleons doomed adventures there. For the reasons I listed I do believe they had a good chance to fight back and still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Given how bad of a position they were in by 41 it would have been a LONG fight. Still they had the numbers to grind out a war of attrition. It could have gone on until 1950 without the US and U.K. involved. Even after any Soviet victory the nation would have been bled dry and not would have faced a much longer recovery from the war than what they faced in 45. Still the answer is yea they probably could have beat Germany on their own.
From my understanding from William s. Rise of the third reich book, the u.s openly violated neutrality with the supplies it was providing and in a way a shooting war was already underway in the Atlantic between German uboats and American vessels long before war was officially declared. If you read hitlers declaration of war, it lists out his long long list of grievances of what Roosevelt and the Americans had done to basically already be in open war.
I also understand it that war with the Soviet Union was the ultimate goal in the end anyways for living space. And England still being in the war was actually the reason that Germany accelerated its assault on the soviets. He couldn’t understand why the “already beaten” British were not coming to terms. He had a respect for the English and at least didn’t consider them subhuman. They were secondary to Germans but a people he wanted to work with. His paranoia ran wild that the reason they weren’t surrendering was because the soviets were going to invade and they (the British) were holding out for this to occur.
Last edited by Thatsright19; 07-18-2021 at 11:52 AM..
they did create good capable aviation... they used massive bombings near operation area to support their troops,
they did not bomb Germany because others did it...
The Soviets didn't bomb Germany because they didn't have a heavy bomber to do it with. The only four engine bomber they had was the Petlyakov Pe-8, of which a total of 93 were built, less than one week's worth of production of B-24 Liberators at Ford's Willow Run plant.
According to Russian historian Boris Sokolov, Lend-Lease provided a "critical" role in the Soviet war effort. He writes of a KGB recording of Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying in 1963
Quote:
But it cannot be denied that the Americans drove so many materials to us, without which we could not form our reserves and could not continue the war ... We did not have explosives , gunpowder. There was nothing to equip rifle cartridges. The Americans really helped us out with gunpowder, explosives. And how much sheet steel they drove us! How could we quickly set up the production of tanks if it were not for American help with steel?
In sheer numbers, the United States sent the Soviets 470,000 tons of explosives, 1.4 billion rounds of small arms ammo, 21 million rounds of 37mm and larger shells, 270,000 tons of rolled armor plate (enough to build about 15,000 T-34s), over 50% of their aluminum, and over 80% of their copper.
Soviet aviation gasoline was poor quality, Sokolov states
Quote:
Suffice it to say that before the war the overwhelming number of aviation gasoline in the USSR had an octane rating of no higher than 74, which was not suitable for the latest aircraft, while 97% of the aviation gasoline received under Lend-Lease had an octane rating of at least 99. Obviously, without supplies under the Lend-Lease lizu Soviet aviation would have been left without fuel.
Most Soviet artillery and almost all Katyusha rocket launchers were moved by Studebaker trucks, and thousands of machine tools were sent to help Soviet industry. 1,966 locomotives were sent, along with 11,000 freight cars, and 3,600 miles of rail. Sokolov notes:
Quote:
During the Second World War, only Lend-Lease deliveries prevented the paralysis of railway transport in the USSR.
He finally sums it up this way:
Quote:
So, without Lend-Lease, the Red Army would not have had one third of ammunition, half of aircraft and half of tanks. Plus, there would be constant interruptions in vehicles and fuel, and paralysis would periodically break the railways. Also, the Soviet troops would be much worse controlled, experiencing a shortage of radio stations, and would constantly starve without American stew, lard and melange.
If the German Air Force didn’t need to be back home battling the Americans and British, what would the strengthened German Air Force in the East do? Are the soviets able to support their advance as easily?
No. It's estimated that about 75% of all German 88mm dual purpose anti-aircraft/anti-tank guns were used to defend against American and British bombers. Had they not been needed in that role, their presence very likely would have been felt in the 1942 summer offensive in the east, and likely at Kursk in 1943. If all the men and equipment that were tied up in North Africa and Italy could have been used in the east instead, it would have been an even bigger bloodbath than it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Though we don't recognize it, since 1933, USA has been a socialist country, just without overt nationalization of labor and industry. However, covert nationalization, via taxes and regulations, has made the government supreme over the private sector.
Which may explain why American socialist experiments ("War on Poverty") such as Federal Housing projects often copied the Soviets - like the communal Khrushchyovka.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka Unofficial name for a type of low-cost, concrete-paneled or brick three- to five-storied apartment building which was developed in the Soviet Union during the early 1960s, during the time its namesake Nikita Khrushchev directed the Soviet government.
. . . .
Yeah, those were real beauties. I had this nice cheerful view outside my window while working on Sakhalin Island in the Russian Far East. Note the faded hammer and sickle on the building to the right.
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.
