Did Russia win WWII?

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

Turrosh Mak
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:14 pm

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Turrosh Mak »

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.

Cirran
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:50 pm

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Cirran »

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

majorminor
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:23 pm
Location: Georgia, United States

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by majorminor »

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.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Grayhome »

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. :|

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Arioch »

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.

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by RedDwarfIV »

Germany's nuclear program was also trying to use heavy water as a moderator. While it's possible to build a heavy water nuke (it was done in the 50s), it could not be done at the time.

As for Operation Sea Lion? The Germans thought crossing the Channel would be like a normal river crossing. That alone is a recipe for disaster. Besides which, Germany would have needed air and sea superiority. And good weather. Admiral Raeder didn't think it would be possible to ptotect the landing vessels against the Royal Navy, and the Luftwaffe knew that good weather was not guaranteed in the North Sea.
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Grayhome »

Not really, just made the invasion of Poland go faster.
Oh Arioch no no no, I am sorry but that is entirely untrue. The Soviet Union was very serious about forming a long lasting relationship with Hitler and the economic, military and political support they gave to Nazi Germany ranged from considerable (trainloads of grain, sizeable funds) to critical (oil, manganese, and rubber). Also there was the territorial support of allowing Hitler to virtually ignore a large swathe of Eastern Europe until a time of his choosing, and thus focus his attention and resources elsewhere, a critical factor in Nazi Germany's success. Many people do not realize how chummy the Soviet Union was with Nazi Germany before Hitler's inevitable and sudden betrayal of Stalin.

A small excerpt:
Germany and the Soviet Union continued economic, military and political negotiations throughout the last half of 1939, which resulted in a much larger German–Soviet Commercial Agreement was signed on February 11, 1940.[68][69] Under that agreement, the Soviet Union became a major supplier of vital materials to Germany, including petroleum, manganese, copper, nickel, chrome, platinum, lumber and grain.[70] They also received considerable amounts of other vital raw materials, including manganese ore,[69][71] along with the transit of one million tons of soybeans from Manchuria.[52] On January 10, 1941, the countries signed an additional agreement modifying their 1940 commercial agreement, adjusting borders, and resolving other minor disputes.[72]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2 ... ent_(1939)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi%E2%8 ... 2%80%9341)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2 ... _Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E ... efore_1941

Wow, even I didn't know that the aid and trade between the two powers was so considerable, I'm going to have to spend some time studying this.

User avatar
dragoongfa
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:26 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by dragoongfa »

RedDwarfIV wrote:Germany's nuclear program was also trying to use heavy water as a moderator. While it's possible to build a heavy water nuke (it was done in the 50s), it could not be done at the time.

As for Operation Sea Lion? The Germans thought crossing the Channel would be like a normal river crossing. That alone is a recipe for disaster. Besides which, Germany would have needed air and sea superiority. And good weather. Admiral Raeder didn't think it would be possible to ptotect the landing vessels against the Royal Navy, and the Luftwaffe knew that good weather was not guaranteed in the North Sea.
Air Superiority was the sole factor that was really needed, as long as there would be a small Kriegsmarine task force at hand then the RN wouldn't be able to do anything against several hundreds Stukas and other bombers. There was a reason why the war on the Pacific was not decided by battleships but by carriers.

In the Battle of Crete the RN lost 8 ships (two anti-air light cruisers and 6 destroyers) and had 7 others severely damaged (2 battleships, 1 cruisers and 3 destroyers). In those engagements the Luftwaffe suffered minimal casualties (most of their air loses in Crete were air transports). Pound for pound, the RN suffered an overwhelmingly one sided defeat in those anti-air engagements, that was later matched with the slaughter the Japs gave at Force Z at Malaya where the RN lost a battleship and a battlecruiser for only 3 destroyed and 28 damaged japanese planes.

El-Hazard
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by El-Hazard »

If Fighter Command had withdrawn out of range of the German airfield attacks. Which they were in three days of doing so, the Germans would have the
air control to land early Sept. That meant the British would have had at least two weeks to rest their exhausted pilots and bring in new pilots at an acc. rate.
So on the day of the invasion fighter command would bring their fighters back into position stronger then before.

Nathan_
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Nathan_ »

Grayhome wrote:
Not really, just made the invasion of Poland go faster.
Oh Arioch no no no, I am sorry but that is entirely untrue. The Soviet Union was very serious about forming a long lasting relationship with Hitler and the economic, military and political support they gave to Nazi Germany ranged from considerable (trainloads of grain, sizeable funds) to critical (oil, manganese, and rubber). Also there was the territorial support of allowing Hitler to virtually ignore a large swathe of Eastern Europe until a time of his choosing, and thus focus his attention and resources elsewhere, a critical factor in Nazi Germany's success. Many people do not realize how chummy the Soviet Union was with Nazi Germany before Hitler's inevitable and sudden betrayal of Stalin.

A small excerpt:
Germany and the Soviet Union continued economic, military and political negotiations throughout the last half of 1939, which resulted in a much larger German–Soviet Commercial Agreement was signed on February 11, 1940.[68][69] Under that agreement, the Soviet Union became a major supplier of vital materials to Germany, including petroleum, manganese, copper, nickel, chrome, platinum, lumber and grain.[70] They also received considerable amounts of other vital raw materials, including manganese ore,[69][71] along with the transit of one million tons of soybeans from Manchuria.[52] On January 10, 1941, the countries signed an additional agreement modifying their 1940 commercial agreement, adjusting borders, and resolving other minor disputes.[72]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2 ... ent_(1939)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi%E2%8 ... 2%80%9341)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2 ... _Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E ... efore_1941

Wow, even I didn't know that the aid and trade between the two powers was so considerable, I'm going to have to spend some time studying this.
In turn the soviets got much needed machine tools and other pieces of advanced equipment. both sides gained from the agreement, but both sides had to know it was going to come down to who was fastest on the backstab.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Grayhome »

but both sides had to know it was going to come down to who was fastest on the backstab.
From what I remember from a BBC documentary detailing the friendship and betrayal of Hitler and Stalin I watched years ago; Stalin spent a few days (was it a week or more?) in denial during the initial Nazi invasion of Russia. Stalin flat out refused to believe his generals when they told him that German troops were invading Russia, refusing to order any sort of preparation or defense. I will try to find more information sometime tomorrow, it's late here.

I think I remember the documentary claiming that Stalin was seen crying by his aides at the thought of his best friend Hitler's betrayal. They were planning to enslave the world together after all, Stalin took it pretty hard.

Krulle
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Krulle »

And while the Germans got stuff they needed right now, and had the industrial machinery to use, the Russians got machines, they had to install first, get to know, calibrate, and start using.
On top of that, the Germans delayed their deliveries, while the Russians remained timely (in fear of giving the Germans a reason to start fighting).
The few weapons the red army received from Nazi-Germany were useful, but by far from enough to modernize more than the absolute minimum of the red army.
Vote for Outsider on TWC: Image
charred steppes, borders of territories: page 59,
jump-map of local stars: page 121, larger map in Loroi: page 118,
System view Leido Crossroads: page 123, after the battle page 195

Sweforce
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Sweforce »

Krulle wrote:And while the Germans got stuff they needed right now, and had the industrial machinery to use, the Russians got machines, they had to install first, get to know, calibrate, and start using.
On top of that, the Germans delayed their deliveries, while the Russians remained timely (in fear of giving the Germans a reason to start fighting).
The few weapons the red army received from Nazi-Germany were useful, but by far from enough to modernize more than the absolute minimum of the red army.
The Soviet equipment also had the advantage of not being overengineered like the German stuff tend to be. Uncool stuff that works win over cool stuff that doesn't. The Soviets, and largely the allies at large went for "boring but practical", they had some amazing stuff as well thou, especially when they could afford to take the time to finish a design before fielding it. The American mustang fighter both look cool was effective and had an awesome range.

Krulle
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Krulle »

What Germany needed from Russia were grain/food and raw-materials (oil and rubber).
No engineering needed at al....
But Germany needed the supplies, otherwise the war would have ended after a few months due to lack of rubber.
Most of what Stalin delivered was in theend what enabled Nazi Germany to atack Russia at all.
Vote for Outsider on TWC: Image
charred steppes, borders of territories: page 59,
jump-map of local stars: page 121, larger map in Loroi: page 118,
System view Leido Crossroads: page 123, after the battle page 195

Darth Cloaked Guy
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Darth Cloaked Guy »

My understanding is that World War II ended on August 15, 1945 with the surrender of Japan via Emperor Hirohito on board the USS Missouri, meaning that regardless of who defeated Germany, a very valid statement could be made that the US, despite having the least overall investment of WWII of the three main Allied powers (USSR, UK, USA) won WWII at that moment.

It would be more accurate to say that the allies together won WWII. But does anyone truly win a war?

Germany, Italy, and Japan -lost- WWII is the truer statement.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by discord »

15 March 1991 is when ww2 ended.
And yes, the Russians did the heavy lifting in the war.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Grayhome »

And yes, the Russians did the heavy lifting in the war.
We seem to be in complete agreement, see my previous post for how much heavy lifting they actually did, by the trainload. The wiki links are quite revealing.

JQBogus
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by JQBogus »

No disagreement here either about them doing the heavy lifting.

But, to expand the metaphor, I don't think they could have lifted enough* without the steroids the west sent them, without Germany being 'lighter' from a poor diet due to the western blockade/bombing campaign, and without the (less that the Russians, but still significant) lifting done by the west.

*In any high intensity, conventional war sense... a 30 or 50 year guerrilla campaign, possibly against a changed German leadership, who knows?

Logannion
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:51 am

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Logannion »

To jump into this a bit late, I'd like to add that there has been recent historical speculation that it was also the threat of a soviet invasion that helped pushed the Japanese into capitulation.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the ... talin-did/
(Non-subscribers can only read 1 article a month I think, so don't open any other article or you won't be granted access)

One of the reasons why the Soviet forces could be called the heavy lifters of the war is that they could achieve with pure brute force what the rest of the Allies needed code-breakers to do. Most of the British & American victories, such as the successful invasion of normandy and the battle of midway, could be heavily attributed to knowing where the axis were, and what they were planning to do (also what they believed the allies were planning on doing). Successful codebreaking also helped make many defeats much more phyrric for the axis, such as the Italian invasion of Greece.

http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/h ... e-breaking

I don't know much about Soviet code-breaking during ww2, but as the the codebreaking expertise of the British & Americans were based of the earlier code-breaking formula from the Polish, I doubt the Soviets had as much success, as the polish had no reason to share their findings with Russia, for obvious reasons.

In my opinion, by the Mid war years, Soviet Russia could have functioned autonomously even without Allied help, and could have won the war eventually even on its own.

What was lacking in the early years though, was expertise, momentum, and popular public support. The Army and Navy had been gutted by the purges, the Industry and infrastructure was nowhere close to being able to support total war footing needed to match the Germans. A simple perusal of Frozen Hell : The Russo-Finish Winter War of 1939-1940 by William Trotter is enough to underline just how inept the russian army and airforce had become due to the purges and the commissariat (If I remember correctly, it was defeats in this war that convinced Stalin to tone down the commissariat authority, but there was nowhere near enough reform by the time of Operation Barbarossa).

Furthermore, many minorities and population groups were disgruntled by Stalin's many heavy handed (and not very successful) projects. Many of these people were indifferent to nazi occupation (or worse, welcoming), as they took the view "no one could be worse then Stalin!". True, it didn't take too long for them to change their minds and flock to the partisan camps, but without allied support to bolster the frontline and jumpstart their industry, Russia itself could have fractured under pressure. After all, Stalin was a dictator, if his reputation and power was weakened enough, many military and political leaders could have simply decided to abandon him.

Also, finally, it does seem that Stalin, funnily enough, had tried to be chummy with powerful world leaders a few times (who he considered equals), but his own reputation and character defects always made him misunderstood and/or inevitably back-stabbed. Another example of a World leader he tried to be chums with is president Truman.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/di ... occupation

Alright, I know I didn't give you any straight answers, but since this is a speculative question the best I could supply is food for thought. Hope it helps.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Did Russia win WWII?

Post by Arioch »

Logannion wrote:To jump into this a bit late, I'd like to add that there has been recent historical speculation that it was also the threat of a soviet invasion that helped pushed the Japanese into capitulation.
I think that's true, but neither of these elements "won" the war; they just helped to get the Japanese leadership to admit that it was already over. Even without the threat of Soviet invasion the Japanese would eventually have surrendered; it's just a matter of how many cities had to be incinerated.
Logannion wrote:Furthermore, many minorities and population groups were disgruntled by Stalin's many heavy handed (and not very successful) projects. Many of these people were indifferent to nazi occupation (or worse, welcoming), as they took the view "no one could be worse then Stalin!". True, it didn't take too long for them to change their minds and flock to the partisan camps, but without allied support to bolster the frontline and jumpstart their industry, Russia itself could have fractured under pressure. After all, Stalin was a dictator, if his reputation and power was weakened enough, many military and political leaders could have simply decided to abandon him.
To say that Stalin's subjects were "disgruntled" is underselling it a bit; tens of millions died of starvation under his regime. If the Germans had invaded as liberators rather than homicidal maniacs, no doubt many of the people of Ukraine and Belarus and the various Baltic States, and even some Russians would gladly have fought on the German side instead of being forced to rally around Stalin. But as has been said, if the Nazis hadn't been homicidal maniacs, they probably wouldn't have invaded Russia in the first place.

Post Reply