Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

How was it that russia defeated the worlds strongest military at the time ( germany )

Discussion in 'Eastern Europe February 1943 to End of War' started by Sloniksp, Aug 25, 2006.

  1. kipoyph

    kipoyph Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    1
    That could very well be true.

    But the fact is they also were invaded and slaughtered by the German army in a policy of extermination.

    And they fought back. And the German Army was decimated. And the Allies were able to invade Italy, then Normandy. Those are the facts.

    Whatever the actions of the repressive Soviet government, very few people give the Russian people their due. And very few people acknowledged the fact that 11 million of them died so that the Nazi government would be exterminated from this earth. They did their part. Give them their due credit.

    As much as we want to "wax lyrical" about the American achievements and its "crusade against an evil dictator". America alone did not stop Hitler and one other country sacrificed and contributed more to that effect than they did. That is the fact.
     
    Fury 1991 likes this.
  2. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Well, they were invaded after they had supported Hitler and the Nazis for 22 months, sending he and his military grain, alloys, oil, and fabric and Hitler couldn't pay the tarrif when it was coming due. The Soviets had been doing a deal on "exchange of informaton, and technology", but needed some monetary funding as well. Hitler didn't have the money, but he waited until the last trainload of goods were in German hands before launching the invasion.

    So let's spread a little blame over on the Soviet side as well, they were the "enablers" for Hitler's aggression in the west. Without their food/grain, petroleum products, and metal alloy resources Hitler would have been weaker when he attacked the west. That was one of the reasons the British and French were contemplating a bombing raid on the Baku fields, to cut off Hitler's oil supply from Uncle Joe.
     
  3. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,377
    Likes Received:
    883
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    The people who sacrificed had no choice. The 11 million you quote were not all killed at the hands of the Germans...but by Soviet negligence. NKVD was pretty busy in those days.

    Also, why not ask the people of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland how well they were treated by the Soviets?

    The USSR's contribution in defeating Nazi Germany has been acknowledged (already) but if you want the USSR to be credited with its role in WWII, also bring up its contribution to starting it.
     
  4. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    Does any book tell the "whole story"? Indeed could any book?
    "Unfairly" is rather a judgement call though isn't it. Note that those parts of the operation were the ones that came closest to failure at least on D-day itself. The other American beaches recieve about the same amount of press as the British ones do.
    Here's a hint. When you use unconditional statments most of the time you are going to be wrong.
    Are we? You initially specified "historians" I believe. In any case there are so many more important things that "the general public" is often ignorant of I have a hard time getting worked up about this particular one.
    And how often is there participation mentioned on the Eastern front?
    Not sure what your point is here. Why would one expect him to?
    The way you state it you are not only wrong but guilty of much the same thing. Were the Russians even in the majority of those who fought for the allies in the East? or were they the majority of the casualties. I'm pretty sure there weren't 11 million Russians killed.
    Note that the part that the USSR played in starting World War II is also pretty underplayed.
     
    Slipdigit likes this.
  5. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,216
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Location:
    Alabama
    How many countries, other than the main antagonists, did the US forcibly occupy after the war, including where you currently are residing? How many did the Soviet Union occupy and continue to occupy for 40+ years?


    They are freely available. Just google his name...
    david glantz books - Google Search=

    Even when you search "Eastern Front Books," his name appears 4th on the list.

    eastern front books - Google Search=

    you'll not get a good reception here when you mention Ambrose. Here is a recent thread on Ambrose.
    http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-today/41324-stephen-ambrose.html
    Cornelius Ryan fairs better. Look at the time he wrote, moslty in the 1950s and 60s, with A Bridge Too Far coming out in 1974. How much access would he have had to good information about the Eastern Front, given the reticence of the Soviet Union to even acknowledge that they had Hitler's body? He served in Europe as a newpaper man, it makes good sense that he would write about what he knew. His The Last Battle is about the fall of Berlin. Written in 1966, he still did a good, even handed job discussing both armies.
    I'll not wholly disagree with this, although several of the last good movies have been about the PTO. I would like to see a good movie about the Battle Off Samar.

    Remember one thing, news and entertainment services cater to their audience, otherwise they would not be in business very long. Of course US companies are going to make movies that interest their audience. And while you are pointing a finger at the US, be sure to point at the Soviets. Name a single movie made by the Soviets that protray the US or UK as being much more than docile participants in the war.


    and this is the US's fault how?

    And who printed these books? Who taught you this? Why are you trying to displace your blame?

    You continue to bring this and similar ideas up. Again, have you read any other threads in this forum?

    Can we move this thread any further off of it's orginal question?
     
  6. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    To return to the question(and not slavering about the bad US:rolleyes:,what's totally of-topic )some reasons
    1)there was already a second front on june 1941:a lot of the wehrmacht was committed elsewhere (some people will abhor,reading this:D)
    2)there were to few Germans,and to much Russians
    3)the average Russian soldier was not inferior to the German one
    All the rest are myths:the stupid Hitler,the Russian winter(it was not cold on the Russian side:D )
     
  7. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    One could also say they had a lot of help.
     
  8. Fury 1991

    Fury 1991 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    45
    The more research I do the more I have begun to realize the Russians were a "tougher" soldier than the Germans. They fought under the same conditions and much of the time they had it worst than the Germans. Yet, we continually get fed about the myths of the Russian winter and everything else. To show you how tough the Russians were they were facing the most experienced army with a army that was very disorganized in the beginning and adjusting to the purges. The Red Army was a mess and they found a way to recover and drive all the way to Berlin. In the information era there is no more hiding the facts. Anybody with average intelligence can see that the Russians paid the biggest price in defeating the Germans. Yes, they did not help matters initially siding and aiding the Nazis but they paid a heavy price for doing so.
     
    Sloniksp likes this.
  9. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ordinarily I wouldn't pick at this nit but since the whole point of some of the posts here is that proper credit is not being given. Based at least on standardized test I have significantly more tha an average intelligence and it's not at all clear to me that the Russians paid the highest price. I say that becuase Russia was but one of the "republics" that made up the USSR. Indeed wasn't the Ukraine at least as much if not more of a battlefield than Russia was?
     
  10. Fury 1991

    Fury 1991 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    45
    I understand your point but it was Moscow that was calling the shots.
     
  11. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,377
    Likes Received:
    883
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    The effect of the Russian Winter on the Germans is no myth. Both the Germans and Russians got hit by the same temps but they dealt with it and got affected differently. It has been proven that the Russian soldier was better equipped to deal with the Winter. The Russian clothing insulated their soldiers better, they had gloves that were better designed as well as equipment that functioned while the German's froze. This is no myth.

    This does not take away from the Russian soldier being tough because they were. They did not view the value of life like we do. They could do without much of the luxuries and conveniences because they never had any. The Russian soldier lacked training and solid leadership in the early stages of the campaign. Later on, the leadership learned and the huge losses were not repeated. The Russian people did pay a heavy price as did the Polish people, the Czechs, French, etc. Just being tough does not make one a victor. Your comment about "anyone with average intelligence" being able to see that the Russians paid a heavy price for defeating the Germans is insulting. If you read throughout this thread and this forum, you will see majority rules that the Russians made a huge contribution in defeating the Germans. Only thing being said here is that their contribution did not solely defeat the Germans. Could it have, perhaps but it would have taken longer and with more Russian casualties. The combined effort of all the countries involved expedited Germany's defeat with lives being saved.
     
  12. Fury 1991

    Fury 1991 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    45
    Why did you take my remarks personal? Nowhere did I take a shot at any person involved in this thread. I was generalizing because our general population thinks the US won the war in Europe on its own. Also, I believe the German soldier was the most skilled soldier of the war. I believe the Russian soldier was able to endure the most hardships based on the reasons you mentioned. I did not mean to disrespect anyone and apologize if I did.
     
    Slipdigit likes this.
  13. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,377
    Likes Received:
    883
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    Fair enough. I would agree that the German soldier was the best trained at the beginning of the war. As the war progressed, the value of their training deminished. They did not have the logistical support to lengthen their life expectancy. Looking at the Russian soldier, they were poorly trained, poorly led and poorly supplied at the beginning of the war. After 42', all that changed. Being better led meant no more mass losses, offensives that were well thought out, better equipped, fed and supplied resulted in more experienced soldiers available. Morale was also an important factor which strengthened their resolve.
     
    Fury 1991 likes this.
  14. kipoyph

    kipoyph Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    1

    Thanks, I was planning on buying one copy

    I already read and enjoyed his previous two books Stalingrad and Berlin.
     
  15. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,377
    Likes Received:
    883
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    I have liked Beevor's books so far. I get the sense that he provides events as told by those he interviewed without any embelishment. This new book will be a must read.
     
  16. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'm not sure this is the case. At the beginning of the war the advantage the Germans had was a superior doctrine and very well trained NCO's and junior officers able to take advantage of it. Their personel policies were also better for most if not all the war (at least compared to the US army). Whether the individual was better trained than a prewar British soldier or a preexpansion US soldier or Marine is another question.
     
  17. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,030
    Likes Received:
    1,041
    The best argument for credit has been the joint one.

    Had England not toughed it out for a year alone, Russia would have faced Germany alone, and I believe lost.

    Russia did occupy the bulk of German armies, and wore them down relentlessly.

    There COULD NOT have a second front without US involvement. Further Chuchill stated that US lend lease allowed a country of 50 million fight as a country of 60 million.

    US/Commonwealth lend lease did as much for the Soviet Union.

    Clearly it was a joint AND equal effort.
     
  18. Fury 1991

    Fury 1991 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    45
    Interesting it took such a effort from so many nations to defeat Germany.
     
  19. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,030
    Likes Received:
    1,041
    To return to the original question,

    The German defeat may have been likely, but not inevitable. German choices had as much to do with the failure to defeat the Soviet Union as did the efforts of the Russian soldier.

    Hitler believed that the Soviet Union would collapse after being invaded due to the lack of support from the average russian. Yet did almost nothing to promote this, infact, just the opposit. Germany's best chance to defeat Russia lay in it's ability to exploit the natural cracks within the Soviet Union. The "average" russian may have loved mother Russia, but he hated the communist rulers.

    On a more military level, the diversion of Army Group Center's Panzer units away from the drive on Moscow, during late summer '41 has to be seen as a serious miscalculation. Control of the Moscow area, with it's road/rail network would have gravely compromised the russian central front, and made the defence of Leningrad almost impossible.

    Hitler CHOSE to halt Army Group North and starve out Leningrad rather than take it by storm. Admittedly it would have cost casualties, but control of both Leningrad and Moscow would have a German victory more likely than not.
     
  20. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    You are correct, but it was Moscow which paid for Ukraines reconstruction.

    Yes, the Russians were much better equipped for winter than the Germans were. However, we can not overlook the fact that this wasnt always the case. For example, the Russians coming from Siberia were properly fitted for the winter but the soldiers on the front line waiting in front on Moscow were not as fortunate. It is for this reason that the number of frost bitten troops on the Russian side during this period came primarily fron the men on the front line. The problem with the Siberian troops is that while they were properly fitted with winter gear, they lacked proper weapons and ammunition. There are accounts of Siberian troops having artillery shells which wouldnt fit in the gun!!! The Eatern front was a mess.

    By some. Had Ukraine not been secured, the 4 soviet armies destroyed in Kiev would have escaped. Glantz writes: If the German Army could not defend its relatively short flanks in December 41' against a Red Army force of 4.1 million men, it would have found it far more difficult to defend vastly longer ones in November against one of at least 5 million men. The same argument applies to Bock's decision for spreading out his forces so far during his October advance on Moscow. Bock understood the necessity of anchoring in his northern flank on the Volga and the critical city of Kalinin for largely the same reasons...

    Hitler did not halt Army Group North. Von Leeb simply could not break through... Only after storming the city followed by trying to shell it into submission fail did Hitler give the order to starve it into submission.

    The Red Army forces disruped Hitler's plan to seize Leningrad by concentric blows from south and north. Combat intensified steadily as the Germans approached ever closer. As a result, the tempo of the German advance decreased from a rate of advance of 3 miles per day in July to 1.3 miles per day in August and less than a mile per day in September. Only after the Red Army halted the German advance at Leningrad's doorstep and frustrated their attemps to capture the city did a German directive issued on 22 September read:

    The Fuher has decided to erase the city of Petersburg from the face of the earth. I have no interest in the further existence of this large city after the defeat of Soviet Russia... We propose to blockade the city tightly and erase it from earth by means of artillery fire and continuous bombardment from the air.

    Only after Leningrad continued to resist, was the order given to simply let the city die out...
     
    brndirt1 likes this.

Share This Page