Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviet/Russian Myths of the Great Patriotic War 1-The Second Front

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Panther3485 View Post
    OK, so you don't want to answer those questions. Wonder why.

    Try another one, then.

    Of the 3.2 Million casualties you've just told us the Germans suffered, how many of those were on the Eastern Front?
    Because it would only matter if the casualties on the Eastern front made any difference on the Western Front. You need to consider the fact that on the Eastern Front you had two brutal totalitarian regimes slugging it out with scant regard for their men. Check out how many Soviets needed to die to kill on German and how many Americans died for every German killed.
    Reading any books on Normandy and Ardennes, one constant theme is the superiority of American artillery and air support to which Germans had no answer. So no matter how many more troops the German were able to deploy against the US they would just be ground down. More German troops would only provide more targets.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pawelj View Post
      "Because it would only matter if the casualties on the Eastern front made any difference on the Western Front."
      Precisely. The massive casualties the Germans suffered in the East - by far the bulk of their total losses in land fighting - must have made a huge difference by the time of the Normandy landings in 1944.


      Originally posted by pawelj View Post
      "You need to consider the fact that on the Eastern Front you had two brutal totalitarian regimes slugging it out with scant regard for their men. Check out how many Soviets needed to die to kill on German and how many Americans died for every German killed."
      Of course. But even if the Soviets lost as many as 8 million, to destroy 2 Million or so Germans, that's still 2+ Million Germans the Western Allies did not have to face. Horrific from the Soviet viewpoint, but from the Western Allied viewpoint it looks pretty darn good, if you ask me.


      Originally posted by pawelj View Post
      "Reading any books on Normandy and Ardennes, one constant theme is the superiority of American artillery and air support to which Germans had no answer. So no matter how many more troops the German were able to deploy against the US they would just be ground down. More German troops would only provide more targets."
      An extra 2 Million German troops, + all their weapons, equipment and supplies that were lost in the East? Not to mention the significant air assets also lost there (greater than some would think)?
      Even with the historical numbers of German troops, and with all the Allied air superiority, artillery, naval power and logistic superiority, the Western Allies had one hell of a time in Normandy for quite a while before the Germans totally cracked and were forced to fall back. Heck, with all those military personnel and assets lost in the East, the Allies may not even have secured a beachhead successfully.

      The Soviets broke the back of Germany's land forces long before the Western Allies had to come to grips with them on land on any serious scale. The fact that they may have done this with less 'efficiency', and lost a lot more men doing so, makes no odds from the Western viewpoint. The Wehrmacht was broken in the East, end of story. What we dealt with in the West, for the last year of so of the war, was a shadow of the former entity. Still a tough shell, but a shell none the less. We may still have won - perhaps - but without the Soviet contribution our casualties would have been massively higher. Possibly too high for our nations to bear.
      Last edited by panther3485; 27 Apr 10, 09:45.
      "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pawelj View Post
        Because it would only matter if the casualties on the Eastern front made any difference on the Western Front. You need to consider the fact that on the Eastern Front you had two brutal totalitarian regimes slugging it out with scant regard for their men. Check out how many Soviets needed to die to kill on German and how many Americans died for every German killed.
        Reading any books on Normandy and Ardennes, one constant theme is the superiority of American artillery and air support to which Germans had no answer. So no matter how many more troops the German were able to deploy against the US they would just be ground down. More German troops would only provide more targets.
        So...how many Soviets died for every German? I think you forget the casualty ratio changed as the war went on some threads here have mentioned it and I belive glantz examines it in detail. One of the reasons for high Soviet casualties was the huge number of POWs captured at the beginning of the war who did not survive. You also forget that is was not just raw numbers for the German casualties but the loss of many experienced cadre (officers and NCOs as well as infantry) that meant the German Army of 1944 was not that of 1940-41.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pawelj View Post
          Check out how many Soviets needed to die to kill on German and how many Americans died for every German killed
          in that respect, the Western Allies and the Soviets were on a par with each other; correct me if i'm wrong.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by stalin View Post
            in that respect, the Western Allies and the Soviets were on a par with each other; correct me if i'm wrong.
            You know you are not wrong. Still so many people fall for Gobbels seventy year old propaganda, it would require a detailed examination of the casualties of each battle to show what the combat losses actually were. Even then some fools would wave about the writings of this or that German as proof of something.

            Originally posted by stalin View Post
            You also forget that is was not just raw numbers for the German casualties but the loss of many experienced cadre (officers and NCOs as well as infantry) that meant the German Army of 1944 was not that of 1940-41.
            Neither Soviet, US, or German army was the same army in 1944 that it had been in 1941. I wonder why it is so difficult for some people to see this?

            Comment


            • Actually Carl, while the first quote was from Stalin, the second was mine.

              Oh sorry yes of course both were from our great Leader and successor to Marx, Engles and Lenin.

              Comment


              • Wikipedia article on World War II casualties:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

                A website I think is useful, although it does not have Canada or Australia or New Zealand or India or other Commonwealth countries shown on it, maybe in British figures?

                http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html

                According to the above site, "80% of Soviet males born in 1923 did not survive World War II".

                That about sums it up for me.
                Last edited by lakechampainer; 29 Apr 10, 09:10.

                Comment


                • Very interesting thread. Reading it compelled me to register for this forum. So here are my 2 cents:

                  I think any suggestions that the western allies didn't do enough to help the Soviet Union are ignorant of allied contribution to the war in Europe. Lend-lease alone was an invaluable help to the USSR, filling critical gaps in Soviet resources and production. The Soviet economy had critical shortage of such things as aluminum, high octane gasoline, explosives, food, rubber. With all of its factories producing fighting vehicles, the Soviet Union was desperately short on trucks and rail equipment. Without L-L, I doubt the Red Army would have been able to keep on fighting, let alone march on to Berlin.

                  The allies also deserve most of the credit for destroying the Luftwaffe in the skies over the Mediterranean and western Europe. Germany had to redeploy considerable air forces from the East to assist Rommel in the desert (such as Kesselring's Luftflotte 2), and for the defense of the Reich against air raids.

                  All this is to say that even if no allied soldier ever set foot in Europe at all in 41-45, allied help to the soviets still would have been considerable. But the allies did land in 1944, and while it may appear late to some, it was the earliest that they could do it without being reckless. Most people in Russia probably fail to appreciate all the difficulties of a landing operation on the scale of Overlord. The need for thousands of landing craft, the difficulties of supplying troops without the advantage of port facilities, factor of weather.

                  And the allies did not exactly sit around waiting for the summer of 1944. Rommel in Africa was receiving non-trivial resources - resources that could have been used on the Eastern Front. And what he received is only half of what was sent - the other half is on the bottom of the Mediterranean. In 1943, over 250 thousand axis forces surrendered in Tunisia - more than at Stalingrad. Italy, Germany's most valuable ally in Europe, was soon knocked out of the war. These are not trivial accomplishments.

                  To a Russian observer, allied actions may seem overly cautious. Allied commanders, contrary to Soviet ones, could afford to carefully plan their next move, not take any unnecessary risks and not be careless with the lives of their soldiers. And, yes, the allies had that advantage. Is that bad? I have no doubt in my mind that if Stalin were in the same position, he would be just as careful and deliberate, if not more so.

                  And by the way, as long as this thread is about myths, here is one: The idea that Stalin launched his offensive in the winter of 1945 ahead of schedule to help out the beleaguered allies desperately trying to fight off the advancing Germans. By the time the Soviets began their offensive, the outcome of the Battle of the Bulge was already clear. In late December, allies already launched their counterattack. So the notion that good Stalin bent over backwards to help desperate allies, popular in Russia, is nothing more than propaganda.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by pawelj View Post
                    Because it would only matter if the casualties on the Eastern front made any difference on the Western Front. You need to consider the fact that on the Eastern Front you had two brutal totalitarian regimes slugging it out with scant regard for their men. Check out how many Soviets needed to die to kill on German and how many Americans died for every German killed.
                    Reading any books on Normandy and Ardennes, one constant theme is the superiority of American artillery and air support to which Germans had no answer. So no matter how many more troops the German were able to deploy against the US they would just be ground down. More German troops would only provide more targets.
                    Same on the eastern front--more troops, more targets. Let's try it this way, are you saying the Russians\Soviets were always successful? If not, where and when did they fail?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MMHE View Post
                      Without L-L, I doubt the Red Army would have been able to keep on fighting
                      with or without lendlease, we Russians had no other choice but to win the war.

                      Originally posted by MMHE View Post
                      The allies also deserve most of the credit for destroying the Luftwaffe
                      ww2 was a infantry war. infantry won it ...that is the Soviet infantry for the most part

                      Originally posted by MMHE View Post
                      Rommel in Africa was receiving non-trivial resources - resources that could have been used on the Eastern Front
                      how many of them he had been sent with ?

                      Originally posted by MMHE View Post
                      In 1943, over 250 thousand axis forces surrendered in Tunisia - more than at Stalingrad
                      somehow, you forgot to mention how many Germans were killed at Stalingrad.

                      Originally posted by MMHE View Post
                      Allied commanders, contrary to Soviet ones, could afford to carefully plan their next move, not take any unnecessary risks and not be careless with the lives of their soldiers
                      that's because the main events and fiercest battles were taking place on the Eastern Front.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by stalin View Post
                        with or without lendlease, we Russians had no other choice but to win the war.
                        That is not what I'm arguing. It is not about choice - it is about possibility. I'm not questioning anyone's resolve - I'm simply commenting that L-L to a significant extent enabled the Soviets to win the war. While it sort of falls outside the scope of this thread, I pointed it out because some view allied contribution simply in terms of direct military actions - how many Germans did the western allies kill? But the allied help via L-L needs to be part of this conversation and it should not be minimized.

                        ww2 was a infantry war. infantry won it ...that is the Soviet infantry for the most part
                        Mostly agreed but in the situation where the enemy has air superiority, infantry has an incredibly difficult task.

                        how many of them he had been sent with ?
                        I'll have to look up exact numbers but allied air and submarine attacks on Rommel's lines of communication were highly effective, exacerbating his already difficult situation with fuel and supplies.

                        somehow, you forgot to mention how many Germans were killed at Stalingrad.
                        No question the Battle of Stalingrad was a much larger conflict. That, however, doesn't take away from the allied effort pre-June 1944, who acted within their limited ability. In this thread, I saw the word 'diversion' mentioned several times - to me destroying Axis forces in Africa and knocking Italy out of the war seems like a pretty good 'diversion'.

                        that's because the main events and fiercest battles were taking place on the Eastern Front.
                        No disagreement here.
                        Last edited by MMHE; 08 May 10, 20:14.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MMHE View Post
                          No disagreement here.
                          ok... and welcome to these forums, by the way.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by stalin View Post
                            ok... and welcome to these forums, by the way.
                            Thank you!

                            Comment


                            • I've always wondered what would have happened withouth North-Africa/Italy, and the Allied landings in France. The Soviet army gets to the gates of Berlin...but do remember, the Axis army got to the gates of Moscow. Could the Aixs have done something, like built up extra reserves?
                              Wisdom is personal

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Karri View Post
                                I've always wondered what would have happened withouth North-Africa/Italy, and the Allied landings in France. The Soviet army gets to the gates of Berlin...but do remember, the Axis army got to the gates of Moscow. Could the Aixs have done something, like built up extra reserves?
                                Not enough to stop the Soviets, they had lost too many men fighting in the Russias (White, Little, Red, etc.) to win and neither Hitler nor Stalin would accept a negotiated peace. Check the German losses through Stalingrad, remember the no retreat orders, Hitler's refusal to allow defenisve lines.The shifting troops east would have slowed things down, but not produced a victory.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X