World War II: USSR Front

[jai231179]

Unlike Stalingrad and Leingrad Moscow was the capital of the ussr not only that it was also the center of the railway hub, it was the political and administrative center for the ussr taking Moscow might have led to the collapse of the soviet union.

There is no way of knowing that actually. But I have to agree though that it is exactly what Hitler expected though, which was for Moscow to fall quickly and that to lead to a collapse of the USSR. Germany was never really prepared to take on the USSR in a war of attrition anyways. Their industrial output was not even optimized for war needs in the earlier stages of the conflict as Hitler was hoping to maintain higher living standards for civilians back home at the same time. That became a huge problem for the Wehrmacht in terms of supplies as the war dragged on. Germany's real chance lay in a quick and decisive victory over the USSR. When that didn't happen and the Russians dragged on the fight, it was only a matter of time before the tables turned.

Now that we know the way events played out though, I doubt the Russians would have surrendered if Moscow fell. They may have even dragged the capital all the way to the Urals, but they would have never surrendered. Surrender wasn't a better option anyway since the other side was bent on wiping out Slavs too.

Red Army certainly did the heavy lifting with the Nazis. However, lend lease was very instrumental in helping Russia. Mainly as far as trucks. These allowed the "Blitzkreig" in reverse, to transport troops and supplies (neccessary for mobile warfare). Plus, we met in the middle of Germany, and that while fighting Japanese And Germans, Italians etc. 1000's of miles from our shore.

Even the Red Army did nnot have the nerve to fight them all at the same time.

Its true the USA was fighting both Germany and Japan at the same time, but u guys did also enter the conflict late, after both the Germans and the Japanese had their strengths significantly diminished and supply lines stretched. It was still Russia which faced the full brunt of a German attack in the opening stages of Barbarossa.

 

[Vassnti]

The worst of the purges wasnt in the 20's

The Great Purge was a series of campaigns of political repression and murder in the Soviet Union orchestrated by Joseph Stalin from 1937 to 1938.[1] It involved a large-scale purge of the Communist Party and government officials, repression of peasants, Red Army leadership, and the persecution of unaffiliated persons, characterized by widespread police surveillance, widespread suspicion of "saboteurs", imprisonment, and arbitrary executions.[2] In Russian historiography the period of the most intense purge, 1937–1938, is called Yezhovshchina (Russian: ежовщина; literally, the Yezhov regime), after Nikolai Yezhov, the head of the Soviet secret police, NKVD.

Officers were still being purged after the winter war so that takes it up to 1940.

Neither does a list of Stalins atrocities indicate a preperation for war, yes he killed millions of his own people by starvation forced migration imprisonment and execution but being a butcher of your own people doesnt mean you are preparing for war else where.

You like the 1919 Polish invasion of Russia

The Polish–Soviet War (February 1919 – March 1921) was an armed conflict between Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine and the Second Polish Republic and the Ukrainian People's Republic over the control of what is present day Ukraine and parts of present day Belarus.

The Treaty of Versailles had only vaguely defined the frontiers between Poland and Bolshevik Russia, and post-war events created further turmoil and Poland's Chief of State, Józef Piłsudski, felt the time was right to expand Polish borders as far east as feasible, to be followed by a Polish-led Intermarum federation of East-Central-European states as a bulwark against the re-emergence of German and Russian imperialisms. Lenin, meanwhile, saw Poland as the bridge the Red Army had to cross to assist other communist movements and bring about other European revolutions. By 1919, Polish forces had taken control of much of Western Ukraine, emerging victorious from the Polish–Ukrainian War. The West Ukrainian People's Republic, led by Yevhen Petrushevych, had tried unsuccessfully to create a Ukrainian state on territories to which both Poles and Ukrainians laid claim. At the same time in the Russian part of Ukraine Symon Petliura tried to defend and strengthen the Ukrainian People's Republic, but as the Bolsheviks began to gain the upper hand in the Russian Civil War, they started to advance westward towards the disputed Ukrainian territories causing Petliura's forces to retreat to Podolia. By the end of 1919 a clear front had formed as Petliura decided to ally with Piłsudski. Border skirmishes escalated into open warfare following Piłsudski's major incursion further east into Ukraine in April 1920. The Polish offensive was met by an initially successful Red Army counterattack. The Soviet operation threw the Polish forces back westward all the way to the Polish capital, Warsaw, while the Directorate of Ukraine fled to Western Europe. Meanwhile, Western fears of Soviet troops arriving at the German frontiers increased the interest of Western powers in the war. In midsummer, the fall of Warsaw seemed certain but in mid-August the tide had turned again as the Polish forces achieved an unexpected and decisive victory at the Battle of Warsaw. In the wake of the Polish advance eastward, the Soviets sued for peace and the war ended with a ceasefire in October 1920

How does getting your butt kicked by the poles 20years earlier indicate a preperation for war?

 

[jai231179]

The purges took place in the 1920's and 1930's, Stalin's plan was to invade Europe in 1942 when he rebuilt him army and reestablished his officer corp while hoping Hitler would invade Britain which never happened.

I'm guessing you did not bother reading those sources i posted.



So i'm guessing the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921 is a myth right? I wonder where Britain was to defend Poland then.



So you are now calling me a subhuman? Wow, way to debate maturely. So strange that its always 12 year old's who get on the computer without their parents permission and start typing derogatory remarks against other people.





So you prove my point that Stalin did indeed intend to invade Europe after all:
From your source:
"While most agree that Stalin made extensive preparations for an upcoming war and exploited the military conflict in Europe to his advantage"

Now coming to this part of your source:

"In some countries, particularly in Russia, Germany and Israel, Suvorov's thesis has jumped the bounds of academic discourse and captured the imagination of the public.[1] Among the noted critics of Suvorov's work are Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, American military historian David Glantz,[9] Russian military historians Makhmut Gareev and Lev Bezymensky, and perhaps his most vehement Russian opponent Alexei Isayev,[10] the author of Anti-Suvorov. Many other western scholars, such as Teddy J. Uldricks,[1] Derek Watson,[11] Hugh Ragsdale,[12] Roger Reese,[13] Stephen Blank,[14] Robin Edmonds,[15] agree that the major Suvorov's writings rest circumstantial evidences,[16] or even on "virtually no evidentiary base"[1] [17]"

There you go, the answer is pretty much there fore any sane person to see. So called "intellectuals" and "scholars" from Countries where one can get arrested for denying the holocaust but not for drawing cartoons of Islamic Holy figures, are labeling Mr Suvorov's (who is a former Soviet intelligence officer, more reliable of a source than all of these pseudo intellectuals combined) thesis as a joke! Wow, i hope you weren't drunk when you posted this.

So i'm guessing the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921 is a myth right? I wonder where Britain was to defend Poland then.

BTW:

Stalin's address to a Politburo meeting on August 19, 1939

"The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance pact with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off from Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western powers. War would be avoided, but down the road events could become dangerous for the USSR. If we accept Germany's proposal and conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will of course invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England in that would be unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. Under those conditions, we would have a great opportunity to stay out of the conflict, and we could plan the opportune time for us to enter the war."


General Alfred Jodl, one of Hitler's closest military advisors, similarly testified before the Nuremberg Tribunal about Germany's "Barbarossa" attack: (note 4)

"It was undeniably a purely preventive war. What we found out later on was the certainty of enormous Russian military preparations opposite our frontier. I will dispense with details, but I can only say that although we succeeded in a tactical surprise as to the day and the hour, it was no strategic surprise. Russia was fully prepared for war."

New Evidence on the 1941 'Barbarossa' Attack -- Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia When He Did (review)


It seems you purposely cut out most of my post and only quote a small portion of it and that too out of context for your own agenda, very mature indeed.

Anyways, since you cut this part (as well as other parts of my post) out like a shrewd 12 year old, i will post the links here again:

1).Polish-Soviet war-(1919-1921) When Soviets tried to annex Poland by force, and from there rest of Europe.

2). Fear of Bolshevik communism spreading into Europe. Stories of Bolshevik atrocities in Russia and Ukraine had reached Europe by the 1920's and mid 30's, the mass starvations, force labor camps, man made famines, mass executions and oppressions of religious groups as well as other calamities caused by Bolsheviks which resulted in the deaths of millions of Ukrainians and Russians.

[*] Holodomor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[*] Gulag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[*] Bolshevist Atrocities in Siberia

[*] Red Terror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[*] Katyn forest massacre

- Photos taken in 1943 by the Nazis, during - Katyn Forest Massacre

Poland's not always been quite the victim recent history has made them out to be. In their earlier form as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth they had been dominating Russia quite abit till they were eventually partitioned by 3 powers and disappeared off the map. And once they got their country again, they had plans to expand to Russia again. Both Russia and Poland had designs on each other at that point. Stalin I believe, was involved in the Polish-Soviet war too.

Regardless, this war had no bearing on the events which unfolded later.

 

[Avisheik]

Although US lend lease program helped the soviets. Most of the credit goes to the soviets themselves for fighting stubbornly. They had many disadvantages at first but they were able to overcome them and finaaly defeat germany in the end.

I espcially like the part that the soviets were able to defend the city even though 90% of the city was captured by the germans. Really shows their bravery

 

[Mercenary]

Its true the USA was fighting both Germany and Japan at the same time, but u guys did also enter the conflict late, after both the Germans and the Japanese had their strengths significantly diminished and supply lines stretched. It was still Russia which faced the full brunt of a German attack in the opening stages of Barbarossa.

Well Yes and No.

USA was pretty much inactive in Europe until June 1944.

They had troops fighting in North Africa and Italy, and Air Force and Navy were actively engaged. But major combat operations did not start until June 1944 when the best German forces had been destroyed in the Russian front.

Against Japan, until June 1944, most of the major battles were naval battles. Massive ground campaign agianst Japan did not start until June 1944 when Saipan was taken, following the invasion of the Philippines, then Iwo Jim and then finally the bloodbath at Okinawa.

 

[third eye]

OP Barbarossa was a grave mistake.

It needlessly stretched the Germans which led them to fritter away resources and fight in penny packets. In hind sight Hitler would have done better to contain the Soviets till he consolidated in N Africa & Europe.

The Ruso - German campaign is an education for students of mechanised warfare. I marvel at the actions of the three German Army Groups and the daring maneuvers executed.

It is also among the greatest lessons of " do's and dont's' in warfare.

The courage and resilience of the Soviet people along with their vast industrial base which took time to creak into action won the war.

To a student of Military history it would be worth while to read the biography of Marshall Zukov.

 

[scholseys]

Without the US help, the whole of mainland europe would be red. US only came to aid when the nazis went defensive and the russians were advancing. The red army would have marched all the way to france. US only got involved because they did not want europe to be communist, they saw communism a bigger threat than fascism.

 

[Juice]

Agreed. American contribution should not be forgotten. The lend-lease program the USA had with the USSR did prove valuable in the early stages of the conflict.

Actually the later stages, as I pointed out, the massive Soviet offensives would have gone no where with out trucks, and lots of them.

 

[POST_HUMAN_WAR]

Not at all. The Soviets were prepared for the fall of Moscow and would simply have moved their administration Eastwards. It would have been like Napoleon's invasion once again.

Sorry for my late repley but the Moscow of the Russian Empire which existed in 1812 was not the same Moscow of the ussr in 1941,during 1812 Moscow was just a provincial town while the Moscow of the Ussr was the hub of political,communications and the railways.Taking it could have demoralised red amry reducing their will to fight(also crippled their fighting cappabilty and it is considered to be the centre of world revolution imange psychological/symbolic impact on the ordinary Red Army soldier of Stalin actually having vacate to Moscow would have been alot) and Moscow was the centre of the transport net in European Russia and although there were lateral rail lines connecting the northern and southern theatres but they were single track lines with a low transport capacity(the most vital rail traffic was directed through Moscow) if Moscow had been captured the result would have been a decisive german victory on the eastern front.

In the end what defeated germany was the combination of fighting the united states,British empire and the soviet union at the same time.Hitlers worest mistake was to start a war with the ussr without ending the war with British and then declearing war upon the USA without finshing the war with the ussr, although the ussr did contribute the most to the defeat of the Germany but they could not have achived it alone.

 

[500]

Without the US help, the whole of mainland europe would be red. US only came to aid when the nazis went defensive and the russians were advancing. The red army would have marched all the way to france. US only got involved because they did not want europe to be communist, they saw communism a bigger threat than fascism.

You are talking nonsense. US started helping when Germans were deep inside Russia. Without that help Russia had very little chanse to defeat Germany.

I suggest to read my post #43 again:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/177481-world-war-ii-ussr-front-3.html#post2897040

 

[Lonely Hermit]

You are talking nonsense. US started helping when Germans were deep inside Russia. Without that help Russia had very little chanse to defeat Germany.

I suggest to read my post #43 again:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/177481-world-war-ii-ussr-front-3.html#post2897040

You are over estimating US lend lease policy mate it had an affect but it was minor compared to huge industrial output of Soviet Union.

WW-2 was a war which solely depended on which side was more industrialized and the Soviets beat the Germans because they were able to mass produce compared to Germans. It was not the Russian winter or US lend lease policy which won the war in eastern front but Soviet Industrial might and the resilience of people of Soviet Union.

Lets take T-34 the tank which won the war for Soviets during peak of WW2 close 2000 were produced every month the Wehrmacht was never able to replace their losses and as we know the Red army walked into Berlin.

Guys lets give credit where it deserves Nazi Germany would never have been brought to it's knees if it hadn't been for the Soviets, close to 85% of Wehrmacht looses were incurred in Eastern front.

 

[ptldM3]

You are talking nonsense. US started helping when Germans were deep inside Russia. Without that help Russia had very little chanse to defeat Germany.

I suggest to read my post #43 again:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/177481-world-war-ii-ussr-front-3.html#post2897040

If anyone is talking nonsense it would be you. Early in the war when the Soviets were at a large disadvantage and lacked any support they still fought on and beat back the Germans or at worse wore them out. Stalingrad would be a good example; a Soviet army trapped without support and with little re-supply and poorly armed soldiers defeated a superior German army.

It wasn’t trucks that helped the Soviets win the war but artillery, tanks, and man power. Equally as important was strategy, the Germans were beat at their own game. Soviet strategists and generals stayed one step ahead of the Germans in most cases. Often times the Germans expected an attack from the Soviets in one area but were caught off guard when the Soviets attacked in another. Even if the Germans knew a Soviet attack was imminent they were still caught off guard because the Soviet military became masters of camouflage.

Furthermore, as Soviet aircraft and pilots improved the Germans lost air superiority. Soviet Ilyushin aircraft turned German tanks into scrap metal and cut German supply lines.

Trucks supplied to the Soviet Union was certainly helpful and it helped logistically but it was not a decisive factor. Even without the trucks the Soviets would have achieved similar results albeit probably a bit slower. And to be fair the trucks probably helped save many lives with the delivery of much needed supplies and munitions but to claim that the Soviets would have little chance to defeat Germany without the land lease program is ridiculous and laughable.

 

[500]

If anyone is talking nonsense it would be you. Early in the war when the Soviets were at a large disadvantage and lacked any support they still fought on and beat back the Germans or at worse wore them out. Stalingrad would be a good example; a Soviet army trapped without support and with little re-supply and poorly armed soldiers defeated a superior German army.

It wasn’t trucks that helped the Soviets win the war but artillery, tanks, and man power. Equally as important was strategy, the Germans were beat at their own game. Soviet strategists and generals stayed one step ahead of the Germans in most cases. Often times the Germans expected an attack from the Soviets in one area but were caught off guard when the Soviets attacked in another. Even if the Germans knew a Soviet attack was imminent they were still caught off guard because the Soviet military became masters of camouflage.

Furthermore, as Soviet aircraft and pilots improved the Germans lost air superiority. Soviet Ilyushin aircraft turned German tanks into scrap metal and cut German supply lines.

Trucks supplied to the Soviet Union was certainly helpful and it helped logistically but it was not a decisive factor. Even without the trucks the Soviets would have achieved similar results albeit probably a bit slower. And to be fair the trucks probably helped save many lives with the delivery of much needed supplies and munitions but to claim that the Soviets would have little chance to defeat Germany without the land lease program is ridiculous and laughable.

Stalingrad is indeed a good example.

Lets start from air power, which I consider as decissive factor.

In 1941 Germans had 10 fighter divisions, they sent 6 divisions + 1 group (about 1000 fighters total) to east front and achieved total air superiority.

By the end of 1942 Germans had 11 fighter divisions, but on East front remained only 4.5 divisions (about 680 fighters total). Remaining 6.5 divisions (over 1000 fighters) were fighting with allies.

Meanwhile US supplied to USSR 730 fighters in 1941 and 1815 fighters in 1942 - over 2500 total. US also supplied huge amounts of aluminium which allowed USSR boost own fighter production.

As result Germany could not achieve air superiority over Stalingrad and battle was won.

In the middle of 1943 Germans had 14 fighter divisions, but only 3.5 were fighting on East Front (560 fighters) !!! Meanwhile US supplied another 2500 fighters to USSR by mid 1943.

As result now USSR achived air superriority, and now 'Soviet Ilyushin aircraft turned German tanks into scrap metal and cut German supply lines'. Alas, without air superriority your Ilyushin aircrafts were nothing but a prey. As result USSR could achive its first major summer succcess.

Just imagine how Stalingrad battle would look like if Germans had 14 fighter divisions on East front instead of 3.5, while USSR had thousands of flighters less (both supplied by US and produced with US aluminium). Germany would have total air superiority like in 1941 and Stukas were turning Soviet tanks into scrap metal and cutting supply lines.

As for artillery, over 1/3 of Soviet gunpowder in war was also supplied by US.

And trucks also were important, without them mobile war is hardly possible as is important huge food supplies to USSR. Without food its hard to fight and hard to produce tanks. Huge amounts of aluminium (without them u cant produce planes), steel for tanks, communication equipment....

In addition as I already said, Germans produced over 1000 submarines to fight the allies, each submarine costs like 40 Panther tanks, so thats 40,000 Panther tanks. They produced enermous amounts of anti aircraft guns, they spent enermous recources to produce V-1 and V-2 rockets, finally allied bombings were harming German industries (even if not high as expected, but even 10% could be crucial).

And there was also Japan behind.

 

[scholseys]

I agree with 500. I am not denying that usa did not help out russia with resources and what not. But the US only joined the war in Europe when it was imminent that the nazis were losing in the eastern front. US then had to save europe from communism. US also exploded the bombs in japan to show the Russians their might.

Stallingrad stayed alive due it being named after the dictator, even then it wasn'y stalingrad had nothing left, it was completely destroyed. It was more of a pride thing than any other. Russia's main tactic was send troops, then send some more troops. There were cases were there were more troops than guns, so they would provide a gun to a solder and a magazine to his partner, if the gun guy died; the magazine guy would pickup his gun. You can see this in the movie enemy at the gates.

 

[Juice]

I agree with 500. I am not denying that usa did not help out russia with resources and what not. But the US only joined the war in Europe when it was imminent that the nazis were losing in the eastern front. US then had to save europe from communism. US also exploded the bombs in japan to show the Russians their might.

Stallingrad stayed alive due it being named after the dictator, even then it wasn'y stalingrad had nothing left, it was completely destroyed. It was more of a pride thing than any other. Russia's main tactic was send troops, then send some more troops. There were cases were there were more troops than guns, so they would provide a gun to a solder and a magazine to his partner, if the gun guy died; the magazine guy would pickup his gun. You can see this in the movie enemy at the gates.

Hated the movie, the book is great.