# Who won the war?



## Jenisch (Jan 5, 2012)

To understand better what I want to discuss, I will recommend read the text of the first post on this link: Who Won the Second World War? - The Education Forum

While the author uses a perhaps good logic to put the Soviet participation about the others, do you guys agree with him?

Personally, I think *WORLD* War II was war more complex. The British historian he mentioned that was angry and mentioned the 56 divisions in France, didn't provided a strong argumentation in the Western Allies favour in my view. Factors like those divions, together with the British naval blockade, the German need of built U-boats, the Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union and the bombing campaign were surely much more impactant. 

I can't see the Soviets as the sole or more important element behind the Allied victory in WWII, despite their enormous contribution. I already tried to subscribe to that view, and couldn't maintein it. I always started to considerate what the Germans could have done, what the Germans could have employed in the East if there was no West, and couldn't maintein the view. Coincidence or not, exactly the same argument of many who argue about the Soviet superior importance use to justify it, just with the Eastern Front, of course. I can't understand how a front can be put above the others in a war were all was interconnected. And I don't think this is even a matter of opinion, but fact. 

What are your opinions?


----------



## DonL (Jan 5, 2012)

@ Jenisch



> Personally, I think WORLD War II was war more complex.



I absolutely agree.

I have my doubts that the Soviet participation was better then the others!

Let us abstract some things!

1. How would the Red Arrmy/Airforce perform without one single peace of lend lease and technology transfer of communikations, radio technology, aircraft-, aircraftengine-technology, trucks/lory's and so on.....?
2. How much help had the Red Army from the bad infrastructur (railways, roads) and the climatical conditions of their own country in a modern mobile war?
3. How would the Red Arrmy/Airforce perform, if the germans would not attack at 21.6.1941 (only defend) and the Red Army/Airforce must attack on their own without lend lease and technology transfer (1941,42,43,44)?

Answer this question with your knowledge and sum them up and I think the answer is clear!


----------



## davebender (Jan 5, 2012)

The Soviet Union conquered and occupied most of Europe for the next 45 years. However Stalin couldn't have done it without massive assistance from Britain and the USA. World Wars are a team sport.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 5, 2012)

Who won the war? The *allies*. That's it, plain and simple. I have grown tired of one group or another claiming that "they" or "we" won WWII. That's a load of crap. America couldn't have done it alone, Britain and the commonwealth nations couldn't have done it alone. The USSR could not have done it alone either. Without the massive amount of men, material and mutual assistance, it would have, at the very least, been a hell of a lot harder.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 5, 2012)

I agree with Eric. Without the Lend-Lease support from the UK US I'm not sure the USSR could have held out. IMO the massive losses in manpower was more Stalins fault with his officer purges then anything.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 5, 2012)

That's what I also think.

I compare the USSR and the Western Allies as two soldiers that provided mutual support to each other. One of them (the USSR) eliminated more enemies, but if wasn't for his friend giving it cover, a less numerous enemy could have shot it from the back and all his "superior" effort would be useless. A teamwork therefore.


----------



## marshall (Jan 5, 2012)

The author of the article from the first post, Norman Davies, is not claiming that the Soviets won the war all by themselfs. I think that he would agree with the statement that it was more complex matter and I believe that's why he wrote the book _Europe at War 1939-1945 No Simple Victory_. I can recommend this book to everybody as in my opinion it's a very good book. At close to 700 pages (at least Polish edition) it's not short but it's a good read.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 5, 2012)

marshall said:


> The author of the article from the first post, Norman Davies, is not claiming that the Soviets won the war all by themselfs. I think that he would agree with the statement that it was more complex matter and I believe that's why he wrote the book _Europe at War 1939-1945 No Simple Victory_. I can recommend this book to everybody as in my opinion it's a very good book. At close to 700 pages (at least Polish edition) it's not short but it's a good read.



From the article: 



> The Americans arrived too late and in too few numbers to play the dominant role



He practically said that were the Soviets who won the war with this. 

In my view, it's hard to say the Americans arrived too late, because the US was:

*Fighting Imperial Japan, which it's Army was a well know proponent of an invasion of the Soviet Union

*Maintening Britain in the war

*By maintening Britain in the war, it meant the German naval blockade would continue, and this would continue to hurt badly the Reich's economy, and consequentely it's ability to wage war

*Britain and the US meant the Italians could never help Hitler with great numbers in Russia, since their focus was in Africa and Mediterranean

*The Western Allies, together with the Japanese neutrality towards the Soviets, meant they could receive the Lend-Lease and all maritime trade

His logic desconsiderates all those factors, and many others, that were supporting the efforts in the East for both sides. It was the Italians taking considerable British and American resources in the Mediterranean to let Hitler fight in the East, the Japanese taking Allied resources in the Pacific, and the Western Allies not allowing Hitler to fully deploy his strenght against the Soviets that allowed the Eastern Front to exist like it was.

What I said above practically says that I agree with his view, but unlike him, I considerate the collective effort as vital, since in my view it was a true World War, and thefore was not mainly about the "big picture" like he does. It's a matter of the angle one wants to see the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2012)

evangilder said:


> Who won the war? The *allies*. That's it, plain and simple. I have grown tired of one group or another claiming that "they" or "we" won WWII. That's a load of crap. America couldn't have done it alone, Britain and the commonwealth nations couldn't have done it alone. The USSR could not have done it alone either. Without the massive amount of men, material and mutual assistance, it would have, at the very least, been a hell of a lot harder.



Agreed. This is a topic though that is debated over and over and over. National pride will ensure that there is no end to it.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 5, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed. This is a topic though that is debated over and over and over. National pride will ensure that there is no end to it.


 
Yeah.

In my country, there are a lot of USSR apologists in the humanities. In the rest of the world this is similar? If yes, perhaps is the reason why we see so much pro-Soviet stuff today.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 5, 2012)

I disagree I believe the Axis powers won , they were destroyed and had to construct new whereas the the allies had the manufacturing but it was all aged and getting close to being out of date ( the rust belt in the US). The Axis powers also had no responsabilities in the new order post WW2 although many of the problems the victors had to deal with are a direct result of actions in WW2 by axis powers.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jan 5, 2012)

I agree that the article dosn't claim much wich actually conflicts with most comments to this thread.

Also his point of departure is Churchills claim that Great Britain won the war, a claim that (even if it is somewhat carricated) I doubt anyone here would support. Certainly he (Davies) does not absolve the USSR of anything.

In terms of sheer fighting and killing axis soldiers the soviets certainly took the greatest share, as events unfolded. They undoubtedly wouldn't have performed as well without outside help, whithout this assistance the western allies themselves would have been obliged to fight a longer and harder campaign in Europe. Consider the resources the Germans could have channelled into aircraft, rocket weapons and submarines if Stalin had meekly accepted a peace on the lines of Brest-Litowsk in say summer 42 (not that Hitler would have been likely to make such a peace until long after the tide turned, if even then).

However, in terms of actual gain and prestige, in the long run the USA proved to be the winner.

PS: I forgot to mention that I grew up being given the expression that the Danish resistence movement won the war...


----------



## marshall (Jan 5, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> From the article: "The Americans arrived too late and in too few numbers to play the dominant role"
> 
> He practically said that were the Soviets who won the war with this.



No it don't mean that the Soviets won the war alone.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 5, 2012)

Just Schmidt said:


> Also his point of departure is Churchills claim that Great Britain won the war, a claim that (even if it is somewhat carricated) I doubt anyone here would support. Certainly he (Davies) does not absolve the USSR of anything.



I considerate the war was won by the joint efforts of the main Allied nations. Since it was a global conflict, such efforts were interconnected. So, hardly a front was "on it's own" to say it was really more or less important.



> In terms of sheer fighting and killing axis soldiers the soviets certainly took the greatest share, as events unfolded.



This is true to some extend in my view. As I said above, the Soviets could effectively only obtain such feats due to the external help from their allies (not only Lend-Lease, their overall contributions). Many historians today want to put the Soviets as the bright red star of the war, but they present this info like if the Soviets managed everything alone. 

The casualities the Soviets inflicted in the Germans are also not the best argument to justify a superior importance of them to me, too. The Luftwaffe for example, relatively few men, but if present with full strength could have avoided massive casualities for the Germans, and perhaps give them the victory in East. Why the Luftwaffe couldn't do this? Most of it was employed and lost in the West during the war, and as the war progressed, the lack of fuel by the Anglo-American naval blockade and bombing, cost it the adequate training of it's pilots. If the LW could be fully deployed in the East since the beginning, and likely in incread numbers if there was only the East, not to mention it's quality (all Fw 190s in the East, for example), perhaps the situation would become unsustainable for the Red Air Force. 



> They undoubtedly wouldn't have performed as well without outside help, whithout this assistance the western allies themselves would have been obliged to fight a longer and harder campaign in Europe. Consider the resources the Germans could have channelled into aircraft, rocket weapons and submarines if Stalin had meekly accepted a peace on the lines of Brest-Litowsk in say summer 42 (not that Hitler would have been likely to make such a peace until long after the tide turned, if even then).



Yeah. I notice a hypocrisy from some people about this. They usually mention how the West would face difficulties without the Soviets, only to not remember how the Soviets would face even more difficulties without the West. The Grand Alliance was judge critical for both sides.



> However, in terms of actual gain and prestige, in the long run the USA proved to be the winner.



I agree with this.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 5, 2012)

marshall said:


> No it don't mean that the Soviets won the war alone.


 
Ok.

I think the problem of the "dominant role" mention is that it sparks many misconceptions in the people, particularly out of the history circle. If the Soviets inflicted 8 from each 10 casualities of the German Army, then this meant they could have likely won the war alone and the West played a secondary role. The only thing we obtain with this is a "Stalingrad" in place of the D-Day here in the West. Say that the Western Allies were secondary beligerantes is not correct. A secondary beligerant was my country, that despite the fact it sent troops for the Allies in Italy and their contribution, didn't influenced the final outcome. With the Western Allies, the HIStory is different.


----------



## marshall (Jan 6, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> Ok.
> 
> I think the problem of the "dominant role" mention is that it sparks many misconceptions in the people, particularly out of the history circle. If the Soviets inflicted 8 from each 10 casualities of the German Army, then this meant they could have likely won the war alone and the West played a secondary role. The only thing we obtain with this is a "Stalingrad" in place of the D-Day here in the West. Say that the Western Allies were secondary beligerantes is not correct. A secondary beligerant was my country, that despite the fact it sent troops for the Allies in Italy and their contribution, didn't influenced the final outcome. With the Western Allies, the HIStory is different.




Jenisch you agree that the Soviets didn't win the war alone,

I agree that the Soviets didn't win the war alone,

probably most members of these forum will agree that the Soviets didn't win the war alone,

not much to discuss here.




Jenisch said:


> In my country, there are a lot of USSR apologists in the humanities. In the rest of the world this is similar? If yes, perhaps is the reason why we see so much pro-Soviet stuff today.



And btw if you think that Davies is pro soviet read his book I mentioned earlier, after reading it I doubt you will be calling him like that.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 7, 2012)

marshall said:


> Jenisch you agree that the Soviets didn't win the war alone,
> 
> I agree that the Soviets didn't win the war alone,
> 
> ...



The question is not this, it's the Allied effort as a whole being critical to the victory. See David Glantz for example. Yesterday, I read a paper from him where he told that without Allied help, the Soviets would *likely* defeat Hitler at maximum in 18 months, with the difference they would arrive at the English Channel. He desconsiderates the naval blockade, the extremely expensive U-boat construction, the bombing, as well as the Lend-Lease (which as with the other things, would have a cumulative effect and probably would be more relevant in this scenario). Being able to trade with more neutral countries, the Germans would be in a much better position to at least stop Stalin. I can imagine all the Luftwaffe the East, all the Fw 190s, great number of Hs 129s and more advanced aircraft such as jets, all focused in the Soviets. Thousands of Tiger and Panthers tanks with well trained crews due to foreign oil, thousands more of 88mm's, much more trucks, better railways, etc. 

It would be possible for the Soviets won? Yes, I would not rule out this possibility. BUT, I don't think it would be *likely*. While Glantz and Davies don't say the Soviets won the war alone, they claim they did most of the work, and don't considerate the vital support (not only LL, all I talked above) the Western Allies provided to Stalin. I considerate this support as critical, as important as the battles in the Eastern Front, because all was interconnected. In my view, the Soviets must have their achivements recognized, just they don't should be considerated as part of an individual, but rather collective effort.


----------



## marshall (Jan 7, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> The question is not this, it's the Allied effort as a whole being critical to the victory. See David Glantz for example. Yesterday, I read a paper from him where he told that without Allied help, the Soviets would *likely* defeat Hitler at maximum in 18 months, with the difference they would arrive at the English Channel. He desconsiderates the naval blockade, the extremely expensive U-boat construction, the bombing, as well as the Lend-Lease (which as with the other things, would have a cumulative effect and probably would be more relevant in this scenario). Being able to trade with more neutral countries, the Germans would be in a much better position to at least stop Stalin. I can imagine all the Luftwaffe the East, all the Fw 190s, great number of Hs 129s and more advanced aircraft such as jets, all focused in the Soviets. Thousands of Tiger and Panthers tanks with well trained crews due to foreign oil, thousands more of 88mm's, much more trucks, better railways, etc.
> 
> It would be possible for the Soviets won? Yes, I would not rule out this possibility. BUT, I don't think it would be *likely*. While Glantz and Davies don't say the Soviets won the war alone, they claim they did most of the work, and don't considerate the vital support (not only LL, all I talked above) the Western Allies provided to Stalin. I considerate this support as critical, as important as the battles in the Eastern Front, because all was interconnected. In my view, the Soviets must have their achivements recognized, just they don't should be considerated as part of an individual, but rather collective effort.




I'm sorry but I don't know work of David Glantz so I won't be commenting it.

I agree that the victory was a team effort, and I agree with a view that most of the fighting was on the eastern front, actually around 3/4 of whole world war 2 took place there, so it's hard not to say that the Soviets did most of the fighting.

You say that it would be hard for the USSR to win with Germany alone and I agree with that in fact very hard, but ask yourself how hard it would be for the Western Allies to win with Germany without the USSR? I would say it would be almost impossible...


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 7, 2012)

At 8.8 to 10.7 million Soviet military deaths, more than ALL the other allies combined, it's hard to belittle the USSR's contribution. 

Matter of fact if you take the higher figure of 10.7 million, it comes close to more deaths than all other combatants combined, axis and allied.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 7, 2012)

marshall said:


> I agree that the victory was a team effort, and I agree with a view that most of the fighting was on the eastern front, actually around 3/4 of whole world war 2 took place there, so it's hard not to say that the Soviets did most of the fighting.



Ground war, yes. What I don't agree is when people, and even the Russian government, like to praise that the Soviets acted almost independently. Everything they managed was achived in the joint effort. So, it's correct and very valid for the Ex-Soviet peoples praise themselfs for their achivements, but not forgoting it was part of an interconnected mutinational effort. While the West must understand the Soviet contribution as well. 



> You say that it would be hard for the USSR to win with Germany alone and I agree with that in fact very hard, but ask yourself how hard it would be for the Western Allies to win with Germany without the USSR? I would say it would be almost impossible...



It would depends in my view. Stalin would be supporting Germany with food and raw materials? Germany would conquer the USSR? In the two cases, specially in the later, certainly would be very difficult. Otherwise, Nazi Germany could be destroyed. Hitler seized much resources in the East. If didn't, the blockade and the Allied bombing, together with landings in occupied Europe probably would deal with it. 

You also need to considerate that the possibility of the Western Allies defeat Nazi Germany alone is not very different than from the Soviets. Even because it's not only victory or defeat, there's also the drawn possibility. And the British proved themselfs capable of repulse the German agression in 1940.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 7, 2012)

The fact is the war happened in the way it happened. People are free to interpretate it in the way they want. National pride and other things will always come in front, and every country has it's own perspective. I just considerate my view interesting because I considerate all efforts together.


----------



## marshall (Jan 7, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> Ground war, yes. What I don't agree is when people, and even the Russian government, like to praise that the Soviets acted almost independently. Everything they managed was achived in the joint effort. So, it's correct and very valid for the Ex-Soviet peoples praise themselfs for their achivements, but not forgoting it was part of an interconnected mutinational effort. While the West must understand the Soviet contribution as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The war happened as it happened and I don't want to speculate, but I'm afraid that without USSR (no matter if defeated by Germany or allied with Germany) there would be no landing in Western Europe or Allied bombing campaign because there would be no free Great Britain. But that's not important it's just speculation. And I don't want to talk about it.



What I want to say is that I don't agree with modern Russian propaganda about the world war 2 which in fact they call the "Great Patriotic War" and I agree that they claim that they won the war alone and that is bs, but that is very far from my point of view.

And Jenisch if you think that I'm an ex-soviet man you are very wrong and you still need to learn a lot.


----------



## Readie (Jan 7, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed. This is a topic though that is debated over and over and over. National pride will ensure that there is no end to it.



True enough Chris, 

Now, I have another point to bring into the mix.
The 'economic war' was waged from the cessation of hostilities. I see that Germany in 2012 is poised to bale out the EZ members that have made a balls of their economies.
So, The Allies won WW2. The USA Marshal aid programme put Germany back on its feet and then Germany when on the win the 'Economic war' and become a model for less attentive countries.
John


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 7, 2012)

marshall said:


> The war happened as it happened and I don't want to speculate, but I'm afraid that without USSR (no matter if defeated by Germany or allied with Germany) there would be no landing in Western Europe or Allied bombing campaign because there would be no free Great Britain. But that's not important it's just speculation. And I don't want to talk about it.



And with no Western Allies, maybe no USSR.



> What I want to say is that I don't agree with modern Russian propaganda about the world war 2 which in fact they call the "Great Patriotic War" and I agree that they claim that they won the war alone and that is bs, but that is very far from my point of view.



Sorry, I quoted you and talked some things about the subject, but were not directed to you. I also express my solidarity for what you Poles suffered in their hands.



> And Jenisch if you think that I'm an ex-soviet man you are very wrong and you still need to learn a lot.



Same as above.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 7, 2012)

".... I see that Germany in 2012 is poised to bale out the EZ members that have made a balls of their economies."

And impose "hard" rule on the defaulters ... 

And many of us are SYMPATHETIC to hard working tax-paying Germans ..... . Now if Germany could only have overcome its inner demons in 1918 .... despite the loaded dice and handicaps .... (pulled off a Finland "lemons to lemonade") .... think where Europe would be today.

MM


----------



## Readie (Jan 8, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... I see that Germany in 2012 is poised to bale out the EZ members that have made a balls of their economies."
> 
> And impose "hard" rule on the defaulters ...
> 
> ...




One can but wonder Michael.

John


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> At 8.8 to 10.7 million Soviet military deaths, more than ALL the other allies combined, it's hard to belittle the USSR's contribution.
> 
> Matter of fact if you take the higher figure of 10.7 million, it comes close to more deaths than all other combatants combined, axis and allied.


That being said, consider what the death toll of the Soviets would have been without lend-lease equipment and much needed supplies from the Western Allies.

Based on the circumstances such as technology, environmentals and geography, a single nation simply could not win a war on that scale by itself.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 8, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> That being said, consider what the death toll of the Soviets would have been without lend-lease equipment and much needed supplies from the Western Allies.
> 
> Based on the circumstances such as technology, environmentals and geography, a single nation simply could not win a war on that scale by itself.



Other thing to considerate is that if the Nazis remained more time in the occupied territories, they would certainly kill millions more. Since the Soviets drafted many men from retaked territories, perhaps there would not be much around. The war could become inviable because this.

I hold my opinion that it was the joint Allied efort that won the war, and the Soviets should not have a highlight. Wars are not won only by casualities, but usually by several factors. The defeat of Nazi Germany and it's allies was no exception.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 8, 2012)

Wars are won by casualties all the time. By the casualties you inflict on the enemy, until they either can see that further conflict will gain them nothing or they don't have enough fighting personnel left to carry on a war.

The Soviets didn't make it into Berlin on brilliant strategy, they battered their way in, and there was not enough of the Heer left to stop them, because the Heer was buried in Russia along with a lot of their opponents.
It's as if you own a hardware store, a guy uses your tools and materail to build a house, you transport the material, maybe even help a little. Is that your house?


It may not be politically correct, but war is killing. The Soviets did the majority of the killing, for that they desearve credit.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2012)

The Soviets definately battered thier way into Germany, to that end, there is no doubt.

The Germans made the Soviets pay dearly for every inch of ground the Red Army gained. Now suppose for a moment, that the U.S. and thier heavy bombers weren't there by day and the RAF by night along with all the Allied fighters that roamed the western front's skies. And suppose that the western Allied armies weren't hammering away from the south and the west, drawing away large amounts of German men, equipment and supplies that would have been otherwise pouring into the Ost front.

And finally, suppose that the Soviets didn't have the benefit of the afore-mentioned goods and materials from the western Allies to help bolster thier war efforts against the Axis.

The bottom line is, the Russians could not have held thier own single-handedly no matter how much revisionists and Red Army fans want to believe...saying they did would be like saying that the U.S. single-handedly beat Japan in the Pacific and the contributions of other nations didn't matter and had no impact at all...


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 8, 2012)

I hope that I haven't given the impression that I think the Russians could have won without western involvement, because they couldn't. About 15% of their aircraft were from the Allies, well over half of their wheeled transport was thanks to the Allies, food, grain, oil, gas, though they didn't put the tanks sent to much use. Among other things where did they get a large % of their explosives?
But also I don't think the western allies had much chance of defeating the Axis without the USSR's involvement.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> ...saying they did would be like saying that the U.S. single-handedly beat Japan in the Pacific and the contributions of other nations didn't matter and had no impact at all...



After Summer 1943, it was essentially an American show in the Pacific.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2012)

Oh boy here we go again...


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 9, 2012)

syscom3 said:


> After Summer 1943, it was essentially an American show in the Pacific.


not to knock the effort but it was more of a side show after summer 43 then the main event in Europe, there is not one item of kit that was better in Japanese inventory then what US had, the same could not be said in Europe


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 9, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh boy here we go again...


lmao


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 10, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> The Soviets definately battered thier way into Germany, to that end, there is no doubt.
> 
> The Germans made the Soviets pay dearly for every inch of ground the Red Army gained. Now suppose for a moment, that the U.S. and thier heavy bombers weren't there by day and the RAF by night along with all the Allied fighters that roamed the western front's skies. And suppose that the western Allied armies weren't hammering away from the south and the west, drawing away large amounts of German men, equipment and supplies that would have been otherwise pouring into the Ost front.
> 
> ...



Exactly my point. That's why I said that casualities were not everything. 

If the Western Allies could not defeat the Germans as well, what is the problem with this? It hurts say the victory was a joint effort?

I don't want polemic here, just present what I belive it's an impartial view of the war.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 10, 2012)

As I already said that agree above, there's no doubt the Soviets that drew more blood from the German Army (Army specifically, because the air force is just as important, a strong LW could have avoided the massive casualities in Stalingrad for example). 

My perception is that today we are just saying that Stalingrad, not D-Day, was the decisive momment of WWII, and that the Soviets practically single-handed won the war. This is just trade one misconception for other.

I proposed in the Eastern Front Wikipedia (my posts in italic, answers in bold):

_I'd like to express my view about this information of the Eastern Front importance provided in the article:

"The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat."

In fact the Eastern Front was the theater that drained most blood from the Germans, but most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least.

I think the article appears to give the the idea that the Soviets would won anyway, which as I already said above, is at least questionable by most. Information about the substancial Lend Lease aid is provided (something of constant debate), but fells in contradiction with the other information I quoted.

My suggestion would be change it to or something like: "The Eastern Front was the most important direct theater of operations for the defeat of Germany".

What are your opinions about this?_

*Are we addressing the wrong problem here? If most historians agree that the USSR would most likely not have won alone, then we should simply make sure to say so clearly (suitably referenced), not tweak the wording of the lead to alter what ideas the reader might or might not take away from the article as a whole. And in fact, maybe we already do say so, later in the article?
I have a suspicion that the half-sentence that concerns you is likely to have been discussed here in considerable detail in the past, so I don't know if some of those discussions should be taken into account too.
Either way, if the change you suggest is implemented, I would say it definitely doesn't need the word "direct", since that implies something that doesn't seem to be the case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)*

_Demiurge, I didn't thought when created this topic. This is an encyclopedia after all. We need to provide te people with information about the facts, not tweak their views about alternative history, right?_

*The statement "But most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least." is not correct. For instance, such a reputable scholar as David Glantz believes that the victory was possible, although it would be more costly. The reason for that was simple: the USSR won the most decisive battles, the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, virtually alone, because no considerable military of economic aid from the West had been provided by that moment. After Stalingrad, it was impossible for Germany to win (just to make separate peace with the USSR)*

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I stoped the discussion with those guys, because they simply didn't accepted it. Those are the same kind of people that like to criticize those who call the Soviets "Russians", but are hypocrite enough to desconsiderate the participation from the Western Allies in WWII.

Claim that WWII was won by the Soviets today is the "politically correct" in history. Of course that inside the history circle we can talk that the Soviets did most of the hard work, as we know that hard work alone is not everything. The problem is that information for the general public must not be presented in other form. Otherwise, as is already fact, we are having students learning simplistic things like: "the Soviets killed 8 of each 10 Germans, they won the war, it was all Cold War BS!". The mention about the Soviets being more responsible "directly" for the German defeat is a good way in my opinion.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 10, 2012)

As I already said that agree above, there's no doubt the Soviets that drew more blood from the German Army (Army specifically, because the air force is just as important, as a strong LW could have avoided the massive casualities in Stalingrad for example). 

My perception is that today, we are just saying that Stalingrad, not D-Day, was the decisive momment of WWII, and that the Soviets practically single-handed won the war. This is just trade one misconception for other.

I proposed in the Eastern Front Wikipedia, here were the answers (my posts in italic, answers in bold):

_I'd like to express my view about this information of the Eastern Front importance provided in the article:

"The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat."

In fact the Eastern Front was the theater that drained most blood from the Germans, but most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least.

I think the article appears to give the the idea that the Soviets would won anyway, which as I already said above, is at least questionable by most. Information about the substancial Lend Lease aid is provided (something of constant debate), but fells in contradiction with the other information I quoted.

My suggestion would be change it to or something like: "The Eastern Front was the most important direct theater of operations for the defeat of Germany".

What are your opinions about this?_

*Are we addressing the wrong problem here? If most historians agree that the USSR would most likely not have won alone, then we should simply make sure to say so clearly (suitably referenced), not tweak the wording of the lead to alter what ideas the reader might or might not take away from the article as a whole. And in fact, maybe we already do say so, later in the article?
I have a suspicion that the half-sentence that concerns you is likely to have been discussed here in considerable detail in the past, so I don't know if some of those discussions should be taken into account too.
Either way, if the change you suggest is implemented, I would say it definitely doesn't need the word "direct", since that implies something that doesn't seem to be the case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)*

_Demiurge, I didn't thought when created this topic. This is an encyclopedia after all. We need to provide te people with information about the facts, not tweak their views about alternative history, right?_

*The statement "But most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least." is not correct. For instance, such a reputable scholar as David Glantz believes that the victory was possible, although it would be more costly. The reason for that was simple: the USSR won the most decisive battles, the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, virtually alone, because no considerable military of economic aid from the West had been provided by that moment. After Stalingrad, it was impossible for Germany to win (just to make separate peace with the USSR)*

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I stoped the discussion in that article. because they simply didn't accepted it. Those were the same kind of PhD people that like to criticize those who call the Soviets "Russians", but are hypocrite enough to desconsiderate the participation from the Western Allies.

Claim that WWII was won by the Soviets today, is the "politically correct" in history. Of course that inside the history circle we can talk that the Soviets did most of the hard work. The problem is that information for the general public must be presented in other form. The mention about the Soviets being more responsible "directly" for the German defeat is a good way in my opinion.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 10, 2012)

As I already said that agree above, there's no doubt the Soviets that drew more blood from the German Army (Army specifically, because the air force is just as important, a strong LW could have avoided the massive casualities in Stalingrad for example). 

My perception is that today, we are just saying that Stalingrad, not D-Day, was the decisive momment of WWII, and that the Soviets practically single-handed won the war. This is trade one misconception for other.

I proposed in the Eastern Front Wikipedia, here were the answers:

_I'd like to express my view about this information of the Eastern Front importance provided in the article:

"The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat."

In fact the Eastern Front was the theater that drained most blood from the Germans, but most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least.

I think the article appears to give the the idea that the Soviets would won anyway, which as I already said above, is at least questionable by most. Information about the substancial Lend Lease aid is provided (something of constant debate), but fells in contradiction with the other information I quoted.

My suggestion would be change it to or something like: "The Eastern Front was the most important direct theater of operations for the defeat of Germany".

What are your opinions about this?_

*Are we addressing the wrong problem here? If most historians agree that the USSR would most likely not have won alone, then we should simply make sure to say so clearly (suitably referenced), not tweak the wording of the lead to alter what ideas the reader might or might not take away from the article as a whole. And in fact, maybe we already do say so, later in the article?
I have a suspicion that the half-sentence that concerns you is likely to have been discussed here in considerable detail in the past, so I don't know if some of those discussions should be taken into account too.
Either way, if the change you suggest is implemented, I would say it definitely doesn't need the word "direct", since that implies something that doesn't seem to be the case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)*

_Demiurge, I didn't thought when created this topic. This is an encyclopedia after all. We need to provide te people with information about the facts, not tweak their views about alternative history, right?_

*The statement "But most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least." is not correct. For instance, such a reputable scholar as David Glantz believes that the victory was possible, although it would be more costly. The reason for that was simple: the USSR won the most decisive battles, the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, virtually alone, because no considerable military of economic aid from the West had been provided by that moment. After Stalingrad, it was impossible for Germany to win (just to make separate peace with the USSR)*

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I stoped the discussion in that article, because they simply didn't accepted it. Those are the same kind of people that like to criticize those who call the Soviets "Russians", but are hypocrite enough to desconsiderate the participation from the Western Allies in WWII.

Claim that WWII was won by the Soviets today, is the "politically correct" in history. Of course that inside the history circle we can talk that the Soviets did most of the hard work, the problem is that information for the general public must be presented in other form. The mention about the Soviets being more responsible "directly" for the German defeat is a good way in my opinion. Or, more simple, the many teachers with Marxist tendencies must moderate their views to the students. Unfornately, the damage is already happening, because more and more people with a simplistic view like "the Soviets killed 8 from each 10 Germans soldiers, they won the war, the D-Day stuff was all Cold War BS!".


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 10, 2012)

@ tyrodtom:

".... At 8.8 to 10.7 million Soviet military deaths, more than ALL the other allies combined, it's hard to belittle the USSR's contribution. 

Matter of fact if you take the higher figure of 10.7 million, it comes close to more deaths than all other combatants combined, axis and allied."

Just for perspective .... on Soviet body counts:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIhixcUEq50_!

MM


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 10, 2012)

What're you trying to do, swamp us with volumn of print?

Quantity has a quality all it's own ? Didn't Stalin say that? Or Lenin ?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 10, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> @ tyrodtom:
> 
> ".... At 8.8 to 10.7 million Soviet military deaths, more than ALL the other allies combined, it's hard to belittle the USSR's contribution.
> 
> ...



I read Harvest of Sorrow several years ago and another on basically the same period but I can't remember the title, on of the sadest periods of Soviet history. With all the death visited on the countries of the USSR, I wonder what kind of population and power if someone other than Stalin had come to power after Lenin's death, what world history would be today.

That's a good question for you alternate history fans, what if Stalin didn't take power after Lenin? What if a just halfway human being took power in the USSR, no famines no purges of the armed forces. Would Hitler have dared tangle with Russia then?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 11, 2012)

".... I wonder what kind of population and power if someone other than Stalin had come to power after Lenin's death, what world history would be today."

Wonder you may, tyrodtom, but I certainly don't. Too many other examples from communist regimes come to mind -- Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim Family .... If you think Trotsky would have been kinder and gentler than Stalin .... you're naive. 

Communism -- the end justifies the means -- with no accountability at the ballot box or the stock market.

MM


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 11, 2012)

The end justifies the means, seems to be everbodies mantra, not just communism's.
There was Khrushchev or Gorbaschev, men of different times, commited communists, but with more concern for their country, and it's people, than their own power.

There are several in Stalin's own timeline that probably could have done a better job, with a lot fewer deaths. But, Stalin had them murdered of course. And i'm not refering to Trotsky,, I know his history.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 11, 2012)

In Russia Today, when there's reportings about Stalin and WWII, there's always a mention that only with Stalin's ruthless actions the Soviet Union won WWII. Putin and his marionette Medvedev are behind this in my opinion. 

Britain suffered a lot from the bombing raids. Proportinally to it's population, the people suffered considerably. Even so, it was not necessary cruelty with them for cooperation. Churchill's secret Army to resist the Nazi invasion is a clear example of this. Another example is that during WWII, there was much more patriotic propaganda than Communist in the USSR.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 11, 2012)

".... The end justifies the means, seems to be everbodies mantra ...."

Hardly. Most balanced 'regimes' try to avoid "mantras" .... there was no "mantra" in the fight between GB and Nazi Germany, there was no "mantra" in Finland when the Soviets invaded. There was no "mantra" in Pearl Harbor when the fight started December 7, 41..

Only "international communism" is interested in fermenting the universal revolution of the working peoples ..... now THAT requires a "mantra" and the stomach for endless killing for the state .... woops ... I mean _the people_. 

_Communist _Russia would have failed under weaker leadership than Stalin.

MM


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 11, 2012)

The end justifies the means is a synthesis of principles in "The Prince" of Niccolò Macchiavelli, a italian (Fiorentino, there was not italy as state) of XV/XVI centuries.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 11, 2012)

If Stalin's hadn't been so paranoid that he felt justified in eliminating everyone whose popularity approached his, maybe Hitler wouldn't have seen the USSR as a easy conquest.
Murder of his rivals is one thing, mass murder of whole classes of the population is another.

But i'll have to agree after all with you about communism, since I can't can't think of a single communist regime that didn't use murder to get and keep power. I've got a pretty weak argument when the softest, almost human form of communism I can think of is Fidel Castro's variation.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 11, 2012)

I can't argue with people that have radical political views, and the majority of the Communists have them. I don't know how people can blind themselfs for the crimes the Communist regimes commited (and commit), trying to justify or deny them by any means. This is sick, and comparable to the Holocaust revisionists IMHO.

The Russian government is furious because some of the ex-Soviet republics considerate what the USSR did to them was an occupation. Yes, the Nazis were worse, but what the Soviets did was also nice? You beat and rape a women every day is extremely cruel, isn't? (what Hitler did), but take away her freedom and still mistreat her with some frequency is justifiable only because you are "better"? (what Stalin did), I don't think so.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 11, 2012)

Every country has some skeletons in it's closet it'd like to forget, but the USSR's closet is so full it doesn't even want to open the door and admit to it's crimes.


----------



## Readie (Jan 11, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Every country has some skeletons in it's closet it'd like to forget, but the USSR's closet is so full it doesn't even want to open the door and admit to it's crimes.



Neither does Japan.
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 11, 2012)

".... some of the ex-Soviet republics considerate what the USSR did to them was an occupation. Yes, the Nazis were worse, but what the Soviets did was also nice?"

By no definition were the Nazi "worse" ...... it's a NO-WIN TO DISCUSS ... but don't make blanket claims like this unless you are prepared to define and support.

BLOODLANDS - the latest tomb on the topic certainly doesn't claim that Nazis were "worse" than Reds. It does say the the places worse off were countries that Stalin had over run - that were then occupied by the Nazis - and then re-taken by the Reds. That, is a whole other kettle of watered-down forced-labor-camp soup.

Bloodlands - the most depressing book I've ever read.

MM


----------



## marshall (Jan 11, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Bloodlands - the most depressing book I've ever read.



I heard it's a very good book on the subject but I didn't read it, because it's so depressing.

The sad thing is that my grandparents generation had to experience it in their own lives, and I have a choice not to read about it. Well I'm a lucky guy...


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 11, 2012)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2xW6veHY9U_

This video is exactly from what I was talking, including the subject being discussed here.

"Stalin was an idealist, an utopian, and he belived it was necessary to use violence to achive it's utopian"

“Yes, the Soviet Union did not ultimately need its allies to win the war, but its alliance with particularly the United States and Great Britain helped it to win the war a lot quicker than it would have otherwise been the case,”

"Not Stalin or the Soviet Union wanted a Cold War"

Facebook analogy mode: Kremlin likes this.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 11, 2012)

"Stalin was an idealist, an utopian, and he belived it was necessary to use violence to achive it's utopia.

I think Pol Pot came up with the same excuse, and unrepentant til the end.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 11, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> "Stalin was an idealist, an utopian, and he belived it was necessary to use violence to achive it's utopia.
> 
> I think Pol Pot came up with the same excuse, and unrepentant til the end.


 
Hitler was also an utopian, he belived that some groups needed to be largely or totally eliminated in order to achive it's utopia for the German people.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 11, 2012)

You're giving utopia a baaad reputation.

Nobody knows for sure what another person believes. I've tried to read Mien Kampf more than once, but it's so full of hate and bs I couldn't force myself to keep reading it. Maybe that's why Hitler took everybody by surprize. A lot of his plans for the future for Germany were in the book, i've been told. A lot of people bought the book, world wide. It was a best seller in more than just Germany. Maybe the book was so terrible, most people were like me, couldn't finish it, and never really knew what his written thoughts were.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 11, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> You're giving utopia a baaad reputation.


 
Not necessarily. For Hitler's eyes, it was as good as it was for the Stalin, the difference is that Hitler lost and Stalin won.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 13, 2012)

"... the difference is that Hitler lost and Stalin won"

OK, Jenisch, I'll bite . Why? (did Hitler lose and Stalin win), IYHO. 

MM


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9ScChTcCag_!


----------

