# Russians didn't need Allied help for victory



## GrauGeist (Mar 15, 2014)

An interesting survey by the news agency RT (Russian Times) shows that a majority of Russians feel that Russia was able to defeat Germany without Allied help.

It would be interesting to see the results of the survey by age group.

USSR didn?t need Allies to win WWII ? survey ? RT USA


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 15, 2014)

Well the declining statistics could be representative of the old (and hence possibly more knowledgeable cranky) dieing off. I like how the pic they used for that page is 60's/70's with an AK47...
The age demographics of the survey would indeed be interesting - I'd say the majority of higher percentage thinkers would be rightwing nationalists, the under 30's and those who are i'll educated; either by state and by improper self study.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 15, 2014)

Sadly, the modern education system is doing a great job at dumbing down students. Trading important historical education for social/gender sensitivity and material entitlement.


----------



## silence (Mar 15, 2014)

So who's gonna feed the Russians?
How are the infantry gonna keep up with the tanks without US made trucks?
How are the supplies gonna get to the front without trucks?
Where does enough fuel to supply the army and air force come from?
What will the Germans do with all the divisions that historically went to the Western Front and Italy?
What will the Germans do with the fighters defending the Western Front and the Reich?
What will the Kriegsmarine do if they're not frolicing in the North Atlantic?

I've read that even historically the Soviets were at the bottom of their manpower barrel by the time it came to assault Berlin. Given that and the above, methinks the picture may change...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Mar 15, 2014)

I wonder if they know, or are _allowed _to know, that Stalin was in contact with Churchill, almost daily, ranting, and _*demanding*_ more U.S. and British equipment, faster than was getting through, and didn't give a flying **** about the problems and losses of the Atlantic and Russia convoys?


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 15, 2014)

They'd probably say 'And lo, Stalin spread his hands wide, and from them came the resources needed for the TGPW'

..calling their part in WW2 TGPW, is one crux of their revisionism, perhaps that encourages their masses to adhear to there rules and allowed/tolerated lifestyles.

Its the same incredulous argument between racism and semetsim encouraging double standards of one over another.


----------



## sgtleehead (Mar 15, 2014)

Are these the same majority of Russians who think its acceptable to annex other peoples countries because they can. Politically stimulated anti west bullshit.

Lee


----------



## Marcel (Mar 15, 2014)

Little bit saddened by this survey. I recently saw a documentary about people in the convoy system to Moermansk. Sad that the Russians now try to let it look like their sacrifices were in vain. It seems not fair to these brave sailors.


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 15, 2014)

More than likely, antiwest just keeps the more volatile believers in check - I heard rumours (did any one else too?,) that the Russians or ethinic-Russ might've invited some pro-slavic Slovakians or Serbians over for the party not long after the trenches were dug - no doubt likely the (apologising for a coming stereotype) ones going around searching for reluctant unhappy Ukrainians to beat up coerce the referendum voters into going (Milosovic style) - to try and give Czar Vladimir his justification to walze in savior all like.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 15, 2014)

The dangerous part about this, is that ANYTIME history is revised for one reason or another, you open Pandora's box.

History must remain intact in it's entirety no matter how uncomfortable it may be, so it stands as an anchor to teach future generation valuable lessons that were earned at tremendous and oftentimes horriffic cost.

Russia sacrificed more than her fair share to beat the Germans back, but she could not have done it alone. To say that she did cheapens the true sacrifice the Russians made for their country, cheapens the sacrifices made by those who came to her aid and casts doubt on any other aspects of thier history...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 15, 2014)

Many moons ago, in the bad old days of the USSR but as a result of 'Perestroika' and at the dawning of 'Glasnost', I met a bunch of Soviet naval cadets in the naval museum in what was then still called Leningrad. None of them had ever met someone from Britain before and they all believed that Britain had fought on the same side as Nazi Germany during 'The Great Patriotic War'.

That's what an education system combined with tight control of information (see Orwell) can do for you.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 15, 2014)

Indeed so, so even all those Russians purged, executed, gulaged etc and the 're-educated' by/for/under Stalin 'the party', along with the Soviet civilian and military casualties/dead, is what it feels like they all suffered and died for nearly nothing too then. Let alone the Allied and German dead invovled in WW2 as well.

If this is indeed the case, then as and when there's a next time, let em swing on their own and see how long the last alone.

Apologies to the offended, I'm infuriated to an irksomely vexed extreme.

The Great Patriotic War should be dead, long live WW2; as a testiment to human folly, righteousness, greed and depravity, lest its bloody torn fetid masses not be ignored, o'er those wishing to repeat such again - even Stalin would be p1ssed off with such ignorance to the lost Soviet heroes and allied comrades who assisted them in life and death.


----------



## sgtleehead (Mar 15, 2014)

razor1uk said:


> More than likely, antiwest just keeps the more volatile believers in check - I heard rumours (did any one else too?,) that the Russians or ethinic-Russ might've invited some pro-slavic Slovakians or Serbians over for the party not long after the trenches were dug - no doubt likely the (apologising for a coming stereotype) ones going around searching for reluctant unhappy Ukrainians to beat up coerce the referendum voters into going (Milosovic style) - to try and give Czar Vladimir his justification to walze in savior all like.




Yes - heard something similar. The Russians have a bad habit of going around the old blocks of Europe and rounding up 'allies' to support them in their ventures. They are correct in their claim that some of those armed are not indeed Russian soldiers. Armed militia, possibly some criminals, underworld and scum like back in Serbia. Sad thing is that some of those will want to be there, involved, some paid, some not paid, helping their allies, possible chance to kill someone and enjoy it etc. Sickening some of it is. I've known of people like this. Most Russains though believe that Crimea is theirs anyway and should never have been 'given away'.

Lee


----------



## sgtleehead (Mar 15, 2014)

Sorry - went off topic a bit.

Lee


----------



## N4521U (Mar 16, 2014)

Oh well.
Maybe we should pull McDonalds out of Russia.............. That would teach them!!!


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 16, 2014)

When I went to school in the late 50s and early 60s, WW2 was the war we studied the most. About every male teacher on the staff was a veteran.

Nothing, or almost nothing, was ever mentioned about the eastern front. If you didn't do some independent study, you very likely wouldn't even have a idea the Russians fought on the same side as the allies during WW2.

In the middle of the cold war, and just a few years away from the Korean war, nobody wanted to remind us that the US and Russia had once been allies.

I remember when one of the students asked the teacher, " didn't the Russians take Berlin ? " the teacher acted as if we ( the US, not the Allies) could have easily done it, but let the Russians take it as a favor to them. And the student who pointed that fact out was treated like a commie for a while. I remember that well, because I was that student.

Our own schools are just as guilty of teaching revisionists history as anyone else.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 16, 2014)

I'm not sure that any nation's school system has all the world events covered in a complete and unbiased manner. For the ww2, it was mostly 'us' doing the heavy lifting, while 'others', our allies, were just smuggling around. Cold war managed to drive that wedge further. 
We could not be sure that majority of the teachers understand the matter, nor that they are all so capable to channel their knowledge to the pupils. And much of the pupils would rather be out of the class during not just history, but geography, biology, chemistry, let alone math or physics.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 16, 2014)

"....I've read that even historically the Soviets were at the bottom of their manpower barrel by the time it came to assault Berlin. Given that and the above, methinks the picture may change..."

According to David Glantz "August Storm" that is not the case .... the attack on Japan was a massive, well planned multiple envelopment that the Soviets executed without a hitch. The only resources they stripped from the west were medical and engineering units. Nearly all equipment had been positioned in the far east including US material supplied under L-L. This suggests that man-power was not lacking for the Soviets...


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 16, 2014)

I can say that Stalin put himself into a difficult position by his several purges of the ranks before and after the winter war with Finland.

Even if he had a full inventory of modern equipment and well trained troops on hand at the beginning of the German invasion, his General staff was woefully inexperienced.

So taking that into consideration and then removing the Allied assistance both in material support and actual Allied assets engaging the Axis forces to the west and in the Med, it would look like a recipe for disaster for the Red Army.

If the German/Axis forces were able to bleed the Soviet Union as bad as it did while maintaining active battle fronts and occupation troops abroad, just imagine the bleeding that would have occurred if the majority of those assets abroad were instead tossed into the breech alongside the Axis assets already present, along the Eastern Front.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 16, 2014)

Marcel said:


> Little bit saddened by this survey. I recently saw a documentary about people in the convoy system to Moermansk. Sad that the Russians now try to let it look like their sacrifices were in vain. It seems not fair to these brave sailors.



My Father was one, the Russians locked him and the rest of the crew up. It became a big issue since te Merchant marine wernt military. My father was in the RN...made no difference.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 16, 2014)

I don't wish to dishonor the effort and sacrifice that Lend Lease represented, but it is in everyone's best interests to _understand_ Russia in and out of the Soviet era.

I put it to you that just receiving commitment from Churchill and FDR was a huge psychological victory for Stalin. The mountains of tinned spam, gasoline and octane booster, trucks, mobile workshops, etc. were vital in allowing the Generals and Planners to relax a little and make tanks and planes and burp guns.

But Lend Lease didn't save Moscow in December, 1941, nor Leningrad, nor Stalingrad ..... and if Russians were not able to achieve the level of sacrifice that those battles required, _no_ amount of Lend Lease would have allowed the Soviet Union to prevail.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 16, 2014)

michaelmaltby said:


> I don't wish to dishonor the effort and sacrifice that Lend Lease represented, but it is in everyone's best interests to _understand_ Russia in and out of the Soviet era.
> 
> I put it to you that just receiving commitment from Churchill and FDR was a huge psychological victory for Stalin. The mountains of tinned spam, gasoline and octane booster, trucks, mobile workshops, etc. were vital in allowing the Generals and Planners to relax a little and make tanks and planes and burp guns.
> 
> But Lend Lease didn't save Moscow in December, 1941, nor Leningrad, nor Stalingrad ..... and if Russians were not able to achieve the level of sacrifice that those battles required, _no_ amount of Lend Lease would have allowed the Soviet Union to prevail.



True but Stalin had sacrificed millions with his no retreat policy.

I once worked in Russia and made a visit to Moscow, the office manager was a keen modeller he knew the far end of a fart about which allied tanks were used by the Soviets and why. The information is in Russia as is the internet if they choose to re write history then that is both sad and worrying. But as a previous poster said we are also guilty of the same, mind you it must have been difficult to run speeches by Churchill supporting our brave Soviet comrades when Russias nuclear arsenal had Great Britain on the target list.


----------



## Mobius (Mar 17, 2014)

michaelmaltby said:


> nor Stalingrad


Or not. There was a lot of Lend Lease equipment in the Caucasus to slow down the German drive for the oil fields. In late ‘42 almost 20% of new tanks were LL.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 17, 2014)

Something I pick up on the inet

tonnaged shipped to the Soviets

Year Totals

Year -- Persian Gulf - Pacific - Atlantic - Black Sea - Arctic > total
1941 -- 360,778 - 13,502 - 193,299 - 153,977 > 721,556 > ~2.4%
1942 -- 2,453,097 - 705,259 - 734,020 - 949,711 - 64,107 > 4,906,194 > ~16.1%
1943 -- 4,794,545 - 1,606,979 - 2,388,577 - 681,043 - 117,946 > 9,589,090 > ~31.5%
1944 -- 6,217,622 - 1,788,864 - 2,848,181 - 1,452,775 - 127,802 > 12,435,245 > ~40.8%
1945 -- 3,673,819 - 44,513 - 2,079,320 - 726,725 - 680,723 > 2,804,556 > 9.2%

Soviet wartime production, http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesRussiaproduction.htm
lend/lease trucks, http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2014)

You can't measure national _will_ by the ton ..... only by blood loss and outcome ... we all know this. LL aid was of great importance to the Soviet cause but it was not inter-changeable with the determination of the Soviet leadership and people to prevail. If you take the time to watch Russian Storm (thread posted under WW2 General) you will note that I am critical of the series for how little credit LL receives .... but ... if you're packaging history for the masses ... you feature your own stuff. We in the west have done the same ... particularly the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 17, 2014)

According to Hollywood the US won the war single handed. How many US students who didnt do history know about the contribution of the rest of the Allies to the final victory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Mar 17, 2014)

Milosh said:


> Something I pick up on the inet
> 
> tonnaged shipped to the Soviets
> 
> ...



I have total other numbers then your list!

The first Moscow Protocol was signed in highly embattled situation of the Red Army on 1.10.1941. 

The commitments of the Protocol for the period Oct 41 to June 1942, for 9 months (until the required connection protocol):

1,5 Mio. tons wheat and goods for1 Milliarde $, 
among them:
1.800 a/c's (Total inventory of the Red Army 1.1.42: roundabout 12.000 a/c's)
2.250 tanks (Total inventory of the Red Army 1.1.42: 7.700)
1.000 AA guns, among them 152 90mm and 756 37mm (Total inventory of the Red Army 1.1.42: : 7.900)
5.000 Jeeps
*85.000 trucks* (The total production of the SU 1941-45 was 205.000 trucks, thereof 150.000 for the military) (Total inventory of the Red Army all types of vehicles 1.1.42: 318.000)
108.000 field telephones
562.000 miles of field telephone cable
9.000 tons armor plates 
30.000 tons explosive Toluol und TNT
15.000 tons chemicals

maximum possible number of machine tools (industrial lathes, milling machines, drilling presses etc.), delivered: 3.253 pieces
1.6 Mio. Pair of military boots (for the mobilization and reorganization of the Red Army)
1 Mio. yards. military fabric
~ 1000 tractors 
45.000 tons barbed wire

The agreed goods were delivered almost entirely in the 9 months, minus some war losses during transport.

The SU got 85000 trucks till June-July of 1942 and 1,5 million tons of wheat 

Wheat gross harvest of the SU 1940-42:
1940: 36.446 million tons.
1941: 24.298 million tons.
1942: 12.516 million tons.

My sources are Glantz and Alexander Hill (The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1941-45)

To my opinion this first part of supplies of lend lease at only 9 month from October 1941 till June 1942 were essential for the reorganistaion of the Red Army and to built the reserves, which first attacked at November 1942 (Stalingrad). Without this supplies to my opinion it would be impossible. Also the delivered wheat was more then 10% of all SU wheat at 1942 and was essential for the food supply of the Army, workers and civilian people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vinnye (Mar 17, 2014)

It is very worrying when any Nation fails to recognize the contributions made by other Nations during WW1 and WW2.
It would be beneficial if every Nation were to educate its citizens without putting the Rose Tinted glasses of Patriotism / Nationalism on!

It has been pointed out in previous posts that Germany was forced to deploy troops to the Atlantic Wall for example. In addition there were significant numbers of troops used in the Netherlands and Norway - which otherwaise could have been diverted to face the Eastern Front. Probably with serious consequences for the Russian Army!


----------



## pbehn (Mar 17, 2014)

If the Germans didn't suffer any losses in France the BoB North Africa and Italy and (as some in Britain wanted) Britain gave Germany a free hand in continental Europe + no Lease lend from USA then I believe the Soviet Union would have lost'


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 17, 2014)

I very much agree. I also feel if the Germans had come as saviors (or at least with the appearance of such) the Russians would have fallen quicker.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 17, 2014)

vikingBerserker said:


> I very much agree. I also feel if the Germans had come as saviors (or at least with the appearance of such) the Russians would have fallen quicker.


They greeted the Germans as liberators at first. I've read several accounts where Russian soldiers were surrendering en-masse during the early stages of the invasion, many wanting to join the Wehrmacht.

It wasn't long, however, before Hitler's edicts regarding the Jews, Slavs and POWs became very clear to the people that they were now between the hammer and the anvil...

I honestly believe that had Hitler not extended his hatred and mal-treatment to the occupied lands, Stalin would have seen a capitulation of military and public support.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 17, 2014)

A-Fricken-Men


----------



## parsifal (Mar 17, 2014)

Its sad they dont recognize the contributions made by the western alliance to the final victory, but i can understand why. its mostly a matter of scale that blinds them.


For example, during the war, Australia suffered 32000 military casualties give or take. I think the British losses were about 750000 and US casualties about 350000. Very rough.

Soviets lost at least 13million in combat for people under their control. Total casualties for the Russians including german attrocities and exterminations and the like, amounted to nearly 30 million. thats a casualty rate about 25 to 30 times that suffered by the western allies. Stalins murderous attitude to his own people certainly was a factor in that death rate. 

In terms of Lend Lease, there is wide diversity of opinion, but we probably contributed about 15% to Soviet war making capability, delivered and ready. The majority of that aid was NOT via the much written about Arctic route, though the Arctic route was the most important path in 1941-3. The most important route overall was via the caucasus, but it was later than Murmansk, and it only became operational as early as it did because the British agreed to the transfer of rolling stock from India, and in 1943 this caused the non-military deaths of nearly 2million people in India, due to the inability to shift grain about the subcontinent. Later US rolling stock was made available and this huge human cost diminished. Nobody ever talks about the costs to Indian society for winning the war though. 

Cut em some slack guys. Their losses were far greater than ours, and they did a lot more fighting than we did. We preserved our ways of life because of Russian sacrifice, not the other way round. Not that they cared, or aimed for that, but thats what happened.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Mar 17, 2014)

Year -- Persian Gulf - Arctic
1941 -- 360,778 - 153,977
1942 -- 2,453,097 - 64,107
1943 -- 4,794,545 - 117,946
1944 -- 6,217,622 - 127,802
1945 -- 3,673,819 - 680,723


----------



## parsifal (Mar 18, 2014)

mm, I see, it was the persian gulf almost from the beginning. Ill stand corrected on that count

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Mar 18, 2014)

parsifal said:


> Its sad they dont recognize the contributions made by the western alliance to the final victory, but i can understand why. its mostly a matter of scale that blinds them.
> 
> 
> For example, during the war, Australia suffered 32000 military casualties give or take. I think the British losses were about 750000 and US casualties about 350000. Very rough.
> ...



I don't know if it is quite dangerous to show too much understanding with such myth claims, which are clearly falsification of history, especially with the political situation at the moment. At the moment the Russians can hardly walk out of sheer testosterone.

Since 5 years I watch a dangerous trend, where certain think tanks of so called "russian historians and politicians" do joint ventures with "certain kinds of german historians", to formulate a total new military historical picture.

The most shocking one to me was, as a so called "german historian" attacked Rüdiger Overmans in the press, that his book "Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" is supporting fashists myths abouth the WWII. He claimed after official SU sources, which he and his "russian colleagues" examined, that the Wehrmacht lost at least 9-10 Million men in combat with the SU, compare to 7 Million of the SU. Also he dinied the massive losses of the SU at 1941 and claimed this is only german nazi and after war propaganda.

An other so called "expert" out of this think tanks denied that the Wehrmacht had at any part of the war, a tactical advantage over the Red Army. He described the Wehrmacht only as poor to average on a tactical level and the beginning succsess of the Wehrmacht was only to the total suprise of the peaceloving SU.

To my opinion this voices getting louder and much more supported fron Russia a the last 5 years. Referring to the current political situation, this trend is dangerous.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 18, 2014)

DonL said:


> ...To my opinion this voices getting louder and much more supported fron Russia a the last 5 years. Referring to the current political situation, this trend is dangerous.


I absolutely agree!


----------



## pbehn (Mar 18, 2014)

dangerous all round, if Russia finds itself in conflict with the west it may find that China needs to "liberate" a few million "Chinese held captive in Russia" And Donl it is said thouse who dont learn the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them + generals generally prepare for the last war not the next.


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 18, 2014)

its the reverse of 110 years ago....


----------



## Glider (Mar 18, 2014)

At the end of the day Russia is a huge country with a comparatively small population that is falling and China has a huge population that is looking for space. There can be little doubt that technology wise China is catching Russia fast and I fear for the future


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 18, 2014)

Perhaps China can pull a "Crimea" and annex a few Soviet areas.

I was shocked at the population of Russia, it's only 15 million more than Japan.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 18, 2014)

"...I was shocked at the population of Russia ..."

And it is declining in Caucasian/Christian areas dramatically. Life expectancy for Russian males is frighteningly low ....


----------



## pbehn (Mar 18, 2014)

I was in Russia 7 yrs ago, the population was/is declining due to Aids Alcoholism and emigration (not statistically in that order) the few I spoke to were anxious about China...could they make even enough bullets?


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 19, 2014)

I know this is anecdotal, but here in the NYC area, Russian immigration seems to be steadily increasing. Lotsa Russian speaking folks moving in.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> I know this is anecdotal, but here in the NYC area, Russian immigration seems to be steadily increasing. Lotsa Russian speaking folks moving in.



Again anecdotal, Klitchko the Ukrainian boxer went into politics because he saw the difference between how Poland and Ukraine had progressed since the wall came down


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> I know this is anecdotal, but here in the NYC area, Russian immigration seems to be steadily increasing. Lotsa Russian speaking folks moving in.



Again anecdotal, Klitchko the Ukrainian boxer went into politics because he saw the difference between how Poland and Ukraine had progressed since the wall came down


----------



## parsifal (Mar 19, 2014)

pbehn said:


> I was in Russia 7 yrs ago, the population was/is declining due to Aids Alcoholism and emigration (not statistically in that order) the few I spoke to were anxious about China...could they make even enough bullets?



I was there in 1984, and again 10 years ago, and this sort of observation is way overblown. There are some punks that hang around the Moscow underground and a few other issues that look bad but arent.

Russia has its societal issues, the worst is rampant alcoholism. Drugs arent as big a problem as they are in the US. Get in the regional interior and there is a lot of strength in their society. its as strong as the corn belt states of the US. Russian people have a lot of depth and strength. They are well educated and resourceful. they are nothing like the peasant forces of the 1940's. They are dangerous, im not painting them as saints, but to portray Russia as being on the edge of social or economic collapse is just not true or accurate. if China attacked them, the Soviets would still give the Chinese a bloody nose, but that might be different in 50 years or so. China hasnt yet learnt to translate its massively expanding economic strength to effective military strength, though thats changing


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2014)

parsifal said:


> I was there in 1984, and again 10 years ago, and this sort of observation is way overblown. There are some punks that hang around the Moscow underground and a few other issues that look bad but arent.
> 
> Russia has its societal issues, the worst is rampant alcoholism. Drugs arent as big a problem as they are in the US. Get in the regional interior and there is a lot of strength in their society. its as strong as the corn belt states of the US. Russian people have a lot of depth and strength. They are well educated and resourceful. they are nothing like the peasant forces of the 1940's. They are dangerous, im not painting them as saints, but to portray Russia as being on the edge of social or economic collapse is just not true or accurate. if China attacked them, the Soviets would still give the Chinese a bloody nose, but that might be different in 50 years or so. China hasnt yet learnt to translate its massively expanding economic strength to effective military strength, though thats changing



When I was in Russia I read the problem with alcohol had 2 sides to it. One they simply drink too much Vodka and they drink it pure. Two there were some changes to tax on Vodka (cant remember the details) but this lead to Vodka being laced with methanol to increase its strength hospitals were full of patients with related disorders.

Chinas industrial capacity is huge in 10/20 yrs time Russia wont be in the same game.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 19, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Chinas industrial capacity is huge in 10/20 yrs time Russia wont be in the same game.


Not only Russia...

The rest of the world will be sitting there wondering what happened.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 19, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Not only Russia...
> 
> The rest of the world will be sitting there wondering what happened.



Sad but true, however we are starting to see some manufacturing return to the states though at this point no where near the amount that left.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 19, 2014)

vikingBerserker said:


> Sad but true, however *we are starting to see some manufacturing return to the states* though at this point no where near the amount that left.


It's a band-aid on a sucking chest wound


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 19, 2014)

True Dat!


----------



## Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik (Mar 19, 2014)

How is Russia and china not have swapped country places


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 20, 2014)

Nothing will happen to stop Vlad the Invader carrying on as he Damn well pleases. Germany is effectively blocking any sanctions because without Russian gas then Germany goes dark quite quickly. I bet Frau Merkel wishes all the Nuclear plants and coal mines hadnt been shut. 

As for NATO forget it if you take away the US forces it would struggle to raise much more than a couple of divisions so Putin knows the Euro arm of NATO is about as much use as the Walmington-On-Sea Home Guard.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 20, 2014)

Vlad the invader....i like that


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 11, 2014)

This is an older "news" item posted at FB, but shows the same old bullsh!t oozing out of the land of misinformation.

And, it comes as no surprise that it's RT (Russia Times) that's promoting this sort of crap...99.9% of their "news" is U.S. bashing crap anyway...

Soviet Union could have won WWII alone - historian - RT News


> *“Soviet Union could have won WWII alone”*
> 
> The Soviet Union alone indeed could have won World War II, but would have done it at a much slower pace, believes British historian Professor Geoffrey Roberts.
> 
> ...


----------



## evangilder (Dec 12, 2014)

Perhaps they could have in Europe. They did have a lot of men and materials out of reach of the Germans further east. But what about the Pacific? I have to laugh at some of the quotes in that article though.
"Desire to return to the grand alliance". ROFL Having served during the Cold War, that was a laughable thing to read.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 12, 2014)

Yeah, I think this "professor" Roberts is pretty much pulling words out his rear-end, or perhaps it's a combination of his words and RT putting a spin on it.

But the reality is, Russia would have been seriously up sh!t creek without a paddle if Germany wasn't distracted by fighting the Allies to the west AND if there weren't any lend-lease equipment from the U.S. Britain, including no supplies (food, fuel, arms, material, etc.) from the U.S. to support the Red Army's war effort.

And that "desire to return to the grand alliance" remark is probably the biggest laughable thing I have read in a good long time.

I suppose when you're rewriting history, anything's possible...


----------



## stona (Dec 12, 2014)

There's no point in comparing Russia and China in economic terms. It's almost exactly the same as comparing Italy and China.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Denniss (Dec 12, 2014)

Is it really worth discussion Putin's propaganda TV station and the quality of their "experts"?
That's a waste of time and words.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 12, 2014)

We've had this conversation before IIRC. I said then and I say now ....Hitler's Nazi would have never broken through the Urals ... the war without help would have been 2-3 more years and millions more dead.

Russia held at Moscow ... the regime held at Moscow ... and that is the key to Russia's victory. By Stalingrad it was clear that Nazis could be bled white ... by Kursk the Russians knew how to play and win ... their way.

The war in the East was ideological in a way the western front never was .... and Communism as a means of social organization triumphed. The food and equipment was much appreciated by those who used it and were fed by it ... and it would have been tougher without, but there is no doubt in my mind that Russia would have held at the Urals.

MM

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (Dec 13, 2014)

Wow. How anyone could look at the true statistics of WW2 and assume it was a possibility that Germany would lose to Russia is beyond me.

Lets assume US never enters, Hitler makes peace with Britain and continues the war against Russia. TO make it easier for Russia, We'll assume the Japanese threat to Siberia is removed.

Let's look at the GDP

Country	1938	1939	1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945
USA	800	869	943	1094	1235	1399	1499	1474
UK	284	287	316	344	353	361	346	331
France	186	199	164	130	116	110	93	101
Italy	141	151	147	144	145	137	117	92
*USSR	359	366	417	359	274	305	362	343
Germany	351	384	387	412	417	426	437	310*

Germany out produces Russia here. Not by a huge margin, but they still do. And this is with constant US and GB bombing of Germany, which would not happen if they were neutral.

Also look at wartime expenditures in billions of US dollars:
artime expenditures during the Second World War 1939-1945

Country	Billion U.S. dollars
(for prices in 1946: $ 1 = approximately £ 0.25 = approximately RM 2.22)
U.S.A.	$ 341.491
Germany	$ 270.000
Soviet Union (Russia)	$ 192.000

AFV Losses on the Eastern Front:

Year	German Losses	Russian Losses
1941	2,758	20,500	
1942	2,648	15,000	
1943	6,362	22,400	
1944	6,434	16,900	
1945	7,382	8,700	
Total	25,584	83,500	

Russia out produced Germany in WW2 in regards to AFV's, but Russian AFV's were lost at a much higher rate. Reasons - better infantry anti tank capabilities by German infantry, better tactics by armored commanders, and the fact that the T-34, while a very good tank was inferior in many ways to German tanks, it's 76mm and 85mm performed far worse than German tank guns of similar power.

Germany marginally out produced Russia - and on the battlefield had a clear superiority when and if combatting an equal number of soviet forces. It would not have been easy, by German definitely would have won.


----------



## stona (Dec 13, 2014)

One word....manpower.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 13, 2014)

stona said:


> One word....manpower.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



If you compare the populations and GDP of the European Axis countries and the Soviet Union then its a lot closer than you think. Approximate 1940 figures Axis population (not including Japan) 200 million to 190 million Soviet. Axis GDP 1940 (not including Japan) 550 billion $ to 417 billion $ Soviet.


----------



## stona (Dec 13, 2014)

The Romanians and others proved themselves to be utterly irrelevant, as at Stalingrad. It is only necessary to compare Germany to the Soviet Union. By 1943 the USSR already had nearly 3 million more people under arms than Germany.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2014)

I can understand that the Soviet Union had a good reserve of manpower to draw on and after regrouping and grinding down Germany's initial assault, were able to mount a counter-attack and eventually drove the Germans back to Berlin. That also came at a terrible cost in the way of lives lost.

However, consider that if Germany were not involved in North Africa and if there were no assets engaged in the southern and western frontiers, then those assets would have been dedicated to the initial invasion. If, historically, Germany were able to drive as far and as hard as they did with the assets actually employed, how much more of a success would Germany have enjoyed with the additional land and air units of the Afrika corps as well as the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht units from continental Europe?

This means that the Afrika corps (with or without Rommel) would have been available. Add to that the assigned transport and supply units of North Africa and the Mediterranean. Also add to that, the Luftwaffe units that were assigned to North Africa and the MTO. This alone is a substantial amount of men and equipment.

We can also look at the Kreigsmarine operating without challenge from the Royal Navy, so this would supplement the invasion by way of lending full support to the Crimea and Sevastopol as well as Leningrad and other key targets.

With all of these additional assets, it seems to me that the Red Army would have been horribly bled from the onset, much worse than it actually was. The push by the Wehrmacht would have been much harder and key positions where the Red Army was able to historically make a stand would have been overwhelmed...


----------



## Denniss (Dec 13, 2014)

The Romanians were good and brave soldiers, they just suffered from poor leadership, antiquated tactics and lack of proper Art and AT guns. German leadership realized too late it has to prep up their Allies with some modern heavy equipment they couldn't build or afford themselves. More or less the same could be said about Hungarians and Italians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2014)

As it was Germany came very close to winning the war in the east. If Russia hadn't had the support of Lend Least there is a very good chance they would have lost. Russian transport was very dependent on Allied equipment. The Hurricanes and Valentines may not have been class leading but they helped hold the line until more modern equipment came on stream. In other areas such as radar and communication equipment to help with command and control western equipment was very valuable, indeed irreplaceable.
The numbers game is always interesting but war is far more complex than that.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 13, 2014)

Garyt said:


> > Wow. How anyone could look at the true statistics of WW2 and assume it was a possibility that Germany would lose to Russia is beyond me.
> 
> 
> Part I of II
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Dec 13, 2014)

Part II of II



> Russia out produced Germany in WW2 in regards to AFV's, but Russian AFV's were lost at a much higher rate.


Early on yes, later on, the actuall exchange rates I think became much closer, probably from 1944 on about 2.3:1, dropping to about 0.9:1 by the end of the war. Russians always (until the very end lost more tanks, but they could afford to. I dont count, incidentally a tank knocked out, recovered, and returned to service, exactly the same as the german statisitcs are presented. In 1941, for example, if the all AQFVs removed from the effectives list are applied to the heer, as this list appears to be doing for the Russian losses, then German AFV losses are closer to 5000. The daily situation reports in December 1941 were reporting daily runner rates down to about 0-10% for most formations. These, at that time, were effective losses, but by the following thaw, about 60-80% of German tanks that had been knocked out, had returned and were not included in the quarterly quarter master reports. Russians didnt worry about such reporting fripperies, hence in the post war re-writes of history, they dont look so hot. 



> Reasons - better infantry anti tank capabilities by German infantry, better tactics by armored commanders, and the fact that the T-34, while a very good tank was inferior in many ways to German tanks, it's 76mm and 85mm performed far worse than German tank guns of similar power.



True to an extent 1941-3, but not true 1943-5. gun power incidentally was a relatively minor course for losses, and the quality of German infantry compared to the better guards units a highly questionable claim. German artillery was the key to their defences, but far too thin, and unable to deal effectively after Kursk to "Zhukovs sympanies"...a reference to his (and others) repeated ability to catch the Germans off guard .....the Russians had learnt to hit the germans where they didnt expect, as witnessed in the Destruction Of Army Group Centre, and later on the Vistula. 

OKHs inability to alter their tactics in the face of the new found Soviet flexibility is often blamed on Hitler. to an extent true, but its also a convenient cop out by the heer. Truth is, they grew to be inflexible in their respponses. The heer had had retreat as a military exercise eliminated from their training since 1938, and consequently when presented with a situation that required defensive thinking, proved unable to cope very well. Arras is one of the earliest examples of that. German reverses tended to take the form of hanging on doggedly until it was way too late, not making any contingency plans, and than collapsing in a heap when it all fell apart. That is hardly superior tactics. Where the Germans excelled was in their small and middle unit leadership levels, and this arose directly as a result of Von Seekts influences. The heer was a leader rich organization, whereas the Red Army had killed most of its potential leaders in the purges 



> Germany marginally out produced Russia


 not where it matter, and for germany it was difficult to convert certain milit6ary outputs to other more critical needs.

One area that is problematic are the air campaigns. Without the allies applying their airpower, and the sea blockade there are reall problems for the Soviets, but in the context of a continued allied presence in the skies and at sea, the gound campaigns like Normandy and italy become rather superfluous....provided the germans still think an invasion in the west is a possibility and retain garrison forces in the west. The dynamics do change if they dont need to worry about their western air and coastal regions. 




> - and on the battlefield had a clear superiority when and if combatting an equal number of soviet forces. It would not have been easy, by German definitely would have won.


 depends on where and where you are tlaking about.

Jim Dunnigan, who was a wargame designer, then a special analyst working for the Pentagon, working with Colonel Dupuy, a recognized expert in this kind of analysis, reckone that in June 1941, on average, each German soldier was worth about 4.5 Russian soldiers. By the following Dcember it had fallen to 0.9:1. in other words, the germans were struggling in the conditions and against the siberians looked pretty ordinary. By the following summer ('42), it was back up to about 3.2, before plunging again at Stalingrad to about 0.8:1. At Kursk, the advantage once again rose to about 2.2:1 before falling in the winter to about 1.0:1.....heer was faced with less severe weather, better supply and benefitted accordingly. By June 1944, the qualitative advantage for the heer was down to about 1.631, as they began to scrape the barrel for manpower and the small leaders and cadres began to be lost. By April 1945, it was down about par...1:1 as the heer threw old men, young boys and no artillery supported units into the fire.

Hardly a clear advantage.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 13, 2014)

stona said:


> The Romanians and others proved themselves to be utterly irrelevant, as at Stalingrad. It is only necessary to compare Germany to the Soviet Union. By 1943 the USSR already had nearly 3 million more people under arms than Germany.
> Cheers
> Steve



This is essentially the comments of the uninformed. suggest you read accounts like Axworthy's Third axis Fourth Ally before reaching conlsions like that. Also look at the exploits of certain units and leaders like Radu Korne, before making such sweeping statements.

For the record, it was german units that broke first in the opening offensives north of Stalingrad.....

A pretty good summary of radu Korne and the formations he led

WorldWar2.ro - Brig. general Radu Korne

Not all Rumanians were ignorant peasants with no stomach for the war


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2014)

Actually, the Romanians, the Hungarians, the Croats and the Italians made contributions and sacrifices during that battle.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 13, 2014)

Neither the United States nor Britain would have let Hitler have Russia without intervention .... the premise of this thread needs to be pinned down. Did France fall to the Nazis? Did Pearl Harbor happen? 

The Russians killed 4 out of every 5 Germans who died in WW2 .... and they themselves died by the 1,000's. But no other regime, including the Nazis, could accept the casualties that the Soviets were prepared to accept. I return to my belief that the December battle for Moscow is symptomatic of the ultimate outcome .... and the regime held. Had the battle gone to the Urals, strategic airpower would have become a factor, neither Russia nor Germany was in a strong position on that. Long/longer supply lines as Germany moved east would have been a great disadvantage for German planners .. especially as they alienated everyone they trampled over.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2014)

One of the problems with the absence of Allied material, is that Stalin would have to come up with a way to augment his food supply somehow. In 1936 and 1937, the Ukraine had a bountiful harvest of grain, and he moved in and confiscated it. The people protested and as a result, one of his many purges was a result. The following years saw a huge decline of harvest for a couple reasons, one being the weather and the other was, of course the half-hearted effort the farmers (peasants) put into the field. As 1941 dawned, the grain reserves were at a low and this put Stalin into a precarious position even if the Germans hadn't invaded.

As it happens, the Germans did roll in and guess where they rolled in through? You guessed it, they drove right in through the breadbasket of the Soviet Union...

There were other areas of agricultural output (near the Urals and southeast of the Black Sea) but this would be like the west coast of the U.S. trying to feed the whole country without the midwest's production.

I saw earlier, where there were industrial production figures for Germany versus the Soviet Union...are we factoring in the absence of Allied bombing? This would also take into consideration that the oil fields in Romania were left intact as well.

One other thing that crossed my mind, was when I had mentioned earlier that Rommel and his divisions would have been committed to the invasion instead of being sent to Africa...now just imagine how that would have played out at Kursk (unless he was deployed further north).


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2014)

Denniss said:


> The Romanians were good and brave soldiers, they just suffered from poor leadership, antiquated tactics and lack of proper Art and AT guns. German leadership realized too late it has to prep up their Allies with some modern heavy equipment they couldn't build or afford themselves. More or less the same could be said about Hungarians and Italians.



In other words they were more of an encumbrance than any use when push came to shove. I'm not blaming or demeaning the nationalities involved, there are any number of other reasons why this was the case....but it was the case.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2014)

When the Soviet Union suffered a shortage of food then people starved, sometimes millions. If this had happened again on a larger scale due to lack of Allied aid then more would have starved, but there were still millions more.
The birth rates in agricultural countries were always higher than in the countries already industrialised. The analysis of the relative sizes of the 'birth cohorts' which would provide men of fighting age for WW1 was something that concerned France and Germany in particular. 
The Germans were well aware that the French birth rate had collapsed even more dramatically than their own, post 1914 and in the interwar years. Combined with the acquisition of many more ethnic Germans (in their own racist terms) this was something that gave them some confidence when they kicked off WW2.
In the final analysis quality _does not _always overcome quantity, a lesson the Germans learnt the hard way. If I have the manpower then I'll take 500 Shermans or T-34s and their crews over 50 technically superior German tanks
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> One other thing that crossed my mind, was when I had mentioned earlier that Rommel and his divisions would have been committed to the invasion instead of being sent to Africa...now just imagine how that would have played out at Kursk (unless he was deployed further north).



The Afrika Corp was only 2-3 divisions and was a side show compared to the numbers on the eastern front. 

However a lot of the Leandlease aid was in things that were hard to either quantify or track down the effect of.

The Bulk of the lend lease aid came late in the war, the Russians pretty much _stopped_ the Germans on their own but the advance _to Berlin_ would have been much longer and more costly without lend lease aid, if it was possible at all. 
If there was no lend lease and the Germans were NOT fighting in the west in 1943 things get a lot iffier. 

Lead lease provided not only almost 500,000 trucks but 100,000 tons of rubber, 500,000 tons of nonferrous metals (including, copper, brass etc), 3 Billion dollars in machine tools including entire factories. 

Some 'elements' that were important that do not include actual weapons include (and as delivered not lost en route) 
129,667 tons of smokeless powder (propellant for small arms and cannon).
129,138 tons of TNT for shell and bomb fillings. 
956,688 miles of field phone wire. (Russian make wire had poor insulation and tended to short out when wet)
1900 railroad locomotives, 9920 flat cars, 1000 dump cars, 685,740 tons of railroad rail acces. 
40,766 tons of tool steel and 14,203 tons of high speed tool steel. + a lot of other steel types.

Having more men only goes do far. The "tactic" of sending in the first and second waves of infantry with rifles and limited amounts of ammo and the third wave with no rifles and a very limited amount of ammo (expected to scrounge/salvage rifles and ammo from dead/wounded 1st and 2nd wave troops) is only going to work for so long or if your opponent has limited amounts of ammo. 

Somebody once made the comment that the Germans would run from "cold steel" (bayonets) but _only *after*_ their machineguns ran out of ammo.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2014)

Could the US and UK defeat the Nazi's without Russia? Nope. Could the Russians defeat the Nazi's without the UK and USA? Nope. The looming invasion of Italy in the Summer of 1943 meant that the divisions Hitler needed to contain Russian offensives were now earmarked for the Med.

And only a fool would downplay the vital importance of train engines and heavy trucks for use in keeping the troops fed and supplied.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (Dec 15, 2014)

OK, lets look at production but as opposed to something vague such as GNP let us make it specific, such as military hardware and other similar things-




> Production by country
> 
> Vehicles and ground weapons
> Tanks and self-propelled guns
> ...



Bear in mind Romania and Hungary have small amounts of hardware produced, maybe an additional 10% to the German numbers. But in Oil, I had to include this as they produced almost as much oil as Germany. And as long as Germany holds on to these countries, it is German production.

Biggest difference I see is in artillery in favor of the Russians, and Trucks favoring the Germans. I wonder if rocket launched artillery was included in artillery.

A few things I think need to be looked at. First, I think we need to define the scenario a bit better. Can Russia defeat Germany without Allied help is the question. I think what we have to do is make this starting with Operation Barbarossa. Gerany launches the invasion of Russia, France has surrendered, Great Britain has agreed to a lasting armistice, The US does not enter the war. Either no Pearl Harbor and the US and Japan are at peace, or the US only enters the war against Japan. I'd really have to say the first scenario for the US to truly not be involved in the European conflict.

Then let's look at a few other things. The work put into the V1/V2 programs would be directed at Russia. Would Germany focus harder on say jet fighters if not fighting Great Britain or the US? Or perhaps even devlop a 4 engine bombing force?

How about an Embargo of the Soviet Union, with Subs leading the way? The German Navy, while dwarfed by Great Britain and the US itself dwarfs the Soviet Navy. If not trying to starve Great Britain into submission, a lot more effort can be turned towards blockading the Soviets. German control of the Black Sea is another possibility, by sub and surface fleets. Even Amphibious invasions along the Black Sea, though as in the real war these would have to be smallish vessels. A German Naval offensive involving the Tirpitz and other capital ships including direct fire support in the siege of Leningrad would bode badly for the Soviets.

Germany would have no Allied Bombing raids. This would accomplish a few things - their synthetic oil plants would produce far more synthetic oil. Their pilots would not waste away in an attrition battle against allied air forces. Their pilots could train without fear of the allied airforces constantly being overhead.

There are many ways the Germans would benefit from facing the Soviets only. And as Stalingrad and Moscow were near-misses for the Germans, not having to worry about the Allies might have tipped these scales enough to ensure German victory in these campaigns. 



> Somebody once made the comment that the Germans would run from "cold steel" (bayonets) but only after their machineguns ran out of ammo.



I guess here we have to ask, does Germany run out of machine gun ammo before the Russians run out of men?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 15, 2014)

I cant see any scenario that the Soviets would not benefit from Allied activities to a greater or lesser extent. There simply is no realistic scenario that ther would not be some impact. 

The nightmare scenario from the allied perspective is that the Germans somehow win the air battle over Britain and then manage to get troops ashore. All of the post war analyses that have been done say this is an impossible scenario for the germans to win , but lets postulate for a bit as to how the odds might be defied, and at what cost. The first is that the LW would emerge from this battle a gutted force with a long recovery time needed. No invasion in June 1941 possible. The second is that getting troops ashore will come at a heavy cost to the germans, much as it did in the invasion of Norway. Then there is the cost in manpower and equipment in defeating the British Home Army, and then keeping it garrisoned. OKH estimated the loos of two complete Armies and the permanent loss of over 1000 tanks. A garrson force of 30-50 divs would be required.

Even this, the dream scenario for the Germans doesn't cause a cessation of allied resistance. the British planned to move to Canada to continue the fight, and the dominions would have been asked to mobilize their economies, which in the case of the Australians they partially did in 1942. At least 50 divs can be relied upon from the bigger dominions, and industry to back it up. almost certainly the US would step up with increased support for the allies.

So, barring the creation of unrealistic scenarios, like the British make peace with Germany after Dunkirk, there was never going to be a situation where there was no help from the allies. Even the German wet dream scenario has down sides to it, most notably that an attack would not be possible until 1942, and then with much reduced air and manpower, and not much of a surface fleet. There is no situation where the Germans can ignore to garrison its occupied lands.

In terms of the fleet ops in the Baltic, neither side could do much, but as a technical numbers exercise the German fleet was no match for the Red Banner Baltic Fleet. In 1941 the Soviets easily outgunned the forces the Germans could deploy, but suffered badly from the mine warfare which also affected axis movements in the Gulf of Finland. Neither side had freedom of movement in these constricted waters. If the germans wait, their ships get even more outclassed....the Soviets were building Soviety Soyuz class BBs and Knronstadt Class BCs, Chapayev Class Cruisers and about 50 DDs, over 1000 MTBs. It was one of Stalins main prewar aims....build a navy that could challenge the RN in blue water operations. 

In the Black Sea, ther was a small problem of access. If nothing else, the Turks closed the Bosphorus to both sides during the war. In a previous war, attempts to force the Dardenelles had ended very badly so there is nothing here to suggest anything different in this hypothetical . Ther is no possibility of getting heavy ships into the Black sea without upsetting a whole bunch of neutrals....friends for the Russians in other words.


----------



## Garyt (Dec 15, 2014)

> So, barring the creation of unrealistic scenarios, like the British make peace with Germany after Dunkirk, there was never going to be a situation where there was no help from the allies



Ah, but that is not the point nor the initial question. The question was "Did the Russians need Allied help for victory", not whether or not one thinks it realistic for the Russians and Germans to be going at it without the US/GBR helping the Russians.

So the only real way to get to that crucible is to have GBR and Germany make peace, and prior to Barbarossa. Anything else indicates Allied help for the Russians. Even an occupied England is help for the Russians.

As far as Russian Naval Forces at the Start of the war, I'd give the advantage to the Germans.
Battleships - 3 old Battleships for Russia, 3 New ones for Germany including the Tirpitz.
2 Pocket Battleships for the Germans
Cruisers - 7 For Russia, of which 3 were of post WW1 construction - German 2 Heavy Modern Cruisers, 6 Light Cruisers of post WW1 design, though only about 1/3 were "modern" IMO.
Destroyers - 49, 46 of post world war Vintage. I'm thinking the Germans were at about 35, but these were larger beefier destroyers that packed a heavier punch.
Maybe 175 E Boats for Germany? To 250 or so Russian Torpedo Boats.
Subs - Surprisingly, the Russians may have had a few more subs than Germany at this time, though I think it was close, and this is merely a guess but I'd think the German subs would be of better quality and/or more modern.

I think I'd have to go with the German Navy on this one. The Battleships I'd have to say are a huge advantage to the Germans, You have the Tirpitz and 2 Scharnhorst classes against pre WW1 Battleships with 12" guns and 10" armor, which was not of good quality merely due to it's age.

And if we want to add the "What if" Russian ships, including battleships, we need to add the Graf Zeppelin and the "H-Class" Battleships for Germany. I'd rather restrict it to what was actually built. Russia could not complete the Battleships in WW2 because other needs were more pressing - without Allied support, these needs would even be MORE pressing. If anyone is going to build more substantial vessels, it would be Germany, unhindered by US or British attacks on factories or more importantly, the US and Britain would not be draining resources the Germans could use against Russia.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2014)

The original point, was that it is (and has been) an ongoing notion that the Soviet Union beat Germany without help from the Allies in the "great patriotic war". There are some schools of thought that the United States was actually assisting Germany and offered no help to Britain or France but was only involved as far as making "imperialist gains" to promote "it's capitalist ideologies" on Europe.

There is an infinite amount of possibilities regarding "what could have happened...if..."

But in looking at the situation from the start:
IF Germany was able to treat with Britain after carving up Poland
IF Germany did not invade westward towards France
IF Germany had not been pulled into Italy's mess in North Afrika
IF the United States was not pulled into the European sphere and remained neutral

Then Russia would have certainly been in a world of trouble.

Also, it was mentioned that Rommel *only* had two divisions in North Afrika, yes...but he was able to do quite a bit with those mere two divisions. Imagine him unleashed during Operation Citadel with more equipment, better supplies and a solid air cover...

Also, among the figures posted about Germany's production figures and I haven't seen any mention about Czech AFV production output, which accounted for a good deal of German armor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 16, 2014)

Actually rommel was in effective control of 17 divs but more importantly, more than 30000 trucks....more than the entire allocation to Army group north. 5 of the 17 divs were german , and nearly the entire mobile formations of the italian army. Technically the italians were under their own command structure, but in reality those in North Africa were under the command of DAK, who could also reasonably be extrapolated to include various overseas italian forces in this scenario. These arrangements placed at Rommels disposal 21st Panzer, 15 Panzer, Ariete, Littorio, later Centauro Armoured Divs, Gruppo Malletti (a poorly formed and organized armoured group that was in the process of reorganizing in 1940), Trieste and Trento Mot Divs (one lost its trucks historically), 164 Light, 10th Bersagliri Motorized formations. His Infantry included Ramcke brigade, Folgore airborne, 7th airborne, a mountain Div (in Crete), 27th 61st, 62, "Pavia", 136th Gio Fascisti Divs 3-4 divisions in Sicily (for the invaskion of Malta)Armoured Divs, 4 divs destroyed in O'Connors offensive, a further 5 divs in Abysynnia that were destroyed, including the Duca Aosta Grenadiers, an elite Italian group that fought with distinction at Keren. In Greece the Italians had committed 10 divs eventually. There were hordes of light tank battalions in both NA and Greece.

This is by no means a complete list, just a taste of the forces committed to the southern front in 1941-2, and which reasonably can be allocated or expected by Rommel. It amounts to nothing, however, because the starting premise is broken. Germany was allied with the Soviets in 1939, and this allowed the Germans a free hand in Poland and vital economic assistance in 1939-41. without that the Germans are unlikely to attack in Poland. If Poland is not attacked, Germany does not go to war againt the West. The romanians remain allied to France, Hungary remains aligned to Italy. Germany is starved of half her oil. If the Germans attack any of these eastern european nations it can be expected the west will give gurantees to them like they did for Poland, and we are back where we started...except that Germany loses most of what friends she has, because most of these nations have trade arrangements with the Germans and economically is in big trouble because she loses about 80% of her foreign trade. 

It is an unrealistic scenario to surmise a war between Germany and Russia without a war with the west. One scenario is that Germany attacks Poland without a non aggression pact. Almost certainly Poland will be overrun, but there is no trading relationship with Russia and the british blockade of germany turns her economy south almost immediately..Germany did not have the economic depth that she had in 1914....and this means the blockade has nasty and immediate potential except if continental trade is maintained....the war would be over by the end of 1940. Once at war, the British and french made their terms very clear, and capitulation just want on the cards. there were several attempts made at mediation after Poland, they all got nowhere . 

So, if we are assuming a DoW between Russia and Germany 1939 to 1941, with the wst not involved, it has to be early....1939, at the latest, and it will have to go around Poland, and have no friends like Finland Romania and Hungary. There is no injection of resources as occurred after the fall of France, and the low countries. If we assume that France is attacked and overrun, then we are back againwith a hostile Britain fighting as she did....no change to the scenario. There are no conceivable scenarios that create a mechanism for an early British capitlation. we can wave the magic wand and say "oh the scenario demands it" Okay, but it was never going to happen.

So we are back at this point in 1939, where Germany attacks the Soviets 1n 1939. Cant go through the Baltic States, they are still independant, if attacked by Germany, they will alienate a still living Poland, Finland etc and risk involvement by the west. Leaves the area on the southern side of the Gulf Of Finland next to Leningrad. no ports of any significance, constricted waterways, Germans have a lift capability not exceeding 2 divs, amphibs into enemy controlled waters, mine infested, and reserves of 40 divs in 1939. Cant be done.....

I repeat, it is simply inconceivable that Germany could go to war with the Soviets alone. In any event, there would be quid pro quos if it was attempted, and none of them favour the germans. germany hoistorically attacked the Russians under the most favourable conditions that she could organise, and still could not defeat the Soviets. They simpoly did not have the resources to do so. Bernard Montgomery once said....only a fool would attempt to conquer Russia from western Europe. he knew what he was talking about


----------



## stona (Dec 16, 2014)

I believe Montgomery said something like that in response to Churchill's feeling out of the British Staff about an attack on the Soviet Union in 1945, something that was both ludicrous and scuppered by a complete lack of interest from the Americans. The sentiment is just as valid.

Victor Suvorov has written pretty much the same thing, but with an entirely different agenda 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Garyt (Dec 16, 2014)

> I repeat, it is simply inconceivable that Germany could go to war with the Soviets alone. In any event, there would be quid pro quos if it was attempted, and none of them favour the germans. germany hoistorically attacked the Russians under the most favourable conditions that she could organise, and still could not defeat the Soviets. They simpoly did not have the resources to do so. Bernard Montgomery once said....only a fool would attempt to conquer Russia from western Europe. he knew what he was talking about



What you are saying may indeed be accurate - I am not doubting that. But it is irrelevant.


Lets look at the start of this thread:



> An interesting survey by the news agency RT (Russian Times) shows that a majority of Russians feel that Russia was able to defeat Germany without Allied help.



Whether or not it would be a likely prospect that Russia would fight Germany without Allied help is again, not the issue. It is who would win.

And I would think based on the above survey, the idea was is that Germany is not fighting the Allies. So however unrealistic you may feel this premise to be, it is what the survey is based upon. So we have to assume that in some way at the start of Barbarossa, Russia was alone, they other powers had not entered the war or had made peace with Germany.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 16, 2014)

The survey is a mirror of what often arises from political motivation, but its up to us, to make military sense of such a hypothetical. under what circumstances can germany attack Russia without going to war with the west.....not "under what circumstances can we ignore the wests existence, and let germany go to war with the Soviets, AS IF THE WEST DOESNT EXIST. The premise does not assume that, does not say that, and is a nonsequita argument as a consequence and its then up to us to make military sense out of what might arise. The conclusions that we can draw are, most likely that Germany cannot avoid conflict with the West, and secondly if she does go to war against the Soviets, how can she prosecute it. since she cannot attack Poland without triggering a war with the west, the options are limited. Any other conclusion has as much relevance as Alice In Wonderland. 

The survey does not even consider these cold realities. i know its "fun" to try and think up the Nazi wet dream of how to defeat the Soviet Union, but as an ex analyst, ive been trained to analyse a military situation, including those that start from a politcal premise, and make sense of it. The premise that Germany could attack Poland simply cannot arise in any reasonable scenario. Its a fairy tale in other words

There is no better situation than the one presented to hitler June 1941, with one or two minor tweaks, such as no invasion of Yugoslavia or Greece


----------



## parsifal (Dec 16, 2014)

Now, within the realistic context of the 41 scenario, there are options available to the Germans that get them a better outcome than historical. Barbarossa was a bad plan because it failed to concentrate against a vital target. In the hundreds of wargames that ive played for this situation, the best option is to use an unfolding fan concept. Capture leningrad, pouring all of the resources possible, continue a steady push along the Minsk/Smolensk/Vyazama axis. After the fall of Leningrad, which vitally must be taken in three weeks, or not at all, the heer can begin to push onto Moscow from two directions. moscow needs to be captured by the end of october, with adequate rail links. then the heer hunkers down for the winter and takes its medicine. If it can last the winter, it should be able to push to the Dnieper and construct a defensive line there. A stalemate will usually ensue from that point until '44, when the allies are in position to do something in the west. But with a stable eastern front, the Germans can afford to fight better in the west, and can sometimes fight the war to a draw. 

The best they can hope for


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2014)

If I'm reading this right - Ukraine will be spared in 1941 in case main push is against Leningrad?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 16, 2014)

Yes. In 1941, more than 50% of the emergency formation raised by the Red Army came from the Moscow MD followed by the Leningrad MD. The Ukraine raised relatively few formations, and most of its industries were on the move to the east and urals. 

In 1941 its the least important of the three main target areas. later in the war it had long term importance, but less so in 1941


----------



## Garyt (Dec 16, 2014)

I suggest a new thread be started which actually deals with the topic per the initial post. We can call it 

"Russians didn't need Allied help for victory"


----------



## parsifal (Dec 16, 2014)

The initial post brings to light a survey and the current Russian national sentiment. Its a political statement in other words. Clearly, it is not really based on any empirical assessment....its a reflection of the Russian national jingoism and nationalism more than anything. Every nation suffers from this kind of "own nation" centricity. Not of a great deal of use or interest. Trying to dress that up as a serious military discussion doesn't make any sense. We generally have discussions that try to analyse the military and political realities. The military and political realities are that Germany could not avoid a war with the west if it wanted to fight the Russians, and the Russians had no interest in fighting the Germans until they themselves were attacked.

If the Germans aren't involved in any war with the west, then there is no war with Poland. There is no access or limited access to Rumanian and Hungarian oil. I assume no access or co-operation with the west, and no access to overseas markets. If that is not the case, then it becomes a war of western Europe and the US versus the Russians, which is a completely different dynamic.

Germany without oil, without direct land access is doomed to defeat. Germany with military access must, by definition be at war with the west. this is inescapable. Dress it up how ever you like, under whatever heading you choose, these are the intractable constants of the equation


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2014)

parsifal said:


> Yes. In 1941, more than 50% of the emergency formation raised by the Red Army came from the Moscow MD followed by the Leningrad MD. The Ukraine raised relatively few formations, and most of its industries were on the move to the east and urals.
> 
> In 1941 its the least important of the three main target areas. later in the war it had long term importance, but less so in 1941



Ukraine was overrun in 1941 (Kiev fell in late September), so not much of the emergency formations could be raised there? The Ukraine having far more people to call under arms than Leningrad MD? 
Would the Ukraine-based Red Army, VVS and Navy do anything in that scenario? What about Hungarians and Romanians? Soviets leaving the Germans to have the Romanian oil?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 16, 2014)

Ukraine had more people and greater potential, but simply did not raise as many formations as the more central MDs in 1941. Ukraine included some significant areas not captured until 1942 as well as the ones that fell quickly. 

If the Hungarians and Rumanians are in, some german troop will be needed to maintain a defensive line behind the Dnestr and then across the Lublin gap to the Pripet. Would need to leave 17A and 11A in the sth but 1 Pzgrp, and 6A could be redeployed . When they arrive the Italian Expeditionary force would be sent to the Lublin area. 

This is sufficient to maintain a good defensive position

Soviet Players generally do attempt an offensive in the Sth, but almost always it fails....badly. Smart ones stay defensive and try to get reserves back to Moscow. Hard to get units to Leningrad, because of the distances, and the different rail gauges in the Baltic states. The delay in the redeployment is what the German forces are counting on. it gives them momentum to take the two key objectives. its not a failsafe plan, you need a degree of luck as the german, but its a better option than being spread allover the place....

There are a couple of things that make operations in Russia exceedingly difficult....distance, frontages, lack of infrastructure, weather, both heat and cold and rain and snow. its a world of extremes. where simplicity is superior to complexity, where things seldom work as they are intended, life is cheap, and frequently lost.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2014)

Are the Soviet players also allowed to re-deploy their forces differently than historically? Can they attack German recon planes prior 'Barbarossa'? How well the northern venue can support greater influx of German assets?



> There are a couple of things that make operations in Russia exceedingly difficult....distance, frontages, lack of infrastructure, weather, both heat and cold and rain and snow. its a world of extremes. where simplicity is superior to complexity, where things seldom work as they are intended, life is cheap, and frequently lost.



Agreed all the way.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 17, 2014)

Different simulations have different arrangements. those working closer to the Kriegspiel principles (the german methods for gaming operational plans like the schlieffen plan) are rigid, and dont allow for a great deal of flexibility in matter like initial deployment. Others, based on more modern forms of simulation allow for a greater degree of flexibility. Situations like Barbarossa arent gamed out professionally anymore....there isnt the need, but there are many commercial sims, some PC based, others more traditional, that do a decent job of accurately depicting the limits and capabilities of both sides 

in my opinion the best simulations are those that work on the principle of trade offs. Because the Axis held the strategic initiative, they get to choose the extent of flexibility in their set up deployments....they can choose to be close to the historical setup, in which case the Soviets are also limited in their choices. The Axis can choose to vary their deployments, and the Soviets, to a limited extent can vary their setups as well. The Germans have greater freedom, but they dont get carte blanche to begin as they like. i think thats the best compromise. historically the Germans were able to deploy with good knowledge of the Soviet positions, but there were limits. some units had to be kept back from the frontier for instance, or they risked being detected by the Russians. There were limits in deployment into places like Romania and finland that then germans had very limited control over. 

When we were undertaking operational simulations at the Tac warfare school the referees would discuss simulation parameters and try and explore a given situation from as many realistic angles as possible. Gaming a situation out is of great advantage to understanding how systems can work, and today the military rely mostly on computers as the predictive modelling tools. Such analysis is only as good as the assumptions behind it and the assumptions necessarily trace back to the best information available. Sometimes its an extrapolation....a guess 

A simulation covering such a huge topic as the Russian front is necessarily done at a fairly broad brush scale. The most detailed scale I played is divisional regimental scale, which is pretty broad brush. You just cant go lower than that, even so, there 6-8 participants per side, so it gets pretty intense at times.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 18, 2014)

In a survey released today 107% of Russians asked by the FSB thought that Putin was doing an excellent job with the economy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

