Who was more effective against Germany, Western Front or Eastern Front?

Well said, Vanir.

 

Heidi,

A trade agreement and a non-aggression pact is NOT an alliance.

Russia suffered over 20 million civilian deaths. This was more then all other nations involved in the war combined (with the exception of China).

Russia was responsible for destroying 80% of Germany's war machine. Had Hitler not invaded Russia then the allies would be facing this force.


And no nation was 100% Angel. Great Britain was not an exception. Afterall, the British Empire wasn't exactly acquired through diplomacy.

 

I won't debate you do much here1

You qouted this-*Russia was responsible for destoying 80% of germany's war machine*
Could the Russians destroy the German war machine,if germany was on one front????and what cause the first front to say involved with ww2,the British!
If Briton had fallen,the Russians would not able to win or even smash the german war machine..
No doubt the Russians sufferd alot,i do adknowledge that this accurred!
Just cause a nation lost more persons,that does not mean they more effective than other nations.

Yes i know,i am byist towards germany,but who isn't with there;s!

 

Heidi, respectfully this is only your opinion. An opinion which historians such as Glantz and Erickson (to name a few) disagree with.

No argument there, however, the measurement of Soviet effectiveness is not based on the casualties Russia suffered but on the casualties which she inflicted. The permanent casualties which Russia inflicted on Germany alone, stands at 10.7 million while the allies (comprising of multiple nations) inflicted a little over 3 million.

 

I feel this whole thread has diverged from the original query. Effective, not quantity. This would seem to mean a ratio of losses to gains, i.e. "effective/efficient". If it is a simple numbers game of who killed/captured more Germans, then the east is the spot.

If it is a question of who killed/captured more Germans at the least sacrifice themselves then it is the west. Both fronts had deeds of heroism, both fronts had examples of sacrifice, but in sacrifice over the total the east wins hands down. But that wasn't the west's method of waging war post-WW1. The same cannot be said for the Tzarist or Communist forces.

 

Perhaps it would be a little clearer if we (rogues) compared apples to apples? Maybe the effectiveness of the Red Army vs The Wehrmacht in 44' and the effectiveness of the Allies vs The Wehrmacht in 44'?

Surely comparing the Eastern front of 41" vs the Western front of 44' is a little lob sided

 

I like the idea. Specific instances are good, both for furthering our common understanding and for research purposes.
I think this is the kind of forum which is good for gathering background for a school paper or personal project, and anything we can do to increase the strict academic content of any thread must be a good thing.

If I may start, how about the time period ca. the Stalingrad approach, say June-September 1942. Here is a point immediately before the commonly celebrated "turning point of the war" on most Fronts. Should this be a good time to compare, though German materiel was not as good as it was later, nevertheless the Nazi regime was at the very height of its power geographically and teetering on the knife's edge of a second win which threatened to dominate all of Europe utterly and irrevocably (gotta love the dramatics yeah ).

 

Maybe a comparison of D-day and Bagration?

 

Aww, so unfair. Everything stacked against the Reich...

 

Let's not forget the vital support provided by the US in terms of vehicles and supplies to the Soviets. When evaluating the contribution of the Eastern Front, it should be remembered that much of what it gave was actually provided by the West.

Also, the Japanese attacked the US instead of attacking the USSR. If Tojo had struck the other way, Stalin might well have been finished.

 

If Tojo did, it wouldn't do Japan any good. There's a good discussion on this very topic in the what if section.

 

Heidi not to be rude but maybe you need to read a few books.

 

About 8-10%

 

Of the war making machinery, yes a very small percentage, but closer to 14-18% than 10%. However in the area of heavy trucks for pulling arty, and food stuffs, and boots, and explosives, and other material much higher percentages. Marshall Zhukov was the most vocal of the leaders who praised the US Lend-Lease during the first few months of the program, and it tappered off as the war advanced toward Germany and the Soviets started getting their own food production and such back up and running.

It got so "un-war" material oriented toward the last few months there were vacuum cleaners, nylon stockings, amusment park equipment, and cosmetics included in with a new pipe for Stalin, twenty pounds of Virginia pipe tobacco and an engraved shotgun.

The most important contributions of lend lease were the rolling stock for railroads, locomotives on the Soviet gauge width, rails themselves, trucks, jeeps, radios, telegraph/telephone wire by the thousands of miles, etc..

These things allowed the Soviets to concentrate on war production of their own stuff.

 

well said!
I hope i don't offend any russians memebrs here! cause it 's my views only.

But if there was no western front or western powers in ww2,there would be no Russian victory and Russia being that powerful in the first place.

 

Virtually all of the information which I have stumbled across or read through states; that LL as a whole amounted to roughly 10% of what the Soviet Union actually needed and most of this help arrived only in the middle of 43'.

Now I will be the first to say that yes, LL was important. LL saved lives and shortened the war but it was not (as some members here would like to believe) responsible for the ultimate outcome of the war. It must also be mentioned that much which was sent over in the early stages was actually inferior to what the Soviet themselves had.

Yes, the mechanized infantry was without a doubt the most recognizable and IMO significant contribution to the war effort in the east.

 

It would be far more accurate to state that had their been no Eastern Front there would have been no allied victory.


And dont worry im not offended.

 

Nevertheless, Russia survived the 1941 onslaught by the narrowest of margins. Without the Siberian troops released when Japan attacked eastwards, and without the distraction of Germany by other theatres (especially Greece and Yugoslavia, which delayed the launch of Barbarossa by vital weeks), Moscow could have fallen and perhaps Stalin with it.

On both Eastern and Western fronts there were potential turning points where outcomes might have changed. I would not like to see the result of World War II with either front inactive against the Nazis.

 

I mean no offense either, and it wasn't responsible for the ulitmate outcome, but it certainly helped speed the end. That said this is what I have found over the years as per Lend-Lease.

American aid alone (not counting the UK), received by the Soviets not just "shipped", looks like this from October '41 through June '42 (before the Nazi Stalingrad offensive), and this is also NOT counting the military equipment bought outright by gold transfers before and after June, 1941 when the Soviets were actually included in the Lend/Lease Act:

In those nine months alone (Oct. '41-June '42), L/L totaled:

All aircraft types; 1,285.
All AVF types including tanks; 2,249 (mostly light Stuarts and those sad stop-gap M3 Lee/Grants).
Machine-guns, all calibers; 81,287.
Explosives, in pounds; 59,455,620.
Trucks, all types; 36,825.
Field telephones; 56,445.
Copper telephone wire; 600,000 kilometers (375,000 miles).

BEFORE Stalingrad! That stuff should have been of some aid should it not?

Among the goods delivered under the full Lend-Lease program were 427,000 motor vehicles, 13,000 armored fighting vehicles (including 10,000 light and medium tanks), 35,000 motorcycles, nearly 19,000 aircraft, 1,900 railway locomotives, 11,000 railway trucks (flats), 90 cargo/freight ships, 105 submarine-chasers and 197 torpedo-boats. Here is pretty good rundown of "rounded off" percentages from the former Soviet's own archives. They kept the best track of stuff received, since the terms of the Lend-Lease Act required the return or payment for all the stuff not used up or destroyed during the war itself. The material received and used by the USSR in the three years, and ten months of Lend-Lease aid breaks down thusly.

Now remember these are the approximate percentages of the total materials, both war and civilian stuff made available to, and used by the Soviet military and its industrial complex supplied by American Lend-Lease alone (UK and Commonwealth contributions to the USSR removed, and these are verified by USSR documents):

80% of all canned meat consumed. (Tusheka, SPAM, whole chickens, fish and hams)
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all high octane aviation fuel used.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all sheet aluminum.
60% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.

That percentage list does NOT include the percentage of the high grade steel, communications cable, canned foods other than meat (fruits & vegetables), medical supplies, and virtually every modern machine tool used by Soviet industry during and after the Great Patriotic War. Even though this ends up representing between somewhere between 16 and 19 percent of ALL SOVIET WAR PRODUCTION, there are some significant individual numbers included in other material, are there not? Here is a run-down of the railroad stuff, i.e. starting with railroad rails (excluding narrow gauge rails laid down in the Persia corridor).


Soviet Production; 48,990
Allied Deliveries; 622,100
Total; 671,090
Allied Proportion; 92.7%

Locomotives
(all types between 1941-45)
Soviet built; 442
(which includes the 359 remaining from pre-war production)
Allied deliveries; 1966
Total; 2408
Allied Proportion; 81.6%

Rail cars
(all types)
Soviet Production; 2635
Allied Deliveries; 11,075
Total; 13,710
Allied Proportion; 80.7%

Gleaned from; Accounting For War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the Defense Burden, 1941-1945 by Joan Beaumont & Mark Harrison.

Everyone likes to make fun of Hormel's SPAM, S (houlder) P (ork) A (nd) (ha) M which was actually cooked in the can with salt, water, sugar, sodium nitrite and a "secret ingredient" (like KFC's secret "herbs and spices") which I suspect is a combination of liquid "smoke" and clove. But it is a very nutritious and easily stored canned meat. It was developed long before WW2 as a way for Hormel to NOT lose money on all the Pork Shoulder meat he was cutting out of his stock. It was only selling for pennies a pound, since it was soooo full of bone it could only be sold as a "stew meat", and how many people would even want a "pork stew"? By "boning" and cooking the meat in the can (with seasonings) he produced a winner in the flavor and sales department with his "SPAM", it is probably still around for that reason alone. This brings me to that "Tushenka" mentioned in the Lend-Lease lists, 167 millions pounds of which was specifically made for the Soviets and their Red Army by Hormel during the three years ten months of Lend/Lease of WW2.

I myself would sort of like to try some "Tushenka", since the ingredients are interestingly different from SPAM and seem to be seasoned quite differently since it contained a combination of beef brisket, pork shoulder meat, textured vegetable (soy) protein, salt, monosodium glutamate, onion, milled black pepper, and crushed bay leaf. Actually reading the ingredients I'll bet it wasn't bad stuff at all when you figure it only needs heating up (or not, it is pre-cooked) for a base to a good stew, little to no extra seasonings, and no refrigeration. It can still be purchased, and I did find this site, which sells it, so it is also "still around". However, it is a bit pricey to simply satisfy my curiousity:

http://www.zolotoy.ru/eng/meat.phtml

I think that link is dead now. I always found it interesting that the US alone sent 2,405,696,825 lbs of canned meats to the USSR, excluding the whole canned/cleaned chickens, but counting the canned fish and whole hams (I wonder who got those whole hams?).

I am sure both the Soviet citizens and soldiers appreciated the food, to think otherwise seems rather silly. Here is an interesting link to a set of charts which break down the Lend-Lease material (not just war material, but all), received by the USSR in which ports. They kept very good records (USSR) as to the material received, since they were only responsible for that which got to them. Not for that which ended up on the bottom of the sea or went up in smoke in transit.

APPENDIX -- A

It is sort of fun, to look at what was received, through which port, and how it may or may NOT have influenced the outcome of the Soviet "mobility" and "ability" to feed and supply its fighting forces. Lend/Lease supplied them with very little (less than 15-18%) of "war material", i.e. tanks, aircraft, firearms, blah, blah, blah. But HUGE percentages of food-stuffs, aviation fuel, fuel additives, tires, explosives, phones, rail stock (engines, rails, cars) sheet steel, and sheet aluminum. And don’t forget the 15,417,001 pairs of army boots the US shipped to the USSR either (Soviet records).

In reverse "Lend Lease" (which lowered the total "tab") they shipped the US rare earths and alloy minerals. This allowed the returning merchant men ships to have more than sea water as ballast. And even though L/L was continued until the end, it had seriously tapered off by mid-'44 in tonnage as the Soviet began to be able to feed, cloth, and shoe their civilians and military, and supply their own factories with raw material they mined themselves. Only in the section of "aviation fuel and fuel additives" was the US contribution of much import in the "fuel" area.

It wasn't until the seventies that Breznev (sp?) started to repay the Lend/Lease bill of the USSR. He was in a bind as qualifying for an IMF loan, with the outstanding debt to the US. It was set up on "installments" with NO late penalty, and NO intrest. The total debt was dropped to just under 11 billion, and the rest "forgiven". Then in June of 1990, to qualify for more U.S. loans and IMF credits under the still active Johnson Debt-Default Act, the USSR re-negotiated the agreement for repayment of her remaining WW2, non-military material L/L war debts. One year later the Soviet Union ceased to exist, but the CIS and later Russia did honor the commitment and I believe they have completed the repayment.

The "Great Patriotic War" was certainly the bloodiest the Soviets ever fought, and I do not wish to ignore nor diminish that the Communists paid the highest price in blood. But; "Without Allied aid (Stalin later admitted), 'we would not have been able to cope'." (Why the Allies Won the War; Richard Overy [1995])

Quoting General Zhukov in the sixties: "Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that "..we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war, we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us? We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance." (The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945. Boris V. Sololov)

Those statements from Zhukov are corroborated because they were recorded as a result of eavesdropping by Soviet security organs which began in 1963, and have now been declassified and released for public consumption. Interestingly these secretly recorded conversations of Marshall Zhukov are in contradiction to his own book where he "toes the party line" and denigrates the Lend-Lease aid. In view of the Soviet control of publishing, if he hadn’t I doubt his book would have seen the light of day.

Look at it this way, if Zhukov, and Soviet records are correct; No LL food = more soviet citizens required to remain in agriculture and food processing factories = fewer soldiers available and less military output. OR less healthy people = less productive and less combat ready troops. No LL flat steel, multi-axle trucks, locomotives, railroad, communications, etc. = more people in factories to build those and therefore fewer T-34s, fewer trucks, and fewer soldiers; OR less mobility of Red Army and therefore the possibility for Nazis to regroup and stop the Red Army counter-offensives perhaps producing a new "border" to the USSR in its west. The L/L items of most significance to the USSR appear, to myself to have been food, trucks, tires, communication equipment and fuel additives (in that order).

This old Pravda article makes some interesting reading:

The Significance of America's Participation in WWII - Pravda.Ru

Even if it is older and mistakenly calles the Bell fighters "jets", it points out some interesting stats.