ussr didn't need allies to win ww2, survey...

I'm glad to be able to tap your resources on this subject.

I have many articles that I would like to post on this subject however I do want to respect the rules of the forum. I know this is a sensitive topic but I believe that facts about it have been purposefully withheld in order to preserve the "strong allied alliance" myth perpetuated over the last 6 decades. If you wish me to continue this in an Alternative History Forum I will do so but I think that labeling this analysis as such would serve only to mislead and demonize what has already been said. If what has been said needs to be marginalized to be disbelieved then I would say, with all due respect, that the mainstream media has already compromised the integrity of this forum.

However rules are rules and I don't make them. If you wish me to move this discussion to the Alternative History thread I will do so.

Please advise.

thanks.

 

Hogwash. A lot of the Russian people are simply misinformed. That's understandable, since they haven't had access to a free press until after glasnost in the early 90's (and possibly still don't).

The German invasion was a close-run thing right up until the battle of Kursk in July 1943. While the Russians had many more troops available and plenty of manufacturing facilities, not to mention the whole of the Soviet Union to retreat to, Stalin's senseless purges during the 1930's had left the Red Army and most of the government practically leaderless. The expert German army and luftwaffe ran rings around the Soviets for the first 2 years of the war. the Germans took about 1 million Russian soldiers prisoner, destroyed most of the Red Air Force in the first month of the war, and were poised to take Moscow, Leningrad, and over-run the Caucases oil fields.

The Red Army was like an elephant with no brain, potentially tremendously powerful but not knowing which way to go. Only until Kursk did the Red Army leadership, and Stalin, begin to grasp some idea of a sound strategy to repel the Germans - until then, had it not been for Hitler's amateurish meddling, the Germans could have very well destroyed the Red Army, captured Moscow and won the war.

The Soviets did however do two very smart things: 1-they immediately moved almost all their heavy industry, including tank and aircraft factories, to locations east of the Ural mountains - and out of range of German bombers and 2-they designed and perfected the T-34, a true war-winning tank, and kept its existence secret. But these factories produced mostly guns, tanks, ammunition and aircraft - not trucks. It was the American Studebaker truck that millions of Russians rode into battle on, and a huge advantage over the Germans and their myriad different trucks from every occupied country. Because the Americans sent the trucks, hich the russians used for everything from transporting troops and supplies, to launching Katyusha rockets from, the Russians were free to produce more T-34's instead (even Stalin praised the Studebaker truck).

While in the winter German soldier's feet froze in their hob-nailed boots, Russian soldiers all wore warm felt boots, millions of pairs of which were made and sent by the USA. american food prevented many a Russian food shortage, and American copper helped the Russians produce more electrical and electronic war goods. The British helped out too, and sent thousands of tanks and aircraft. A favorite aircraft of the Russians was the P-39 Aircobra, which they used for ground attack (the russians got alot of these from the USA because the Army Air Forces didn't want them, especially when better aircraft came off the American production lines).

The Americans and the British sent thousands of tons of high-octane aviation fuel, which gave the Russian fighters a huge advantage in the air (the Germans were forced to use low octane avgas in their aircraft, reducing performance, because they lacked the resources).

So probably american and British lend-lease was the difference between victory and defeat for the Russians, and it would not be hard to prove it. Naturally the Russians would not want to say so, even if they had access to the same information we do. Which is only natural, because what Russian would want to admit that other countries (that later became their sworn enemies) helped bail out the Rodina during the Great Patriotic War?

 

The importance of the T 34 is much overrated :the SU did survive in 1941 without the T 34;the war in the east was not decided by tanks,one could argue that artillery was more important .
The SU did also survive without the Studebakers :the limited number of those was not crucial :the Red army was depending on horses and railways (like the Germans ) because 1) you can't supply an army with trucks 2)there was no way for a motorised army to operate in a country without decent roads .
The importance of LL is also much overrated,what was more important was the virtually second front that existed already in june 1941 :the Germans could only engage a minority of their armed forces in the east :they had to garrison the occupied countries,protect their homeland against allied air attacks (a lot of A-A guns and a lot of men ),a lot of their war production was going to the production of U-Boats..etc.

 

Hogwash you say?

My parents went to school during the "Iron Curtain" days and believe it or not were taught about Allied participation during WW2. They were aware of what happened in Africa, Italy and D-day (yes all of this was written in Russian school books during the Cold War). They were even taught of the LL which Russia received, primarily mechanized infantry which till this day is immortalized in virtually all Russian WW2 films.

However, when they moved to the U.S. they were shocked at how little the average American knew about the Russian participation in the war. They found it quite bizarre that they themselves (being taught in the Soviet School system) knew more about the Allied participation in the war than the average American (being taught in a democracy) knew about Russian participation.

Even in this forum one can see the tentacles of certain members trying to blame the loss of the war on "Hitler's amateurish meddling" almost as if had his generals been able to operate freely they would have squashed the "elephant with no brain". I will not even go into the numerous sources available (with a simple google check) which would provide sufficient information on why the war would NOT have ended had the Germans captured Moscow yet for some reason these facts continue to be "brushed aside" even with all of this FREE PRESS.

So who is really the misinformed one?

 

, I love that one, sorry Slava

I notice that many people are not aware about what the brainless elephant did on the flanks of Heeresgruppe Mitte. A brainless withdrawl?

It is that formidable executed withdrawel by the Soviets on the flanks and horrendous sacrifice in the middle, that brought Adolf into the shi.. he faced after Dezember 1941.

Regards
Kruska

 

Having lived in Eastern European and Western countries for a reasonable amount of time, I have to say that, despite me being very anti-Soviet (personal reasons), I must admit that it rather vexes me to watch some of the Hollywood rubbish propaganda, which would have us believe that it was the USA and the USA alone that won WW2 - watching "Band of Brothers" you'd think they made the trip from Normandy to the reich on their own, with some supplementary units there. Having talked to many Westerners, some of the older lot do realize that, erm, the, shall we say "main" war was on the Estern Front, whilst most of the younger ones hardly even know that it was Russia that bled the most and gave the biggest "hurrah" of them all. This I find rather unfair and especially the "them Russians were losing so we saved them" remarks completely ignorant and I don't see anyone going out of their way to try and make matters clear really. Of course it was a combined Allies effort, but by God did those brainwashed Bolshies foot the bill....

 

I agree with you on every point Brannick, but I must point something out that most people (Euros especially) that the mini-series that everyone loves to bash, "The Band of Brothers" was focused on one (1) US Army infantry company in the US 506th PIR of the 101st US Airborne Division. In their areas of operation, for the most part, the only other belligerent forces in the AO (area of operation) were the Germans (duh). A few episodes briefly had some British troops, but again, the focus was on Co. E. It was not a documentary, not a training film, or an attempt to brainwash everyone into believing the US won the war all by ourselves. You should know that Hollywood is the last place to turn to for historical direction, and movies in general are just as much of a lame choice to look to for education anyway. Movies are made for two reasons, for entertainment, and to make money, that's all. Now, before anyone gets their panties all twisted up over this, other countries have made some excellent war movies with no US troops represented in them, and I found them to be just as entertaining as the Hollywood-made shoot'em ups. Of course, no US forces were in on the sinking of the Tirpitz, as was claimed and cried about over on ww2t, or involved in the Battle of Britain (similar situation over av-gas), or headed up the rear-guard at Dunkirk. Movies made in the US tends to focus on the viewing market - AMERICANS. Some stories are altered (gasp!) to make for a better story, but then again, it's just a movie. No attempt at stolen honor, no shame assigned, no brainwashing, just have a seat, get some coke and popcorn and hopefully get to see some good shoot'em up action and maybe a little T & A for good measure....

 

For the record, I think "Band of Brothers" is (mostly) a very good, almost brilliant war series and thoroughly enjoyed it, apart from the 'John Wayne superman slaughters hundreds of Indians" bits, but otherwise it was a very enjoyable viewing. What people forget is that it only focused on one very tiny bit of the war and, alas, most make their own grand conclusions from it.

 

So true, your assessment that is. Now just don't let Carl Evans (a most devout John Wayne fan) get after you about cheap shotting the Duke....

 

Well, the "Duke" featured in some pretty racist Westerns where it was ok for him and some girlie to shoot hundreds of "savages"...I mean, that was "ok"....not unlike US marines slaughtering them "gooks" really...

 

Ok.

 

No need to drag the Marines into this

 

Lets keep the 'Duke', 'gooks', modern history marines, indians, and 'savages' out of this discussion and keep it ww2 related guys.

 

But for people who are not interesting in history very much it serves as a sourse for historical information, help them to form an image of historical events.
From "pure commercial" point of view it should be good for Holywood to make film about Eastern Front because of grandious battles.

 

Every country tries to create it`s own patriotic myth. (A cinema contributes much to this.) That`s why Americans underestimate the Eastern Front, or even take it almost for nothing. From other hand many Russians take for nothing Western Ally`s contribution. Post-Cold War syndrome adds to such perception.

 

Was this possible for SU to won the war without Allies? Maybe "yes", but it would cost much more human lifes.