Who defeated the Germans? The Soviet Union or the other allies?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2013, 12:19 PM
RE: Who defeated the Germans? The Soviet Union or the other allies?
(16-05-2013 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-05-2013 09:43 AM)Abdul Alhazred Wrote:  Because its's not about casualties.

The UK fought Hitler while Stalin was still on Hitler's side.

The fact that Stalin was willing to use up so many of his own people just to get his hands on Poland is not to his credit. Even if he "beat Hitler".

First he helped Hitler.

Context, man. Context.

Hitler always planned to invade the east. Stalin and the rest of the Soviet leadership knew that. Anyone who read Mein Kampf knew that. The Soviets were public enemy #1 to the Nazi party on racial AND ideological grounds (they called it Judeo-Bolshevism, for fuck's sake, how much clearer a message could they send?).

The Soviets tried to put together an anti-Nazi coalition throughout the 1930s. Nobody gave them the time of day. The British and French demurred. The Italians demurred (though only after they realized the British and French weren't on board - the Italians were ready to fight the Anschluss!) and later switched sides. In Spain, the main fighting was between Nazi-backed and Soviet-backed factions.

Only after trying and failing to set up some sort of containment did Stalin and Molotov cut a deal with the Germans - which they knew would be temporary at best, given the stated, published, and avowed goal of the Nazi party was to enslave their country. It was purely buying time. Both sides knew it.

Actually, Stalin was figuring on a little more time - he thought the Germans wouldn't be foolish enough to open a two-front war (like the last time), which is the main reason the Soviets were caught so flat-footed in places come Barbarossa.

Lets also remember the fact that Stalin's purges of the Soviet military had a huge role in the flat footed response. Had he not decapitated his own military command the Soviet death toll probably would have been a fraction of what it was.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
16-05-2013, 09:07 PM
Who defeated the Germans? The Soviet Union or the other allies?
I LOVE how the west now likes to say "Stalin signed a pact with hitler". Or some variation of the claim. This is a half truth BECAUSE EVERY WESTERN GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME WAS COZYING UP TO GERMANY AND GERMAN BUSINESSES.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 09:09 PM
Who defeated the Germans? The Soviet Union or the other allies?
(16-05-2013 12:19 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(16-05-2013 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Context, man. Context.

Hitler always planned to invade the east. Stalin and the rest of the Soviet leadership knew that. Anyone who read Mein Kampf knew that. The Soviets were public enemy #1 to the Nazi party on racial AND ideological grounds (they called it Judeo-Bolshevism, for fuck's sake, how much clearer a message could they send?).

The Soviets tried to put together an anti-Nazi coalition throughout the 1930s. Nobody gave them the time of day. The British and French demurred. The Italians demurred (though only after they realized the British and French weren't on board - the Italians were ready to fight the Anschluss!) and later switched sides. In Spain, the main fighting was between Nazi-backed and Soviet-backed factions.

Only after trying and failing to set up some sort of containment did Stalin and Molotov cut a deal with the Germans - which they knew would be temporary at best, given the stated, published, and avowed goal of the Nazi party was to enslave their country. It was purely buying time. Both sides knew it.

Actually, Stalin was figuring on a little more time - he thought the Germans wouldn't be foolish enough to open a two-front war (like the last time), which is the main reason the Soviets were caught so flat-footed in places come Barbarossa.

Lets also remember the fact that Stalin's purges of the Soviet military had a huge role in the flat footed response. Had he not decapitated his own military command the Soviet death toll probably would have been a fraction of what it was.

So you are saying the soviet military defeated the largest invasion ever with a dilapidated military. That makes the soviet military sound like se über powerful fighting machine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 09:30 PM
RE: Who defeated the Germans? The Soviet Union or the other allies?
(16-05-2013 09:09 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(16-05-2013 12:19 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Lets also remember the fact that Stalin's purges of the Soviet military had a huge role in the flat footed response. Had he not decapitated his own military command the Soviet death toll probably would have been a fraction of what it was.

So you are saying the soviet military defeated the largest invasion ever with a dilapidated military. That makes the soviet military sound like se über powerful fighting machine.

They had man power but no experienced leadership. That's possible why their casualties were so high. That and yes at the time Germany was throwing everything they had at the eastern front.

As for who beat the Nazi's its a combination of all the Allied nations since for a while it would have been entirely possible that the Nazi's could have won. They got outlasted and out resourced. The tipping point was when America armed the british and soviets (the lend-lease policy) meaning that the Nazi's couldn't bomb the Allies manufactoring base. Again not to take credit away from the Red Army without them holding the bulk of the German forces Brittain falls and that spells the end of western Europe.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 09:46 PM
RE: Who defeated the Germans? The Soviet Union or the other allies?
50,000 Shermans <-------1,500 Tigers & 5,000 Panthers -------> 60,000 T-34s (roughly, I know)
But Germany took France in weeks; took us months to take back. They were at the gates of Moscow in '41; took the Soviets till '45 to return the favor. The fact they held out as long as they did is impressive!! I have nothing but disgust for Nazi's, but those German soldiers were some bad ass warriors! I'm still convinced the biggest reason Germany lost that war, was Hitler's (some HUGE) tactical mistakes!!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 09:52 PM
RE: Who defeated the Germans? The Soviet Union or the other allies?
(16-05-2013 09:46 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  50,000 Shermans <-------1,500 Tigers & 5,000 Panthers -------> 60,000 T-34s (roughly, I know)
But Germany took France in weeks; took us months to take back. They were at the gates of Moscow in '41; took the Soviets till '45 to return the favor. The fact they held out as long as they did is impressive!! I have nothing but disgust for Nazi's, but those German soldiers were some bad ass warriors! I'm still convinced the biggest reason Germany lost that war, was Hitler's (some HUGE) tactical mistakes!!

Operation Barbarossa was the single stupidest military move in all of western history. Had Hitler waited to attack the Soviet Union until after he had finished the conquest of Britain history could be vastly different.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
17-05-2013, 08:35 AM
RE: Who defeated the Germans? The Soviet Union or the other allies?
(16-05-2013 09:09 PM)I and I Wrote:  So you are saying the soviet military defeated the largest invasion ever with a dilapidated military. That makes the soviet military sound like se über powerful fighting machine.

It wasn't dilapidated, it was badly led. But yes, the 1945 Soviet Red Army was probably the most dominant army of all time.

The Soviet KV-1 and KV-2 tanks - already on the front at the time of Barbarossa - were virtually indestructible to the German forces facing them. The Soviet pre-war army was more mechanized (the Germany army of 1917 had more vehicles per capita than the Germany army of 1941 !).

When they ended up broken, and out of fuel and ammo - due to surprised generals over their head, a slapdash logistics system, and disintegrating forces - they were irrelevant.

Kind of like the Konigstigers four years later...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2013, 08:43 AM
RE: Who defeated the Germans? The Soviet Union or the other allies?
(16-05-2013 09:52 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Operation Barbarossa was the single stupidest military move in all of western history. Had Hitler waited to attack the Soviet Union until after he had finished the conquest of Britain history could be vastly different.

But, "finishing" the conquest of Britain was something that was only ever going to happen in the wildest fantasies of the Nazi party leadership. The UK alone was a near-match for Germany, industrially; including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India (the first three fully committed to the war effort, the last almost as much so, given the desperation of Britain, and subsequent promise of independence as soon as the war ended), they far outweighed Germany even with the blasted, looted remains of continental industry added to its own.

The longer Barbarossa was delayed, the stronger the Soviet opposition would have been. The purges had peaked years ago, authority was shifting back from political commissars to career officers, the fortifications were being shifted from the old Byelorussian border to the newly re-annexed parts of Poland, training was being improved, new equipment was being rotated in...

If - somehow - the invasion had been delayed a year, the Germans would have had their clocks cleaned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2013, 08:54 AM
RE: Who defeated the Germans? The Soviet Union or the other allies?
(17-05-2013 08:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-05-2013 09:09 PM)I and I Wrote:  So you are saying the soviet military defeated the largest invasion ever with a dilapidated military. That makes the soviet military sound like se über powerful fighting machine.

It wasn't dilapidated, it was badly led. But yes, the 1945 Soviet Red Army was probably the most dominant army of all time.

The Soviet KV-1 and KV-2 tanks - already on the front at the time of Barbarossa - were virtually indestructible to the German forces facing them. The Soviet pre-war army was more mechanized (the Germany army of 1917 had more vehicles per capita than the Germany army of 1941 !).

When they ended up broken, and out of fuel and ammo - due to surprised generals over their head, a slapdash logistics system, and disintegrating forces - they were irrelevant.

Kind of like the Konigstigers four years later...

It's the t-34's that won it for the Soviets, not the KV's.
There were only 500 KV's. The Soviets could pump out t-34 after t-34 at insane rates. Despite the fact that the t-34 was weaker then most of the German tanks, certainly the panzer and tiger, it was the fact that there was so many that was key.
German Tiger tanks, the most powerful tank of ww2, could simply not be produced in mass by the Germans to keep up with demand.
The same with the Sherman, it was relatively shit compared to it's German counter-parts (it also had a bad habit of bursting into flames because it was run on petrol, not diesel in earlier versions), but the ease of which it could be produced was key to it's success.

Quote:Operation Barbarossa was the single stupidest military move in all of western history. Had Hitler waited to attack the Soviet Union until after he had finished the conquest of Britain history could be vastly different.

You don't give the pom's enough credit.
They had air and sea superiority. Hitler would have had an extremely difficult time launching an invasion force capable of invading the British homeland. We're talk Normandy invasion, but of Britain, minus air superiority and minus good naval support.
Hitler would have had the same issue (and to some degree did) as Napoleon. He simply could not cross the channel despite having the better land army.

Hitler would have had an army sitting on its ass doing nothing. Better to send it into Soviet Union while they are unprepared then to wait and send it in when the Soviets are ready and waiting.

Besides, had they not invaded the USSR then the war certainly would have dragged on and we would have seen more then 2 nuclear bombs dropped on axis forces during the war...
It would have been interesting to see how Hitlers miracle weapons and in particular the jet engine (on planes) would have turned the war around however.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2013, 09:05 AM
RE: Who defeated the Germans? The Soviet Union or the other allies?
(17-05-2013 08:54 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  It's the t-34's that won it for the Soviets, not the KV's.
There were only 500 KV's. The Soviets could pump out t-34 after t-34 at insane rates. Despite the fact that the t-34 was weaker then most of the German tanks, certainly the panzer and tiger, it was the fact that there was so many that was key.
German Tiger tanks, the most powerful tank of ww2, could simply not be produced in mass by the Germans to keep up with demand.
The same with the Sherman, it was relatively shit compared to it's German counter-parts (it also had a bad habit of bursting into flames because it was run on petrol, not diesel in earlier versions), but the ease of which it could be produced was key to it's success.

The KVs were dogshit by war's end. It's just that in June 1941 they completely outclassed anything the Germans could field - despite their crapulence.

The T34 wasn't even that great, either, or at least not until the gun and turret upgrades. Bad doctrine got them blown up by the thousands. The reason the T34 is trumpeted is that sure, it was destroyed by the thousands, but it was built by the tens of thousands.

It's that logistical superiority that won the war - well, so long as it was used for relatively (T-34 ~ PzIV, after all) equal stuff (ie not KVs and tankettes).

Oh, and I'd give the IS-2 and IS-3 about equal rating to a Tiger II. The M-26 Pershing was even better, but idiotic American inter-service politics kept it from almost all actual fighting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: