From Stalingrad to the River Elbe

[Cypress]

The dictator Joseph Stalin did not defeat the Nazis -- if anything Stalin made it more difficult for the Russians to defeat the fascists because of his repression and purges of the professional officer corps, his terrible military strategizing, and his outsized ego.

The Nazis were defeated by the citizens of the Soviet Union, the Red Army, General Zhukov, the designers and engineers of the T-34 tank, the partisan resistance forces, and the conscripted Soviet soldiers and civilians who were willing to endure unbounded suffering and lay down millions of lives to repel and crush the Nazi invaders.

While Normandy was a significant tactical military victory not to be discounted, World War 2 was actually won at Stalingrad and Kursk, long before Anglo-American soldiers even set foot in Europe.
By the time of D-Day, the German army was collapsing, being annihilated piece by piece, and in full retreat in the face of the Red Army's relentless onslaught.

Victory in Europe - American and Soviet soldiers meeting at the River Elbe

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Oh no doubt the Soviets were The largest contributors to defeating the Nazis in WWII.

 

[Cypress]

Oh no doubt the Soviets were The largest contributors to defeating the Nazis in WWII.

After the Soviets, the largest contributor to Germany's military defeat was Hitler himself. He fancied himself a military genius, but he ordered the Wermacht into military disaster after disaster.

The other think I never realized about Hitler until watching some documentaries recently, is how much the guy was obsessed with outsized and useless military weaponry. He had Germany waste immense strategic resources on trying to build "wonder weapons", most of which were failures, and none of which would have offered anything other than a nominal tactical advantage at best. Those were resources Germany could have used to much better effect in defending and consolidating their Reich. At think at some point the Soviets and Anglo-Americans began to realize the Hitler was Germany's own worst enemy, and a more capable General would have presented the allies a daunting task.

 

[Zarathustra]

After the Soviets, the largest contributor to Germany's military defeat was Hitler himself. He fancied himself a military genius, but he ordered the Wermacht into military disaster after disaster.

The other think I never realized about Hitler until watching some documentaries recently, is how much the guy was obsessed with outsized and useless military weaponry. He had Germany waste immense strategic resources on trying to build "wonder weapons", most of which were failures, and none of which would have offered anything other than a nominal tactical advantage at best. Those were resources Germany could have used to much better effect in defending and consolidating their Reich. At think at some point the Soviets and Anglo-Americans began to realize the Hitler was Germany's own worst enemy, and a more capable General would have presented the allies a daunting task.

If I remember correctly, I believe the Allies actually aborted an assassination attempt on Hitler near the end of the war for this very reason.

 

[Cypress]

If I remember correctly, I believe the Allies actually aborted an assassination attempt on Hitler near the end of the war for this very reason.

That makes sense to me. Who would not want enemy armies being led by a deranged military incompetent like Hitler?


Undoubtedly, by 1944, generals Eisenhower, Montgomery, and Zhukov realized that having Hitler command Germany's armies was to the benefit of the allies.

 

[Truth Detector]

Without a second front, Stalin could not have won. But while Marxist morons try to minimalize the allied effort and US contributions, they ignore Stalin's murderous purges, his complicity in the destruction of Poland, his invasion of Finland, the cold war and starvation of his people.


The Russian people didn't win anything, they lost for another three decades until the Soviet Union finally collapsed under the failure of Marxist ideology.

 

[Truth Detector]

If I remember correctly, I believe the Allies actually aborted an assassination attempt on Hitler near the end of the war for this very reason.

That makes sense to me. Who would not want enemy armies being led by a deranged military incompetent like Hitler?


Undoubtedly, by 1944, generals Eisenhower, Montgomery, and Zhukov realized that having Hitler command Germany's armies was to the benefit of the allies.

Revisionist bullshit; you're quite full of it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

After the Soviets, the largest contributor to Germany's military defeat was Hitler himself. He fancied himself a military genius, but he ordered the Wermacht into military disaster after disaster.

The other think I never realized about Hitler until watching some documentaries recently, is how much the guy was obsessed with outsized and useless military weaponry. He had Germany waste immense strategic resources on trying to build "wonder weapons", most of which were failures, and none of which would have offered anything other than a nominal tactical advantage at best. Those were resources Germany could have used to much better effect in defending and consolidating their Reich. At think at some point the Soviets and Anglo-Americans began to realize the Hitler was Germany's own worst enemy, and a more capable General would have presented the allies a daunting task.

I think you have to be very careful making these sort of assessments in that your view can become revisionist. Who contributed the most to winning a war can be a bit of a moot point and what if scenarios, such as, what if Hitler had defeated Britain before invading the Soviet Union, are just that. What if’s.

Now it is true that the Soviets did kill the majority of German Soldiers, contributed more soldiers, and sacrificed more lives. The later, though appalling, isn’t necessarily an indicator of a contribution to victory as much as a measure of the Soviets disregard for the lives of their soldiers.

In terms of Empirical numbers the Soviets contributed the most soldiers and killed the most German soldiers and destroyed the German Army in the field.

The Americans contributed half the entire war materials production during WWII. That’s including Axis production. A staggering number. The British Empire produced another 25% and the Soviets 10%. The Axis powers only contributed 15% of total war Production with Germany responsible for about 11-12%.

So in terms of contributing materials the US contributed the most and the British Empire still contributed more in materials than all the Axis Powers combined. It’s staggering to think about but the Allies produced 10 to 1 over the allies and gives context to the commercial dominance of the world then ( and now) by the English speaking people’s.

To further emphasize US and British contributions the progress the Red Army made in the field would simply not have been possible at the rate they succeeded without the material contributions of the US and British Empire from lend lease or the massive destruction inflicted on German infrastructure and war production by their combined Air Power which crippled the German Army and made the Red Armies success in the field possible.

So the reality is that Germany and the Axis Powers were defeated by a coalition of allies who made massive contributions where they had available resources and shared those resources in order to assure the defeat of the Axis Powers. The result was the Axis Powers were swept away by the Allies who had a vast superiority in man power, materials, technology and money by an order of magnitude.

So the question of who contributed the most to defeating the Germans and Axis Powers is not only complicated but a bit of a Moot point.

What really matters is who were the Victors in WWII? Clearly Germany and the Axis Powers were the losers but for the major Allies the British Empire and the Soviet Union the victory was a Pyrrhic victory as the cost of victory was so great that it cost both their Empires and neither Empire now exist and both the UK and Russia are no longer Super Powers.

What is clear is that the United States of America was the clear winner and overwhelming beneficiary of winning WWII even though other Allies contributed substantially to winning the war the vast majority of the benefits of winning WWII have belonged to us Americans.

To our credit us Americans have put those fruits of victory to good use. Though warfare and our own tendencies for war still exists the numbers of people killed and displaced by war are at all time low historical levels and human achievement, productivity, and standards of living are the highest now in all of human history. This era of post WWII peace and prosperity brought back from the fringe of human destruction will be known historically as The Pax Americana and it is our nations greatest achievement. Though one we didn’t achieve alone.

 

[Cypress]

Mott @ post 8

No question about it.

Defeating Hitler was a combined allied effort. While the Red Army did the vast majority of battlefield damage and ultimate annihilation of the German Army, the strategic resources of the United States and the British empire were critical to rolling up the Nazis.

I actually think the strategic bombing campaigns of the RAF and USAAF probably did more to damage the German war effort than is generally acknowleged.

Obviously that Allied supply line to Murmansk helped keep the Soviet Union afloat when the Axis powers were on the doorsteps of Moscow and Lenningrad.

Where the Germans seemingly fucked up is their obsession with technology. They produced marvelous, highly advance tanks and aircraft. But they simply couldn't keep up with the mass production, the quantity the Soviet Union and United States were able to amass. The mass production of the T-34 tank probably did as much to end that war as any other tactical asset did.

Bringing the war down to a very personal level, this conflict and the sacrifice associated with it is profound and ubiquitous in the nations of the former Soviet Union. In a way you just do not see in the United States. Virtually every Russian, Ukranian, and Belarusian family I have met lost a grandmother, a grandfather, an older uncle, some close family relative to that war. That war left a psychic scar on the peoples of the former Soviet Union that I believe is hard for your average American of the 21st century to grasp. Thousands of their villages and towns were literally razed to the ground. It was a total war of annihilation which is something the United States has never really experienced. That Nazis even considered it somewhat of a racial war of annihilation against the subhman barbaric eastern hordes. It really is a type of war that "Private Ryan" and all the John Wayne movies cannot really even come close to representing.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Without a second front, Stalin could not have won. But while Marxist morons try to minimalize the allied effort and US contributions, they ignore Stalin's murderous purges, his complicity in the destruction of Poland, his invasion of Finland, the cold war and starvation of his people.


The Russian people didn't win anything, they lost for another three decades until the Soviet Union finally collapsed under the failure of Marxist ideology.

That’s probably not true but it certainly would have cost The Soviets far more in blood and treasure to defeat the Germans. Once the Soviets won at Stalingrad, and the Allies had not ramped up their war operations yet, it was quite clear that the Soviets were capable of defeating the Germans but at God knows what cost. Though your point about Stalin being as bad as Hitler on war strategy is eminently valid. The German invasion of the Soviet Union and early successes wouldn’t have been possible without Stalin’s incompetence and paranoia. So that is indeed the correct counter argument that Soviet Victory was inevitable because Hitler was a militarily incompetent madman as the Soviets had their own military incompetent madman in Stalin. So the notion that a Soviet victory over Germany was an inevitable one is utterly wrong. There was nothing inevitable about it.

It’s possible and even probable the Soviets could have won but it may have cost them another 20 million soldiers and civilians.

You are also right about the Soviets losing the peace. As I pointed out in my previous post the Soviets and British Empires victories were Pyrrhic victories as it cost both their empires.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

That makes sense to me. Who would not want enemy armies being led by a deranged military incompetent like Hitler?
Undoubtedly, by 1944, generals Eisenhower, Montgomery, and Zhukov realized that having Hitler command Germany's armies was to the benefit of the allies.

Exactly what Vlad is thinking, in 2018, eh?

 

[Cypress]

Exactly what Vlad is thinking, in 2018, eh?

Yes, good insight!

I have always maintained the possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, while treasonous, is almost beside the point.

For over half a century, the Kremlin has wanted to degrade American influence, separate us from our allies, and discredit our democracy.

With Trump, the Kremlin's half-century long dream is coming true.

That is exactly why the helped him to win, whether or not there was direct collusion.

 

[archives]

The dictator Joseph Stalin did not defeat the Nazis -- if anything Stalin made it more difficult for the Russians to defeat the fascists because of his repression and purges of the professional officer corps, his terrible military strategizing, and his outsized ego.

The Nazis were defeated by the citizens of the Soviet Union, the Red Army, General Zhukov, the designers and engineers of the T-34 tank, the partisan resistance forces, and the conscripted Soviet soldiers and civilians who were willing to endure unbounded suffering and lay down millions of lives to repel and crush the Nazi invaders.

While Normandy was a significant tactical military victory not to be discounted, World War 2 was actually won at Stalingrad and Kursk, long before Anglo-American soldiers even set foot in Europe.
By the time of D-Day, the German army was collapsing, being annihilated piece by piece, and in full retreat in the face of the Red Army's relentless onslaught.

Victory in Europe - American and Soviet soldiers meeting at the River Elbe

True, some feel Roosevelt and Churchill put off Stalin's demands for a second front as long as they could to avoid putting Allied soldiers in harm's way, Germany was on the way down, was only amateur of time

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mott @ post 8

No question about it.

Defeating Hitler was a combined allied effort. While the Red Army did the vast majority of battlefield damage and ultimate annihilation of the German Army, the strategic resources of the United States and the British empire were critical to rolling up the Nazis.

I actually think the strategic bombing campaigns of the RAF and USAAF probably did more to damage the German war effort than is generally acknowleged.

Obviously that Allied supply line to Murmansk helped keep the Soviet Union afloat when the Axis powers were on the doorsteps of Moscow and Lenningrad.

Where the Germans seemingly fucked up is their obsession with technology. They produced marvelous, highly advance tanks and aircraft. But they simply couldn't keep up with the mass production, the quantity the Soviet Union and United States were able to amass. The mass production of the T-34 tank probably did as much to end that war as any other tactical asset did.

Bringing the war down to a very personal level, this conflict and the sacrifice associated with it is profound and ubiquitous in the nations of the former Soviet Union. In a way you just do not see in the United States. Virtually every Russian, Ukranian, and Belarusian family I have met lost a grandmother, a grandfather, an older uncle, some close family relative to that war. That war left a psychic scar on the peoples of the former Soviet Union that I believe is hard for your average American of the 21st century to grasp. Thousands of their villages and towns were literally razed to the ground. It was a total war of annihilation which is something the United States has never really experienced. That Nazis even considered it somewhat of a racial war of annihilation against the subhman barbaric eastern hordes. It really is a type of war that "Private Ryan" and all the John Wayne movies cannot really even come close to representing.

No but much of that suffering was the fault of the Soviet leadership. Stalin’s psychopathology and military incompetence and the Red Armies own disregard for its own soldiers and civilians lives.

The differences in how the war impacted our nations is huge. As I pointed out we Americans were the clear winners of the war and the positive benefits of victory disproportionately benefitted us Americans. Where as it’s questionable to call the defeat of Germany a Soviet victory as losing a quarter of their population and a vast amount of their nation destroyed was a blow that the Soviets never recovered from.

So the difference is really between victory and defeat. We won...they lost. Their loss could have been worse though.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Yes, good insight!
I have always maintained the possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, while treasonous, is almost beside the point.
For over half a century, the Kremlin has wanted to degrade American influence, separate us from our allies, and discredit our democracy.
With Trump, the Kremlin's half-century long dream is coming true.
That is exactly why the helped him to win, whether or not there was direct collusion.

Trump is pathetically transparent and has a decades-long well-documented malleable persona easily researched by the Kremlin/KGB. They are well aware of his egomaniac narcissistic personality, overwhelming desire to be seen as the bestest ever, and predilection for sexual exploits to brag about. They scoped out the imbecility of the American right and rightfully figured that Trump, running as an (R), could easily manipulate them into voting for him. But just in case, they tinkered around with propaganda as well, to ensure that this easily-manipulated and fairly stupid "man" could be put into exactly the place they wanted him.

Trump plays Candy Land; Putin is a chess master.

 

[Cypress]

True, some feel Roosevelt and Churchill put off Stalin's demands for a second front as long as they could to avoid putting Allied soldiers in harm's way, Germany was on the way down, was only amateur of time

I think it is almost taken as established fact in the nations of the former Soviet Union that the Anglo-American side of the alliance delayed invading Europe as long as possible so as to let the Russians take most of the punishment, and to let the Red Army grind down the Wermacht to a manageable threat.

The invasion of Italy seems to have been a half-assed attempt to placate Stalin, but I will never understand the tactical wisdom to trying to fight your way up the boot of Italy, through hundreds of miles of mountainous, geographically constricted, and easily defended terrain. Tactically, it makes no sense, although trying to get Mussolini out of the war probably was a strategic and political decision.

 

[Cypress]

No but much of that suffering was the fault of the Soviet leadership. Stalin’s psychopathology and military incompetence and the Red Armies own disregard for its own soldiers and civilians lives.

The differences in how the war impacted our nations is huge. As I pointed out we Americans were the clear winners of the war and the positive benefits of victory disproportionately benefitted us Americans. Where as it’s questionable to call the defeat of Germany a Soviet victory as losing a quarter of their population and a vast amount of their nation destroyed was a blow that the Soviets never recovered from.

So the difference is really between victory and defeat. We won...they lost. Their loss could have been worse though.

Yes, the United States was the main beneficiary of the victory in world war two, by virtue of the fact that we were basically the last ones standing. Every other nation in Europe had either been bankrupted or razed to the ground. Some parts of the Soviet Union, like the Byelorussian SSR lost more than 25 percent of their population. Not to mention wholesale destruction of infrastructure. That level of horror and obliteration obviously simply did not happen in the United States.

In post one I addressed the role of Stalin in the military and humanitarian disasters the Soviet people's endured in WW2, and will not repeat them here. I made the point that the citizens of the Soviet Union and the conscripted soldiers of the Red Army endured in spite of Stalin.


The main point I was making was that by the time of D-Day - as important as it is to American history - the war in Europe was basically won already.... Before English or American boots even touched the shores of France. The writing was on the wall. And the German Army was collapsing and in full retreat back to Berlin.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think it is almost taken as established fact in the nations of the former Soviet Union that the Anglo-American side of the alliance delayed invading Europe as long as possible so as to let the Russians take most of the punishment, and to let the Red Army grind down the Wermacht to a manageable threat.

The invasion of Italy seems to have been a half-assed attempt to placate Stalin, but I will never understand the tactical wisdom to trying to fight your way up the boot of Italy, through hundreds of miles of mountainous, geographically constricted, and easily defended terrain. Tactically, it makes no sense, although trying to get Mussolini out of the war probably was a strategic and political decision.

I think that’s an argument that should be categorically denied by the West. El Alemein was as strategically as important as Stalingrad and permanently denied the Axis access to Middle Eastern oilfields. A British loss at El Alemein would have been a catastrophe to the Soviet and Allied war effort and would have strategically nullified their great victory at Stalingrad. Also the invasions of Italy and southern France pulled considerable military resources from the Eastern front.

It’s understandable the Soviets frustration but it bode no one any good to have the attempt to open the second front in Western Europe hurled back into the sea. As the Dieppe raid proved. It would have lost men, material and strategic advantage for no gain.

The Americans and Britts did the right thing to wait till they were prepared to invade Normandy which even by then was in no means assured of succeeding. The proof is in the pudding too. The war was over nine months after the Normandy invasion.

 

[Cypress]

I think that’s an argument that should be categorically denied by the West. El Alemein was as strategically as important as Stalingrad and permanently denied the Axis access to Middle Eastern oilfields. A British loss at El Alemein would have been a catastrophe to the Soviet and Allied war effort and would have strategically nullified their great victory at Stalingrad. Also the invasions of Italy and southern France pulled considerable military resources from the Eastern front.

It’s understandable the Soviets frustration but it bode no one any good to have the attempt to open the second front in Western Europe hurled back into the sea. As the Dieppe raid proved. It would have lost men, material and strategic advantage for no gain.

The Americans and Britts did the right thing to wait till they were prepared to invade Normandy which even by then was in no means assured of succeeding. The proof is in the pudding too. The war was over nine months after the Normandy invasion.

No question in my mind that Eishenhower did the right thing by invading Normandy in June 1944. How does one argue against success?

There is no question that North Africa, the strategic air bombing campaign by the RAF and USAFF, the battle of the North Atlantic, the convoys to Murmansk Russia all played vitally important roles.

The simple fact is, almost all historians will say that the Stalingrad campaign was the pivotal turning point in the war, and by the time of the Normandy landings June 1944 it is a simple fact that the German army was in headlong retreat, and the Red Army was already crossing into Poland, annihilating entire German Army Groups, and making a beeline for Berlin. We cannot of course, diminish the successes in North Africa, Sicily, and the North Atlantic, and it is wise of you to point them out.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yes, the United States was the main beneficiary of the victory in world war two, by virtue of the fact that we were basically the last ones standing. Every other nation in Europe had either been bankrupted or razed to the ground. Some parts of the Soviet Union, like the Byelorussian SSR lost more than 25 percent of their population. Not to mention wholesale destruction of infrastructure. That level of horror and obliteration obviously simply did not happen in the United States.

In post one I addressed the role of Stalin in the military and humanitarian disasters the Soviet people's endured in WW2, and will not repeat them here. I made the point that the citizens of the Soviet Union and the conscripted soldiers of the Red Army endured in spite of Stalin.


The main point I was making was that by the time of D-Day - as important as it is to American history - the war in Europe was basically won already.... Before English or American boots even touched the shores of France. The writing was on the wall. And the German Army was collapsing and in full retreat back to Berlin.

Well that’s because D-Day was a death blow. The combination of the US and British winning air superiority and the Soviets with a shit load of material aid destroyed the German ground forces.

It is very unlikely that Either America or the Soviets or the British Empire could have defeated Germany by themselves. The Americans would not have had a secure base of operations and Britain by itself could only equal Germany with Germany having all the resources of most of continental Europe at its disposal. The same was true for the Soviets.

At best, by themselves the Soviets May have ejected Germany from its territories and Britain with its great empire and naval and air superiority could have defeated a German invasion and America, by itself would have been pretty much impotent.

In fact, I would argue that once the British and Americans established air superiority, an unproven theory at that time, which the Soviets contributed little to, the Americans and Brits would still have defeated Germany and without the Soviets massive casualties. Certainly their casualties would have been far greater but they would have won.

In fact it is now pretty much universal doctrine that air superiority must be established and communications and transportation infrastructure destroyed for a land invasion to succeed.

I would also point out that most historians agree that both El Alemein and Stalingrad were the major pivotal turning points of the war in Europe and though Stalingrad was an unmitigated disaster for Germany keep in mind that the main strategic mission of the southern German Force was to capture the Caucasuses oil fields. The victory at El Alemein was strategically as important as it denied Germany access to Middle Eastern oil. Those combined victories at approximately the same time starved Germany of petroleum which was catastrophic to the German war effort. Had Germany won at El Alemein the loss at Stalingrad would have been mitigated by opening up Middle Eastern oil to the Germans and they would have gained control of the Suez canal. That would have been devestating to Allied war efforts so you can’t understate the importance of the victory at El Alemein in addition to Stalingrad.