Do you think the USSR would've defeated Germany w/o allies?

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#121

Um, I think we can make an argument that totalitarianism was as much and enemy of optimal military efficiency as it was beneficial. Many of the top Red Army officers advocating “Deep Battle” were purged, and Stalin also ordered all Red Army units to stand down on the eve of Barbarossa. Thankfully some Soviet commanders had the good sense to hold convenient “live fire training exercises” in order to circumvent this idiotic order.

In fact, it was only when the top Red Army commanders like Zhukov learned to tell the NKVD and political officers to f***k themselves and ignored their bullying and intimidation that the Red Army gained a degree of autonomy from political domination…

#122

Nothing. I know about those things.

Is the Reddish Army still piss off you?

No. It doesn’t exist anymore.

How they quickly have re-captured the Vuborg;)Still can’t forget?

You mean Viipuri, the 2nd largest city in Finland in 1939? You know, the city that wasn’t captured during Winter War by the Soviets and they only got it at the peace table in order to secure Leningrad from Finnish artillery which never fired into the city during the wars and wasn’t bombarded by the Finnish Air Force either? :smiley:

Or do you mean when the Finnish army recaptured it during the summer of 1941? That was quite quick as the Soviet Corps supposed to defend it was being surrounded and destroyed elsewhere in the Isthmus? :smiley:

Or do you mean when the Soviets captured it for the first time ever during the 4th strategic offensive in the summer of 1944 after a few hours of “delaying action” by the 20th Brigade, the worst unit in the Finnish army ever. :smiley:

Why negatively? the american canned MEat so called “Tushenka”, produced with Soviet developed techniology, was wery excellent in any side.

Finding US made food supplies was “positive” 'cause it provided much needed additional food for the troops.

The “negative” was of course that the general public (as the rank and file) considered USA as a friend of Finland. You know, the USA who didn’t declare war on Finland by dictator Stalin’s insistence?

#123

It was very critical moment.
The other moment was that in the 1944-45 the Red Army command had a such great Tactical and Operative freedom- that Germans command didn’t dream about in Barbarossa.
When Hitler just demanded to “stay and hold the position”, the Red Army at that time actively interacted among their Armies.
the one of the very effective tactial method was re-suborination of units according the current military situation . I read the Konev has got in thier command the some of Zhukov units for the short time.
The tanks army of Rubalko that often was in head of russian attack has been re-subordinated several times.

#124

You right , but JUST shade of it , recently has raped little innocent Georgia for couple of days:)

You mean Viipuri, the 2nd largest city in Finland in 1939? You know, the city that wasn’t captured during Winter War by the Soviets and they only got it at the peace table in order to secure Leningrad from Finnish artillery which never fired into the city during the wars and wasn’t bombarded by the Finnish Air Force either?

Or do you mean when the Finnish army recaptured it during the summer of 1941? That was quite quick as the Soviet Corps supposed to defend it was being surrounded and destroyed elsewhere in the Isthmus?

Or do you mean when the Soviets captured it for the first time ever during the 4th strategic offensive in the summer of 1944 after a few hours of “delaying action” by the 20th Brigade, the worst unit in the Finnish army ever.

I don’t know
Pick yourself.
You finaly have been pissed by Reddish army , not me;)

Finding US made food supplies was “positive” 'cause it provided much needed additional food for the troops.

Of course, “additional food” Tushenka was wery welcomed in any army

The “negative” was of course that the general public (as the rank and file) considered USA as a friend of Finland. You know, the USA who didn’t declare war on Finland by dictator Stalin’s insistence?

Good friend of Finland who agreed with Stalin in Tehrain and Potsdam conferences to demand the post war compensation to USSR.
And friend that supplied Reddish army with Panzers and bombers to use them agains all Nazic allies- including Finland.( nobody specially determined what wearpon use agains whom)
Also don’t forget , if not Stalin’s agreement with finnish friend Rooswelt , the world wold have never recognized the new Sovet-finnish borders in 1945.
Yes it was friend of Finland, but rather Soviet friend too.:slight_smile:

#125

Germany is bankrupt in 1939, ignoring the West and attacking Russia in 1939 is not practical since Germany is even weaker than she was in in 1941. Attacking Russia in 1941 after the UK has been defeated in the BoB and occupied by the Third Reich, is better for the Reich but even with the threat in the West practically eliminated for the time being, Germany still loses if it can not defeat the USSR in a short War, in that either the Russians slowly push the German forces back to Berlin or the War gets stalemated and Germany then gets ground down between the Russian Army in the East and US nuclear bomb attacks on its cities in the West.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#126

There is no doubt that the Russians benefitted greatly from the Allies’ intervention, although not until 1944-1945. In 1942-43, the Allied help was rather nonexistent, really, which was a sore spot with Stalin. Certainly, the terrible bombings in the last year or so of the war made it very difficult for the Germans to continue the manufacture of essential equipment at the same pace that they had before. It crippled a lot of their railway system and it simply made it very difficult to divert the few resources they still had. However, I think that without the Allies, Russia would have still been able to defeat the Germans, although it would have taken much longer and a much greater cost to both countries. Or at least, it would have been a stalemate. Even with Germany being able to divert all their troops to the Eastern Front in the absence of a Western Front, I think that the Russians could have eventually advanced. IMO, Germany lost the war when Hitler diverted his army away from Moscow the first time that they were at its doors. That was the time to get them, that was the time to force themselves onto Russia. Once the Red Army was able to reorganize and gather strength, it would have been very difficult for the German to withstand its advance, especially when they had been so ill-equipped for the winter and the spring mud. Even if the Germans would have gone with von Manstein’s plan intead of Operation Zitadel, perhaps it would have ended in an stalemate and an armistice…one that probably would have been broken again eventually. But, I don’t see how the Germans could have outright won the war.

#127

Why would there be American nuclear bomb attacks on Germany?

#128

Because whole “Manhatten project” has been developed with primary aim to use the bomb agains GErmany.Adrian Wainer in right.
But when it was finished - the GErmany has already capitulated.So they have no other way as to test it over Japane heads.

#129

To be fair, the US did test it in New Mexico first, and again quite a lot postwar. They used it on Japan because they had what appeared to be a super-weapon and there was a war on. Conceptually (to them at least), burning down Hiroshima with one bomb was no different to burning down Tokyo with a lot of smaller bombs - something nobody really gets hot under the collar about today.

Postwar, because nuclear weapons have developed so much and are just so powerful, they have become treated as a whole new class of weapon. This was not true at the time, because their nature had not become fully apparent. Judging the decisions of people of the time based on information they didn’t have is unfair.

#130

Hey pdf , i/m not going to start the anti-nuclear thread HERE.

#131

You forget, one of the main reasons the US went to war against Germany was to help Britain. With Britain out of the war in 1940, the US wouldn’t have been in the war in Europe. Also, even if the US did decide to participate in the war in Europe, it would have had a hell of a time getting bomber capable of delivering a bomb the size of “fat man” over Germany, especially with either occupied Britain or Britain on Germany’s side now acting as another ring of defense for Europe.

#132

.
IBut as we know the main reason was the Japane attack of Pirl-Harbour and Hitler’s decision “to support” the Japan , declaring the war on USA just few days after.
America , as you migh know, entire two years supported Britain ( 1939-41) staying officialy Neitral.
So independently the Britain still was in war or not , the Japanes should attack America anyway , then the USA shall get the German declaration of war.

Also, even if the US did decide to participate in the war in Europe, it would have had a hell of a time getting bomber capable of delivering a bomb the size of “fat man” over Germany, especially with either occupied Britain or Britain on Germany’s side now acting as another ring of defense for Europe.

Nobody will ASK the USA does it wish to join to war or not.
If Britain losed in 1940, Hitler should declared the War on America- becouse the American should be inevitable joined to war with Japane in Asia.
The USA merely has no other way. Japane would capture whole Asia, then Australia.Then American might be isolated from resourse.

#133

Sorry, Chevan, must disagree. While it is true that the US officially remained “neutral”, there was nothing “neutral” about certain actions taken way before Pearl Harbor. While Pearl Harbor is a very dark day in the history of the US, it wasn’t the main reason why the US joined the war, but the last drop in the glass, so to speak. To say that Pearl Harbor was the main reason oversimplifies the American intervention in the war and the politics of the time.
War between Japan and the US was indeed as inevitable as it could get. However, it doesn’t follow that the US would have had as great a role in Europe if Britain was out of the picture because Hitler made a deal with Japan. Hitler actually didn’t want a war with the US, but his decision to make an agreement with Japan previously kind of left him no choice. If his goals would have been better achieved in Europe, it is entirely possible that his attitude would have been “Let them kill each other!”
As for the atomic bomb, I doubt that the US would have made a decision to use the bomb on Germany as “easily” as it did in Japan. For one thing, the public outcry would have been far reaching since other neighboring countries may have been affected by the use of nuclear weapons in Europe. Second, you’re forgetting human nature…as horrible as it may sound, it is more tolerable to do harm such as that caused by a nuclear explosion to peoples that are more distanced from ours. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far away in the Pacific and the Japanese culture is very different from ours. Setting off a bomb in the middle of Europe…I can’t see it happening unless the Germans used it first or it became very obvious that the Germans were about to use it.

#134

Had it been the decision of FDR, the USA would been in the War from the get go, but it wasn’t FDR’s decision to make.The American people were sympathetic to Britain but it is one thing being sympathetic and another thing going to War, and that is why the most the Roosevelt administration could do within the political realities of the time was for the USA to be a beligerent neutral on the side of Britain. As for an air attack on Germany using a nuclear weapon with Britain either aligned with or occupied by the Third Reich, the Convair B-36 Peacemaker was specifically designed to attack the Third Reich from American territory with both nuclear and conventional weapons. Baring the unlikely possibility of a hijacking of American politics by American fellow travelers of the Third Reich, even with Britain out of the equation, a War between the Third Reich and the USA would have been inevitable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZSpqFPSK_c

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#135

On the contrary I would argue that the USA would have made the decision to nuke the Third Reich much more easily than it did Japan. If Britain is out of the equation by either having been occupied by the Third Reich or having made a peacetreaty with the Reich after the collapse of France, the USA has very little possibilities to fight a War against Germany if one excludes the use of nuclear weapons. Whilst on the other hand, the USA was easily capable of defeating Japan without using nuclear weapons, If that makes the USA seem bloodthirsty in using nuclear weapons against Japan that is not my position, it was a legitimate morally correct decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan in that given Japanese determination to resist an invasion of Japan, more Japanese would have lost their lives if the Atomic weapons had not been used and a Normandy D Day type landing had been attempted on the Japanese home islands.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#136

[QUOTE=Adrian Wainer;135833]

Had it been the decision of FDR, the USA would been in the War from the get go, but it wasn’t FDR’s decision to make.

Watch this video:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwydwDOwyp8&feature=related

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV0edmMMRVg&feature=related

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5geCER-FL4&feature=related

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpJs9u92nZo&feature=related

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKfOTU5LbIU&feature=related

As you can see the relationship between Churchill and Roosevelt and between America and Britain was not what you think it was.

The American people were sympathetic to Britain but it is one thing being sympathetic and another thing going to War, and that is why the most the Roosevelt administration could do within the political realities of the time was for the USA to be a beligerent neutral on the side of Britain. As for an air attack on Germany using a nuclear weapon with Britain either aligned with or occupied by the Third Reich, the Convair B-36 Peacemaker was specifically designed to attack the Third Reich from American territory with both nuclear and conventional weapons. Baring the unlikely possibility of a hijacking of American politics by American fellow travelers of the Third Reich, even with Britain out of the equation, a War between the Third Reich and the USA would have been inevitable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZSpqFPSK_c

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

The Convair in that video was designed in 1946 and introduced in 1949 using jet technology that was stolen from Germany after Germany lost the war in 1945. the Convair would have had to go up a very formidable defense of jet and rocket fighters by the time that bomber was ready for operations. the ME262 and the advent of new radar technology would have made it nearly impossible to deliver the bombs.

#137

This myth really irritates me. There was no form of gas turbine technology that the Germans had in 1945 that Whittle and/or Griffith hadn’t already conceived of and tested long before - for some things like axial turbines Griffith was a decade ahead of the Germans.

#138

Fair enough, but the Germans were still the first to implement the technology in a meaningful way.

#139

15 million boots for a total of 30 million Soviet soldiers. If they go through 2 pairs a year can you explain where all the ‘other’ boots came from?
Railways? LL provided a tiny amount of the total locomotives and rolling stock and LL trucks never totalled more than 33% of the Soviet lorry park at any stage of the war. Where did the other 66% come from?

#140

Barely - the Metrovick F.2 was contemporary with the Jumo and BMW engines, and went on to evolve into various Armstrong-Siddeley turbojets postwar. If you look at the various postwar engines, the SNECMA ATAR is the only one with direct German lineage (BMW 003), and that was largely a dead end.
It’s quite interesting to look at the German engines in detail - they actually did some crazily advanced stuff (forced air cooling of the turbine blades for instance), but were forced to do so due to flaming awful metallurgy. There are good reasons nobody directly copied the German engines, but equally there are good reasons for some of the parallell evolution since.