136 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Assuming they did take Russia, it means they would have also taken the oil fields and major cities, which would have been a huge boon for Germany's war effort. Nevertheless, I think Hitler believed that if he took Russia out of the equation, the remaining Allied forces would think twice about continuing the war.

I can buy that. And, with China needing to possibly defend on two fronts (Japan from the East, a German-controlled Russia from the North), the war may have shifted from Europe to Asia. Which may have greatly complicated things.

As the old saying goes "never get into a land war in Asia."

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm on my phone right now, so it's difficult to respond and like posts.

I just want to say thanks for all the responses everyone! It's awesome(and sad) hearing about people's families during the war, and everyone's different family stories. This is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Glad I made the thread.

Glad you did too.

My grandfather was a maintenance tech in Europe during World War 2 and talked to me once about it. He said the bombings and attacks by enemy planes was almost constant.

He was career military, so he said it was interesting when he was able to go back to Europe with my grandmother for one of their anniversaries (apparently it used to be that any service member and their family could ride along in any inter-military base flight for free) and he talked about how amazed he was at the recovery that happened in less than a decade, both physically and mentally.

[L. Han]

^Polish Partisans had a really rough time as well. Having to constantly make deals between the Soviets and Third Reich forces really puts them in a really uncomfortable position. A lot of soldiers who were on anti-partisan duty in Poland were conscripts and mercenaries from Ukraine, Yugoslavia, and even Poland itself. Adding more complications to the resistance movement as they sometimes ended up fighting their own.

[L. Han]

I would also like to bring up the Battle for Castle Itter. It's labeled as one of the 'strangest battles in world war two'. The battle has American and German forces working together to fight off Nazi Zombies Waffen-SS forces.

 

Unfortunately most of the German 'Anti-Nazi Wehrmatch' soldiers and their commander died in the battle.

[Dreadstruck]

I would also like to bring up the Battle for Castle Itter. It's labeled as one of the 'strangest battles in world war two'. The battle has American and German forces working together to fight off Nazi Zombies Waffen-SS forces.

 

Unfortunately most of the German 'Anti-Nazi Wehrmatch' soldiers and their commander died in the battle.

 

I looked it up. Very intriguing, why hasn't anyone made this into a movie yet.

[Dreadstruck]

@E-Ro

 

Imho, I kinda disagree.

 

It was a long war of attrition as it was, it'd have been a longer war of attrition. It is very likely that the Soviets could have won the war on their own (just with much more bodybags involved) or at least negotiate a settlement or armistice, and it is extremely unlikely that Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union even if the USSR was on its own. That doesn't, however, mean that the efforts of the Western Allies weren’t vital as well. The greater part of the German bloodletting by far occurred on the Eastern Front, and the great majority of the German military was deployed on the Eastern Front from Barbarossa to the fall of Berlin.

 

Allied lend-lease to the USSR was certainly of great value, but was not essential in preventing a Soviet defeat or ensuring a victory; it amounted to ~7-9% of Soviet war production.

US lend-lease to the USSR only began in November 1941 and was only a trickle compared to the amount that began to be sent by around late 42/early/mid 43. It was a non-factor in stopping Barbarossa from succeeding and by the time it reached high gear, German hopes for any kind of victory in the East had been dashed to the ground.

[Aimi]

It was a long war of attrition as it was, it'd have been a longer war of attrition. It is very likely that the Soviets could have won the war on their own (just with much more bodybags involved) or at least negotiate a settlement or armistice, and it is extremely unlikely that Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union even if the USSR was on its own.

[...]
 
Allied lend-lease to the USSR was certainly of great value, but was not essential in preventing a Soviet defeat or ensuring a victory; it amounted to ~7-9% of Soviet war production.
US lend-lease to the USSR only began in November 1941 and was only a trickle compared to the amount that began to be sent by around late 42/early/mid 43. It was a non-factor in stopping Barbarossa from succeeding and by the time it reached high gear, German hopes for any kind of victory in the East had been dashed to the ground.

Oh, I don't know. There's no conclusive evidence for this counterfactual either way, and it's naturally a very touchy subject in Russia. The data that we have are insufficient (we especially lack details of timing), but the USSR also distorted production figures and Lend-Lease data for propagandistic purposes, making the task even harder. Still, I think there are a few relevant points.

Firstly, while Lend-Lease did not account for a humongous amount of total Soviet war production (the 7-9% figure is IMO irrelevant, because the data are suspect), it did account for key bottlenecks. For instance, almost all trucks and locomotives employed by the USSR during the war came from Lend-Lease; employing Anglo-American vehicles meant that the USSR could switch many such factories over to various kinds of tanks. Naturally, this means that the factories could simply have kept making what they were originally making had they not got Lend-Lease vehicles, but it's unclear how they would have been affected by economies of scale and raw material input changes. At any rate, the employment of so many Anglo-American vehicles meant that the Red Army's logistical tail was almost entirely dependent on Lend-Lease-sourced equipment; it would have had a disproportionate effect on the USSR's ability to mount a strategic offensive. Lend-Lease gear was precisely the sort of stuff that would most come in handy after the battles of 1941 and 1942.

Secondly, the Red Army was suffering severe problems by early 1945. It possessed something like twelve million men in uniform, but those were virtually the last reserve; Glantz and House have found that even that number might be high, because many of the men under arms were in fact unfit for service due to injury or disease, or were believed to be needed for internal-security purposes back home. Its ability to launch major offensives was declining. Although the Red Army's leadership had made immense strides in staffwork, training, and decision-making, it was directing an increasingly exhausted force.

Thirdly, the Soviet leadership was constantly concerned about internal security issues and believed that war exhaustion might compel a halt to fighting. It opened, or attempted to open, negotiations with the Hitlerites through intermediaries at at least one juncture, and made key domestic concessions to various groups to avoid dissent. Even these efforts were proving to be something of a strain by late in the war. The USSR was not in danger of the sort of collapse that toppled Germany's leaders in 1918, and it probably wouldn't have happened that way even without the Lend-Lease equipment's effect on the Soviet battle order. But it was another concern that implied that the USSR might run out of steam before it reached Central Europe.

Fourthly, Lend-Lease was not the only impact that the Americans and British had on the Eastern Front. The Western strategic bombing campaign had its own effect. The endless arguments over what the Allies actually did to limit German industrial mobilization and weaken German civilian morale are pointless; it's useful simply to note that the Eighth Air Force had some impact, which did help. But more importantly, the Western Allies targeted key bottlenecks in German matériel. Already by late 1943 they had effectively destroyed Germany's ability to employ aviation-grade gasoline, while at the same time supplying it in abundance to the USSR. The avgas gap coincided with the end of Luftwaffe air supremacy on the Eastern Front; from that point on, due in significant part to the performance improvements that Soviet planes possessed, VVS fliers could achieve local air superiority and facilitate operational offensives that hitherto had only been possible under conditions of poor weather (which grounded the German planes). Drowning the Luftwaffe in planes had not worked; drowning a severely depleted Luftwaffe in better-performing planes flown by better pilots and managed more effectively by Frontal Aviation did work. It is hard to imagine, for example, the Red Army successfully halting the German offensive at Kursk in tactical depth without their ability to disrupt German air supremacy, let alone launch the subsequent counteroffensive.

I'm sure there are more such points to make, but the Second World War isn't my area.

Anyway, the point is, we don't and can't know how the war would have gone for the USSR had the Eastern Front been the only front. There are excellent reasons for believing that the Soviets would have won anyway, like gross production figures and manpower and the marked improvement in Red Army quality over the course of the fighting. There are also excellent reasons to suspect that the USSR could not have won the war outright, if at all, such as the ones elaborated above.

The question isn't really a very good historical question, any way you slice it. Counterfactuals rarely are. In this particular instance, the question mostly serves as a reason for Westerners and Russians to get into historical dick-waving arguments. "We could've won the war ALL BY OURSELVES, we didn't NEED you!" "Well NO YOU COULDN'T, but WE totally COULD have if it came down to it!" Yada yada yada.

[mybudgee]

I looked it up. Very intriguing, why hasn't anyone made this into a movie yet.

Quentin Tarantino presents

[Uccio]

Speaking of partisans

Here is a new article The Jews That Fought Back

 

There is also this, http://www.telegraph...mmon-enemy.html

 

My fellow countrymen who were of jewish faith were on the same side (kind of) as nazi germany. Not by a choice but because of common enemy, touch spot.

 

disclaimer: no jews were deported from Finland during WW2. Our prime minister told Heinrich Himmler who asked about it, "we do not have a jewish problem". 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Can someone tell me about the minor allies of Nazi Germany in Europe? Like Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and a land in Balkans (I can't remember exactly)?

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

Can someone tell me about the minor allies of Nazi Germany in Europe? Like Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and a land in Balkans (I can't remember exactly)?

what do you want to know about them?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

what do you want to know about them?

 

Their power and actual involvement in the war. They were more like Vichy France, right?

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

Their power and actual involvement in the war. They were more like Vichy France, right?

well Romania is considered to have been Germany's most dedicated ally, sending close to 300 000 men in the invasion of the Soviet Union and suffering over 50% losses, Bulgaria didnt actively participate in the fighting but did occupy Yugoslavia and Greece after the end of the German invasion

 

Hungary was also very active in the USSR invasion, and like the Romanians suffered heavy losses, they also participated in the occupation of Yugoslavia

[Dreadstruck]

Well I look at it this way: Stalin was willing to fight to the last Russian - and most Russians were willing to die for their motherland and families - so a long war of attrition could, without a doubt have gone to the side with the most numbers of bodies to sacrifice in the cauldron of war. Also, I am not sure if it was already mentiond here but had this happened, with the US or West out of the picture, I do not doubt that Hitler would have resorted to biological and chemical warfare at some point to try to get a force multiplier. The Soviets would have responded in kind. The ultimate price would not be paid by the armies, but by their respective civilian populations.

 

Also, I think it is worth mentioning that even without Lend Lease the US would have likely still sold goods to the Soviets. Lend-Lease was not extended to the Soviets until November '41. But the US started selling goods to them in June '41. These were paid for in gems, gold and other precious metals.

It certainly would have been a lot less than Lend-Lease, but the Soviets wold have still had access to the US market. And it is also worth mentioning how much miscellaneous crap Lend-Lease included: fishing tackle, musical instrument parts, nylons, synthetic hosiery excluding nylons. There are hundreds of entries like these. While only a few percent of the total. I think they could have done ok without safety razors, domestic vacuum cleaners and the like.

But much of the raw goods, food and trucks would have still been available. The US would have gotten a lot more gold and the like back. But the US market is not an either/or proposition. The Soviets had plenty of stuff to sell, and the US would be open for business.

 

I am not a historian myself. Although my grandfather served in the 1st Czechoslovak Army Corps on the Eastern Front, alongside the Red Army (he apparently took part in the East Carpathian Offense, Battle of the Dukla Pass and the Prague liberation). He didn't really talk much about it though. Sadly, he passed away two years ago and in that time I wasn't really that interested in history. I wish I did ask him a few things when he was still here with us.

[Uccio]

Their power and actual involvement in the war. They were more like Vichy France, right?

 

Finland´s army numbered about 500 000 men at it´s peak, but didn´t go much beyond the old borders. The most eastern place was river Svir as I recall. And Finland was more like fighting the same enemy rather than being literal ally. It´s a bit complicated. 

[L. Han]

Ukraine played a role with the Third Reich during the war as well. It's one of the things that adds to the tension between Russia and Ukraine today.

 

Units formed from Germany's allies are usually pressed into a military branch called the 'Ostlegionen' and the units themselves are called 'Osttruppen' (Eastern Soldier). The make up of these units were a wide variety of nationalities. Including, but not limited to, ex-Soviets, Indians, Turkestani, Kazakhs, and even Georgians.

 

The Indians remained loyal to the British, despite having to pour in a lot of resources and effort for the British. The Third Reich attempted to turn India against the British Empire. But they only walked off with recruiting a handful of soldiers.

 

An interesting story (though I cannot verify if it's true or not) is a Korean name Yang Gyeong-jong. He was pressed into the Japanese army and was captured by the Soviets in a border battle in '39. He was then sent to the front lines to fight for the Soviets in '42 until he was captured (again) in by German forces in '43. He was then again pressed into the Osttruppen units in fighting U.S. forces. He was then (AGAIN) captured by U.S. forces and was then finally sent to a prison camp.

 

He survived fighting for 3 factions and imprisonment from 4 different nations. He lived on and died in 1992.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

An interesting story (though I cannot verify if it's true or not) is a Korean name Yang Gyeong-jong. He was pressed into the Japanese army and was captured by the Soviets in a border battle in '39. He was then sent to the front lines to fight for the Soviets in '42 until he was captured (again) in by German forces in '43. He was then again pressed into the Osttruppen units in fighting U.S. forces. He was then (AGAIN) captured by U.S. forces and was then finally sent to a prison camp.

 

He survived fighting for 3 factions and imprisonment from 4 different nations. He lived on and died in 1992.

 

This story must become a movie!

[Han Shot First]

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

 

 

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

 

---Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov

[Dreadstruck]

Ukraine played a role with the Third Reich during the war as well. It's one of the things that adds to the tension between Russia and Ukraine today.

 

Units formed from Germany's allies are usually pressed into a military branch called the 'Ostlegionen' and the units themselves are called 'Osttruppen' (Eastern Soldier). The make up of these units were a wide variety of nationalities. Including, but not limited to, ex-Soviets, Indians, Turkestani, Kazakhs, and even Georgians.

 

The Indians remained loyal to the British, despite having to pour in a lot of resources and effort for the British. The Third Reich attempted to turn India against the British Empire. But they only walked off with recruiting a handful of soldiers.

 

An interesting story (though I cannot verify if it's true or not) is a Korean name Yang Gyeong-jong. He was pressed into the Japanese army and was captured by the Soviets in a border battle in '39. He was then sent to the front lines to fight for the Soviets in '42 until he was captured (again) in by German forces in '43. He was then again pressed into the Osttruppen units in fighting U.S. forces. He was then (AGAIN) captured by U.S. forces and was then finally sent to a prison camp.

 

He survived fighting for 3 factions and imprisonment from 4 different nations. He lived on and died in 1992.

 

There was actually a South Korean movie based on this, called My Way. Although you shouldn't expect much accuracy from it, it's a typical Korean war movie - Lots of majestic explosions and battle scenes and boatload of k-drama on top of it. It's a pretty decent flick though.

 

Another people worth mentioning would be Lauri Törni (Larry Thorne) and Joseph Beyrle.

 

Lauri fought for the Finnish Army, the Waffen SS and later he was in US Special Forces in Vietnam War. I think Sabaton even wrote a song about him.

 

Joseph Beyrle fought as a paratrooper in the 101st Airborne. He was subsequently captured and managed to escape. [quoting from wiki now] Encountering a Soviet tank brigade in the middle of January, he raised his hands, holding a pack of Lucky Strike cigarettes, and shouted in Russian, 'Amerikansky tovarishch! ("American comrade!"). Beyrle was eventually able to persuade the battalion's commander (who, incidentally, was the legendary Alexandra Samusenko, allegedly the only female tank officer of that rank in the WWII) to allow him to fight alongside the unit on its way to Berlin, thus beginning his month-long stint in a Soviet tank battalion, where his demolitions expertise was appreciated.

[Dreadstruck]

Another thing that kinda makes me think. The Snipers.

 

Almost everyone I know is revering Simo Hayha, the White Death as the ultimate killing machine in WW2 (yes I know he was a marksman, since he didn't use a scope), yet what about the rest and their contribution? Harold Marshall? Joseph Gregory? Lyudmila Pavlichenko?

 

Also both Ivan Sidorenko and the (Georgian) Vasilij Kvachantiradze scored officialy about 500+ kills (the latter apparently even more Operation Bagration), almost equal to Simo's own 505 record, yet media seem to be rather ignorant of their feats, and instead aim at Vasiliy Zaitsev or Pavel Illyich Surkov who's also impressive feats were mostly used as propaganda (Surkov is credited with over 700 kills, which was debunked after the war).

[Han Shot First]

This pretty much seals the deal for me. I had read a historian(cant remember who) that said American vehicles were very important to the Soviet war effort(paraphrasing) but I had no idea of the ammo and powder. Wow.

 

Thank you for the quote.

 

The vehicles were also fairly crucial. Something like 2/3 of all Soviet transport in those late war offensives had been supplied through lend-lease. Trucks might not be as 'sexy' as tanks or fighter planes, but they are every bit as critical for waging a modern war. Unfortunately many armchair generals completely ignore logistics. You can't fight and win a war if you don't have the means to keep troops, ammunition, food, fuel, weapons, medical supplies, replacement parts for weapons & vehicles, ect, ect flowing to the front.

 

The Soviets also knew that lend-lease was meeting their needs for trucks, so they focused domestic industry to a much greater extent on producing those 'sexy' tanks and planes. So lend-lease not only played a crucial role in supplying the trucks that did the logistical heavy-lifting for the Red Army, but also enabled Soviet industry to produce more tanks and planes than it otherwise would have been able to. 

[Uccio]

Another thing that kinda makes me think. The Snipers.

 

Almost everyone I know is revering Simo Hayha, the White Death as the ultimate killing machine in WW2 (yes I know he was a marksman, since he didn't use a scope), yet what about the rest and their contribution? Harold Marshall? Joseph Gregory? Lyudmila Pavlichenko?

 

Also both Ivan Sidorenko and the (Georgian) Vasilij Kvachantiradze scored officialy about 500+ kills (the latter apparently even more Operation Bagration), almost equal to Simo's own 505 record, yet media seem to be rather ignorant of their feats, and instead aim at Vasiliy Zaitsev or Pavel Illyich Surkov who's also impressive feats were mostly used as propaganda (Surkov is credited with over 700 kills, which was debunked after the war).

 

Simo did his deed in the 105 days of glory which is called the Winter War 39 -40 (allowing myself a little national pride here  ). So his contribution is pressed in a small timescale. He didn´t participate in the ""Continuation War", which is know generally the WW2 and operation Barbarossa because he got shot in the face with a exploding bullet in close combat at the closing days of the Winter War. Didn´t die but was deemed unfit for service, despite his own pleas.