Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Did Russia win WWII? 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:11 pm
Posts: 550
Post Did Russia win WWII?
I am hearing a lot of talk these days that Russia won World War II, and the main reason I keep hearing they did that was that they sacrificed the most in terms of men.

From what I've been reading on the subject the sacrifices came mostly from poor leadership due to Stalin's frequent purges of his military, especially their officer corps. This led to the Red Army facing a far superior German army composed of far better trained and led troops. And the Russians were drunk all the time. And they had poor supplies of food, medicine, clothing, etc.

Anyone know anything more on the subject? I'm going through as much information as I can but I would appreciate other inputs as well as any source material to examine. This is a major talking point on War Thunder Forums, I would like to get this group's viewpoint on the matter.


Tue Aug 18, 2015 3:43 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:28 pm
Posts: 657
Location: Central Florida
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
The Allies won World War II.

_________________
Hoenn


Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:03 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
hi hi

Russia captured Berlin on April 30th, 1945.

Regardless of the condition of the Russian army, compared to the condition of the allied armies on the western front.
• Roughly 312,000 Axis soldiers were killed on the Western Front.
• Roughly 5,178,000 Axis soldiers were killed on the Eastern Front.


Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:07 pm
Profile WWW
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 2308
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
WWII was a big war... no one nation won it alone. The Russians certainly did their part. They not only defeated the Germans on their front, but drew a large number of enemy forces away from the Western Front and made them suffer heavy casualties.

However, I don't think a body count is a very good metric for how much credit the Russians deserve. Part of the heavy Russian losses were civilian, due in part to the Germans' savagery, but also due in part to Stalin's poor government; a lot of them were starving before the Germans arrived. The heavy Russian military casualties were also due in part to German savagery, but also due to Russian tactics. There were many cases in which the Russians used large numbers of poorly-trained and poorly-equipped troops to overwhelm better-trained and better-equipped German troops. It worked, but it was messy. Stalin also was adamant about being allowed to take certain hard objectives (including Berlin) which he had to trade a lot of casualties for, and the other Allies were content to let him do it.

In regard to Icekatze's Axis casualty figures, keep in mind that defeated Germans on the Western front were mostly captured. Defeated Germans on the Eastern front were mostly killed.

Sacrifice is not a very effective way to win a war; as Patton said, the goal is not to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his. Japan sacrificed an appalling number of their own people in the war effort, but still failed.

_________________
Outsider


Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:18 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
hi hi

Pointing out the body count certainly does not paint the full picture, but I would wager it is enough of a picture to at least make the point that the Russians played a significant part. (And as far as statistics go, it seems to be one of the more accurately tracked numbers.)

I guess the way I see it, deciding to invade Russia was by far Hitler's biggest military blunder of the entire war, but trying to imagine what WW2 would have been like if he hadn't stretches so far into the realm of imagination that I wouldn't even hazard a guess.

On a side note, I was able to find a statistic that says how many Axis troops were taken prisoner on the Western Front, not counting those that were captured after Germany surrendered. (4,209,840 prior to the surrender of Germany, and an additional 3,404,950 afterwards.) However, the only statistic I could find on Axis troops captured on the Eastern front doesn't say if it is prior to the surrender or both. (5,450,000 "prisoners taken," on the Eastern Front.) I didn't want to assume one way or another.


Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:53 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:51 am
Posts: 23
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
If you want fun. Several southern states in the USA refer to the civil war was the war of northern aggression.

Certain parts of the UK, refer to the American revolution as how britian lost America.


Last edited by peragrin on Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:36 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:00 pm
Posts: 327
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
Carl Miller wrote:
The Allies won World War II.


True but the soviets took the overwhelmingly heaviest burden. Soviet could have defeated Germany on it's own, it would just take a bit longer and be even bloodier. The war in the pacific was so different that I believe it should be described as another war entirely, it just happen to take place at the same time. If japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor and started that conflict the politics of the war would have been different. I belive that rhe US would have joined in eventually thou but later, just as they where latecomers in WW1.


Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:07 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:42 am
Posts: 155
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
Yes, the USSR was on the winning side in WWII.

No, the USSR almost certainly would not have won if it didn't have the rest of the allies on its side. Can't say for sure, of course, since what might have happened is always conjectural.

But here's my reasoning:

1) If there was no war in the west, or that war had concluded with a German victory (no occupation needed) prior to Barbarossa: The Germans would have been able to field a larger force in their initial invasion of the USSR. As it was, they used about 3/4 of their army divisions, and about 2/3 of their front line aircraft. If they had no need to occupy or heavily defend in the west, they could have used a greater proportion of their forces in the east. While about 30 of the 55 divisions not used in Barbarossa were "second quality" and/or not at full strength, ~25 of them were. Even the "second rate" divisions would have been pretty useful for rear area security, one would think. This distraction of German strength to the west happened throughout the war, and only got worse. Example : By late 1943, or 1944 70% of Germany's fighter strength was defending against the British/US bombing campaign. If they'd had those planes available in the east they might not have lost air superiority. With air superiority, CAS and air recon work a lot better, and so does the rest of the war machine.

2) If there was no war in the west, or that war had concluded with a German victory (no occupation needed) prior to Barbarossa: The Germans would (presumably) not be blockaded. They would be able to import oil, alloying elements, rubber, and so on. No material shortages, and thus no expensive or less effective workarounds, would mean German industry would run at full efficiency. The army would have more equipment and better supplies.

3) If the USSR was truly 'going it alone' then there would be no lend-lease: Part 1, AFVs: The USSR produced about 105,000 armored fighting vehicles during the war. They received another 21,000 via lend lease. That's 1/6th of their total available AFVs. Sure, these weren't T-34s, but neither were all the AFVs the USSR produced. Consider also: January 1, 1945: the USSR has ~24,000 tanks in service. The rest were destroyed or so broken down that they couldn't be repaired. Without those 21,000 lend lease tanks over the course of the war, how much lower would the soviet tank inventory have been at the end of the war? They would almost certainly have to have reduced the tempo of their operations over the years had they had fewer tanks...

4) If the USSR was truly 'going it alone' then there would be no lend-lease: Part 2, aircraft: The USSR produced about 85,000 aircraft during the war. They received another 15-20,000 via lend lease. That is, again, about 1/6th of their total. These weren't bad planes either, compared to much of the USSR's native built aircraft.

5) If the USSR was truly 'going it alone' then there would be no lend-lease: Part 3, logistics vehicles: This is a big one, in my opinion. The USSR produced ~345,000 cars and trucks during the war. The US alone provided them over 500,000. That's about 60% of their total. Additionally, lend lease supplied nearly 2000 locomotives and 10,000 rail cars of various sorts. As far as I know, the USSR didn't produce -any- locomotives or rail cars during the war. All those factories were reassigned to making tanks. Also, while the USSR was producing a fair number of trucks/cars, the ones they were making were markedly inferior to the ones the US was supplying.

6) If the USSR was truly 'going it alone' then there would be no lend-lease: Part 4, strategic materials: Lend lease provided about 2/3 of the USSR's high grade (aviation) gas directly, and provided more or less 100% of the cracking agents needed for them to produce the remaining 1/3. No lend lease, no high performance Soviet aircraft, lend lease or native built, would operate.

7) Previous posters have said that there were some 4.5 million German soldiers captured or killed in the west prior to the end of the war, and another 3.5 million captured at war's end. If there was no war in the west, how would 8 million additional German soldiers have impacted the war in the east? There is a lot of evidence that the USSR was getting close to the end of its manpower reserves by war's end. Another 8 million Germans to deal with would not have been a good thing for them.


Anyway.. this is going on too long... gonna stop here, even though more could be said.


Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:09 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 2308
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
icekatze wrote:
I guess the way I see it, deciding to invade Russia was by far Hitler's biggest military blunder of the entire war, but trying to imagine what WW2 would have been like if he hadn't stretches so far into the realm of imagination that I wouldn't even hazard a guess.

I certainly agree on both counts.

_________________
Outsider


Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:01 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 3:30 pm
Posts: 43
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
Russia still exists, so yeah, that can be counted as a win for them. As to the war itself, blunder or not Russia vs Germany was probably inevitable.


Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:19 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 2:14 am
Posts: 447
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
Don't forget the reason for the war of Hitler against the East: Hitler perceived Germans as people without land. He wanted to gain the empty lands in the east to expand. The western nations made it clear they would not tolerate Hitler grabbing more and more land in the east. So he felt he was forced to attack the west. The west was not his primary target. Hitler wanted a decissive fast strike in the west to get his forces over to the eastern front.

So, yes, Russia won the war. They survived, and used brutal tactics to do so. The land they left when the Germans came was of no use to anyone: no infrastructure, and the remaining usable things burned down. Harsh for those who livednthere, but made good propaganda for Nazi-news: another 1000 km land gained im the east (no questions asked about the value of the "conquered" lands). Then came the harsh Russian winter, and the Russians finally got around to rallying their forces.....

But Russia was not the sole deciding factor in this war.... I don't think there is a sle deciding factor, but if Russia had not swarmed the Eastern fronts with their men, the war might havencontinued in Europe a bit longer, at least until Berlin, Ruhrgebiet, Stuttgart, Munich,... would have received the same treatment as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I am very glad that the country of my grandfathers lost the war at the time they did.... Europe would otherwise look very different today...

_________________
Vote for Outsider on TWC: Image


Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:12 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 2:22 am
Posts: 11
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
icekatze wrote:
I guess the way I see it, deciding to invade Russia was by far Hitler's biggest military blunder of the entire war, but trying to imagine what WW2 would have been like if he hadn't stretches so far into the realm of imagination that I wouldn't even hazard a guess.

He made at least two severe blunders that influenced the war greatly, however they might have seemed reasonable at the time:
  • Declaring war on USSR - while a poor strategic decision, this at least sort of made sense. The Axis were born out of the Anti-Comintern pact of 1936. The Japanese already tried engaging the Soviets in 1939 but a defeat at Khalkhin Gol made them reconsider. But again, the war was going well for the Axis at the time. Blitzkrieg has proved to be an effective strategy and it seemed like the unprepared Soviets would be easy prey, giving the German access to large amounts of resources, including the oil fields of Baku.
  • Declaring war on USA - Possibly this was made to improve relations with Japan, as there was no obligation for Germany to do so (Japan was the agressor - had the USA declared war on Japan first, then the Germans would be legally obliged to declare war on USA). Also, as Japan was winning at the beginning this could seem as not such a bad idea at the time.


Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:02 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 8:38 am
Posts: 512
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
It depends on what is meant by the term 'win'.

If Russia never enters the war, the Allies would theoretically have to do all the heavy lifting. Germany reinforces the coasts with all the logistics and manpower freed up from not having to fight Russia and could potentially stall their defeat for years to come.

It all eventually ends when the Allies get tired of fighting conventionally and start nuking German cities. The war in Europe likely ends in 48 or 49, later if the US decides to nuke Japan first. Allied casualties are likely a lot heavier than in the OTL and you wind up with more nuked cities by the end of it, but the Allies had the nazi's dead to rights, it was only a matter of time.

If on the other hand the Allies are kept out of Europe by German coastal fortifications and Mussolini not making incompetent moves, forcing the Russians to fight the land war alone, we get a very different story. The Allied air war would likely keep the Luftwaffe busy and the blockade of shipping would keep Germany resource starved. Assuming the Allies still push the Germans out of North Africa as in OTL, they are eventually attritioned to death by the Russian war machine. Russian casualties are much higher, but their gains are also greater, since there'd be nothing stopping them from occupying a devastated Europe. They'd have a hard time holding it though, and would likely initiate a significant amount of purges before rebuilding. Some areas might revolt but it's too difficult to really predict with all the butterflies flapping about by this point. Overall, the war likely ends later as before, probably around 49 or 50, and definitely ends in their favour once they start dropping nukes.

In any scenario, it's impossible to really keep the Western Allies out of the fighting. The most the Germans can do is keep the Allied ground forces out of western Europe. They still have to expend logistical fortitude keeping those defenses manned which splits their forces, they're still going to get blockaded which starves them, they're still going to have fractious internal battles, and they're still going to waste resources killing undesirables. As long as any of these factors are in play, the war is unwinnable for Germany.

So, in summary, no, the Russians didn't 'win' WW2. Their involvement did however shorten the war, limited the casualties the Western Allies took and obviated the use of nuclear weapons in Europe, all things which make the war in Europe a slam dunk as far as just wars go. If they hadn't gotten involved, the war would've dragged longer, killed more people and required nuclear weapons to finish off decisively once and for all. While victory in Europe was as sweet as it could get in our timeline, holocaust aside, a victory in Europe with no Russian involvement would be quite a bit more ashen. For a given definition of 'win', you could say that they did win the war by making it shorter and less bloody for the Western Allies, allowing them to preserve a sense of justice and forthrightness in hindsight that other wars did not possess.

So yeah, it all depends on what you mean by 'win'. Either side could have won the war on their own, the only questions were how much blood you wanted to spill and how long you wanted to take.

_________________
Image

This is my Mod voice. If you see this in a thread, it means that the time for gentle reminders has passed.


Wed Aug 19, 2015 5:43 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:00 pm
Posts: 1066
Location: Athens, Greece
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
It should also be of note that the Germans also had a nuclear program which when coupled with their Ballistic missile and Jet programs would still make victory for the Western Allies troublesome. Especially if the Germans didn't have the huge resource drain that was the Eastern front.

Nuked German cities are a given but what about Nuked English cities should the Germans get enough time to properly field a few nukes themselves?

All in all the chief problem with alternate history exercises is that humans are unpredictable, we can't say how the past figures would act in a completely different set of circumstances. For example, what would the German priorities be if they knew that there would be lasting peace with the USSR?

Two of the most probable scenarios are these:

1) Full focus on operation Sea Lowe, which involved massive investment in air and naval power (mostly air and subs) investments that would practically completely strangulate the UK mainland and would be followed by a full scale naval invasion backed by the full might of Nazi Germany and occupied Europe. The much acclaimed battle of Britain lasted for a little more than 3 months but without the full might of the Luftwaffe/German Aeronautic industry behind it and with ever increasing resources given to the Eastern preparations even before the Battle begun. A scenario in which Germany would fully focus its airpower against the UK over the length of an year coupled with a heavier strangulation by the U-boats would mathematically lead to only one outcome, full air superiority over Britain which would lead to a German landing and full occupation of the UK. With the UK and subsequently Ireland out of the picture by mid 1941 Germany becomes practically invulnerable from the west as no bomber had the necessary range to do damage at the German Heartlands while flying over thousands of kilometers of hostile airspace.

2) Focus in Africa, middle east and subsequently India in conjuction with Japan. A seemingly far fetched scenario but one that would face far less military resistance from the Allies with the added bonus of support from the local civilian populations. How would it be if the Wermacht had won full domination over northern africa, then moved into the middle east as liberators and ended up at India? The allies had no way of stopping them and the locals would certainly not throw their lives away for the English.

The fun part is that these two scenarios aren't mutually exclusive.

_________________
My fan fics

Looking forward to the Mirror (Final Editing)
The pale horse (irregular updates)


Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:31 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 8:38 am
Posts: 512
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
I wouldn't put much stock in a german nuke. Their internal politics were highly adversarial and fractious, doubly so for their science division and doubly again for their nuclear program. There ceased to be a military interest in January of 1942 with the program shifting into civilian hands with resources being shunted away accordingly, and by June of that year the tide was turning against germany.

This is putting aside the industrial requirements of a nuclear program. Germany simply couldn't manage a nuclear program while it was at war with anyone. They didn't have the political unity, the will, the industrial might, or the concentration of scientific knowledge necessary to pull it off. The only way it would have been remotely possible for Germany to do it would be to avoid both politicising their universities from 1933 onwards and not purging intellectuals of Jewish descent later on, while avoiding a war specifically to pursue their nuclear program. They'd basically need to look at everything the Nazi's did and do the exact opposite.

Even supposing the Germans tried to tech rush a nuke and cow its neighbours into giving them Lebensraum under threat of nuclear fire, all it would take is a single peep of this to get to Soviet ears ("They have WHAT?!") and you suddenly have a very large and angry Russian bear knocking on Germany's door.

If we presuppose that all goes well for Germany, they probably have a working nuke by the 1950's with more in the pipeline. The moment they test it though, they're going to get a lot of attention from world powers. Some might be cowed by the test but Russia is sufficiently willing to accept casualties as to tempt the Germans into using it by arming rapidly. It doesn't matter if Germany nukes Russia before or after they declare war, war is getting declared and there's nothing Poland can do about it, horror at the first usage of nukes in anger keeps most out of the initial stages of the war while Russia ploughs on regardless, since a million deaths is Tuesday for Stalin.

Once the Russian Pain Train gets rolling, Germany's only option is to nuke and keep nuking until Russia runs out of men, steam, or determination to win. If they don't follow up their opening nukes with a constant barrage at the Russians, it'll embolden the West to take action to both remove the Nazi's from power and seize the nuclear brains trust for themselves, or at the very least deny them to the Russians. Alternatively, they let the Russians and the Germans slug it out while economically starving both sides, perhaps swinging in at the last minute to take Germany for themselves and prevent Russia from barrelling into Europe. Germany is thus similarly doomed from this point onwards.

Where it goes from there is difficult to tease out, but in almost any case, so long as the Nazi's are in power, it'll be Russia that gets nuked, not England, and it'll be about as effective a deterrent in either case as firebombing cities was throughout WW2, just with added radioactive nastiness.

_________________
Image

This is my Mod voice. If you see this in a thread, it means that the time for gentle reminders has passed.


Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:03 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:00 pm
Posts: 327
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
dragoongfa wrote:
It should also be of note that the Germans also had a nuclear program which when coupled with their Ballistic missile and Jet programs would still make victory for the Western Allies troublesome. Especially if the Germans didn't have the huge resource drain that was the Eastern front.

Nuked German cities are a given but what about Nuked English cities should the Germans get enough time to properly field a few nukes themselves?

All in all the chief problem with alternate history exercises is that humans are unpredictable, we can't say how the past figures would act in a completely different set of circumstances. For example, what would the German priorities be if they knew that there would be lasting peace with the USSR?

Two of the most probable scenarios are these:

1) Full focus on operation Sea Lowe, which involved massive investment in air and naval power (mostly air and subs) investments that would practically completely strangulate the UK mainland and would be followed by a full scale naval invasion backed by the full might of Nazi Germany and occupied Europe. The much acclaimed battle of Britain lasted for a little more than 3 months but without the full might of the Luftwaffe/German Aeronautic industry behind it and with ever increasing resources given to the Eastern preparations even before the Battle begun. A scenario in which Germany would fully focus its airpower against the UK over the length of an year coupled with a heavier strangulation by the U-boats would mathematically lead to only one outcome, full air superiority over Britain which would lead to a German landing and full occupation of the UK. With the UK and subsequently Ireland out of the picture by mid 1941 Germany becomes practically invulnerable from the west as no bomber had the necessary range to do damage at the German Heartlands while flying over thousands of kilometers of hostile airspace.

2) Focus in Africa, middle east and subsequently India in conjuction with Japan. A seemingly far fetched scenario but one that would face far less military resistance from the Allies with the added bonus of support from the local civilian populations. How would it be if the Wermacht had won full domination over northern africa, then moved into the middle east as liberators and ended up at India? The allies had no way of stopping them and the locals would certainly not throw their lives away for the English.

The fun part is that these two scenarios aren't mutually exclusive.


There are hints that Hitler suffered from Parkinson disease a then death sentence and as such, he launched the war to early, before his forces was ready. The kriegsmarine never had enough submarines due to this. Further, his disease and the cocktail of drugs he took for the pain effected his mind. A healthy Hitler could have waited and be smart enough not to interfere in his generals work.


Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:37 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 2308
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
The German nuclear program was not anywhere close to producing a working bomb when the war ended in 1945. Heisenberg's team was on the wrong track -- they had grossly overestimated the requirements for critical mass, and Germany had very limited supplies of uranium. The program had ceased to be a priority in 1942 and was continuing as a side project with very limited funding and little progress.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, the Axis' only chance to win the war was to do it quickly, before the end of 1942. After the failures in the battles of Britain, North Africa, Stalingrad and Midway, eventual defeat was inevitable against the vastly superior resources of the Allies.

rewik wrote:
  • Declaring war on USA - Possibly this was made to improve relations with Japan, as there was no obligation for Germany to do so (Japan was the agressor - had the USA declared war on Japan first, then the Germans would be legally obliged to declare war on USA). Also, as Japan was winning at the beginning this could seem as not such a bad idea at the time.

I think that American entry into the war against Germany was inevitable; Roosevelt had been preparing for war since the end of 1940, and would have found a pretext sooner or later. The attack on Pearl Harbor by a German ally probably would have done the trick even if Hitler had been sensible enough to avoid his own declaration of war... the American public was whipped into such a frenzy that they would probably not have objected to declaration of war on Germany as well as Japan.

Sweforce wrote:
There are hints that Hitler suffered from Parkinson disease a then death sentence and as such, he launched the war to early, before his forces was ready. The kriegsmarine never had enough submarines due to this. Further, his disease and the cocktail of drugs he took for the pain effected his mind. A healthy Hitler could have waited and be smart enough not to interfere in his generals work.

Megalomania is its own detriment. A healthy, sane Hitler would probably not have started the war at all. A healthy, sane Hitler would perhaps never even have come into power in the first place.

_________________
Outsider


Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:20 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 80
Location: Moscow
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
Quote:
Did Russia win WWII?

Yes.


Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:10 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:23 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Georgia, United States
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
Quote:
The German nuclear program was not anywhere close to producing a working bomb when the war ended in 1945. Heisenberg's team was on the wrong track -- they had grossly overestimated the requirements for critical mass, and Germany had very limited supplies of uranium


Which the Japanese also did, which is why they continued fighting after the first nuke was dropped on them. They operated under the idea we lacked the stockpile of material to make another bomb in a reasonable amount of time.


Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:15 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 2:34 pm
Posts: 55
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
Yes, Russia won ww2. They scared the japanese shitless not to invade them, meaning they could focus on just one front, then threw bodies and resources at the germans until they achieved victory. The lend-lease helped greatly, as did the allied bombings, but even without those they would have won. They started the war suffering like 5 million casualties... what did they do? just replace them simple as that. They had the resources, the industrial capacity (2nd in the world at the start of the war), the manpower and the will, since it's leaders didn't care about 10 or 50 million dead as long as they stayed on top at the end).

I think war always was the end plan for the nazis, their economy was on the edge of bankruptcy up to the start of the war and just kept on adding territories to avoid collapse, until the british said no more. War with Russia was unavoidable, either they declared war when the russian military was still weak, or Stalin would have once his armies were ready a few years later, neither side trusted each other at all, and hated each other with a passion.
Dunno about the USA going to war, I guess at some point they would have to join, they basicly were at war in the Atlantic already, their tanks fought in Russia and their planes in the British Empire, they were too heavily invested and a lot of bad blood had been created not to ensure the side they had been massively supporting won.

IMHO Germany could have never won the war, they couldn't win against USA at all, winning in Russia would require being liberators for the russian people which was anathema to the nazis that prefered to butcher them, and invading Britain was never going to happen either, air superiority or not, the british navy would sink to the last ship before allowing it and they had quite a few of those.


Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:32 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:14 am
Posts: 54
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
To answer the question of whether the Soviet Union was the deciding factor for winning WW2 you have to answer two preceding questions:

1) Could the Soviet Union have beaten Germany and its allies alone? Doubtful to maybe.

2) Could the Western allies have beaten German and its allies without the Soviet Union? Without a doubt, but would have been bloodier, more costly, and more irradiated.

So, no, the Soviet Union was not the deciding factor, and only Red Army fanboys think otherwise.


Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:34 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:50 pm
Posts: 1
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
Russia did not and could not win the war alone. Another point not mentioned by anyone else is the duplicity Japanese. If Japan had done as they had promised to, they would have attacked Russia from the east. Russia was ill equipped to fight a war on one front let alone a two front war. If Japan had attacked in the east the war would have ended much differently. Also, Russia had little to no ability for mass production. They needed the rest of the allies to not only teach them how to set up factories for mass production but they also needed the raw materials for it. Simply put, if Japan had attacked Russia, Russia would have fallen alone, as an ally or more likely would have done as they had done previously, turn against the Allies and sue Germany and Japan for peace and then quietly sit back licking their wounds and lend support to the Axis.

Cirran


Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:02 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:23 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Georgia, United States
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
I think one of the biggest issues if Russia was to do it alone would mostly be to the non-combat related items that the Lend lease supplied. There was a noticeable amount of aircraft and armored vehicles supplied, but the big step up was providing tracked and motorized transports. The US provided over half a million of these to the Russian forces allowing factories to focus on other items needed for the war.

I'm not willing to say that Russia couldn't do by alone, but I would doubt that it could be done within the same timetable of 1939 to 1945. It really comes down to a lot of what-ifs depending on the scenario.

As a joint effort, the Russians did do a great share of eating away at the German's war capabilities. It was viewed by the French (from a single survey I've seen, I haven't researched the matter of public opinion on the war) that the Soviet forces were the key aspect that won the war, that however changed as time pasted. (More than likely due to the Cold War) I would hazard the lack of involvement by Russia would have extended the conflict in the ETO much much longer, and extended the fighting the Pacific as well.


Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:11 pm
Posts: 550
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
Quote:
I would hazard the lack of involvement by Russia would have extended the conflict in the ETO much much longer, and extended the fighting the Pacific as well.


...well I would hazard that the early partnership of Russia with Hitler prolonged the war much longer as well. :|


Thu Aug 20, 2015 9:19 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 2308
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: Did Russia win WWII?
Grayhome wrote:
...well I would hazard that the early partnership of Russia with Hitler prolonged the war much longer as well. :|

Not really, just made the invasion of Poland go faster.

_________________
Outsider


Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:34 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.