Did Russia win D-DAY?

[SerbPVO]

Did Russia win D-Day?

By Eric Margolis -- Contributing Foreign Editor


It certainly seems right that Russian President Vladimir Putin will be a guest of honour at the upcoming 60th anniversary celebrations of the Normandy landings.

It's high time Russia was accorded recognition for its role in the World War II defeat of National Socialist Germany and its Axis allies. Most North Americans believe the U.S.-British-Canadian landings at Normandy were the decisive stroke of the war. Not so, in my view.

When the Allies invaded France, most of the war-battered German units they met were undermanned, short of armour, trucks and heavy artillery, almost immobile, and reduced to 40% combat effectiveness by previous hard fighting on the Eastern Front.


Most important, Germany's once-splendid air force was almost extinct. German forces at Normandy had almost no air cover and were pounded day and night by thousands of Allied strike aircraft and bombers. Few recall that 15,000-20,000 French civilians in Normandy were killed by the Allied bombing campaign.

Germany's star commander, Marshal Erwin Rommel, was seriously wounded in a strafing attack. The Germans still put up fierce resistance against overwhelming odds, inflicting 209,000 casualties on the Allies and suffering 200,000 of their own. As Churchill observed, "You will never know war until you fight Germans."

Eastern Front did it

Still, I would argue the Wehrmacht was not defeated in France, but on the Eastern Front, during 1941-1944, by Stalin's murderous and bloodthirsty Soviet Union.

The Red Army claims to have destroyed 507 German divisions, 48,000 German tanks and 77,000 enemy aircraft; 100 divisions of Nazi-allied Romania, Hungary, and Italy; and at least 450,000 Japanese soldiers, 32% of Japan's total military losses.

Of Germany's 10 million casualties in WW II, 75% came fighting the Red Army. The Luftwaffe lost most of its warplanes and its best pilots in the East. Almost all German military production went to supplying the 1,600-km Eastern Front, where elite German forces were ground up in titanic battles involving millions of men.

Soviet forces lost upwards of 20 million casualties; total U.S. casualties (including the Pacific) were one million. To the Russians, D-Day was mainly a diversionary sideshow to tie down German troops while the Red Army pushed on to Berlin.

Some may dispute this, but there's little doubt the Soviets destroyed most of Germany's military capability well before June, 1944. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if Hitler had not invaded the U.S.S.R., and if the Allies would then have landed in Normandy to face intact German forces with air cover.

My own view: The Allies would have been beaten.

All those Allies

So Russia's Putin certainly merits an invitation to Normandy, though I say so reluctantly because of Moscow's frightful human rights violations against the oppressed Chechens.

But what about German Chancellor Schroeder? A bit odd, no, Germans celebrating a German defeat? Schroeder claims Germans were also victims of Nazism, and so should fete its defeat. That seems a stretch.

Mind you, Schroeder, a deft, intelligent politician, is only doing what former wartime Nazi allies Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Finland and Romania have managed to do: Totally escape their pro-German wartime role and, through the magic of doubletalk, emerge as "Allies." Call it Euroamnesia.

I recently saw a plaque in Italy lauding the liberation of a town from the Germans by "Italian Allied forces." Excuse me. I always believed Italy was on the German side.

It makes you wonder just who was fighting against the Allies? Everyone seems to have been either anti-Nazi, in the Resistance, or vacationing in South America at the time.

Whatever, the war is long over and today's Germans bear no responsibility or guilt for such long-ago events. Let them join the party. Maybe we'll even see a smiling Japanese delegation at Pearl Harbor next year.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/05/30/478893.html

[scm77]

That guys a ****. Every time I read his column in the Sunday paper all he writes about is how bad Bush is. I guess now he's run out of ways to bash the present america, so he has to bash america sixty years ago.

Total douche-bag. :bash:

[seruriermarshal]

That guys is a sh*t !

:bash:

[SerbPVO]

Totally true, but you can't really argue with the article. I think he's right about this.

By the way, this fella(Eric Margolis), when he's not bashing Bush & Co, is a total Russo-phobe and Serb-hater. You should have read his articles during the Kosovo war in my country, back in 1999. What a moron.

Peter Worthington is the best columnist at the SUN, in my honest opinion.

[MARINO]

If germany, hadn't fought with Russia, the war would have been more difficult for allies. And for GB.

[G1]

If germany, hadn't fought with Russia, the war would have been more difficult for allies. And for GB.

I think vice-versa. The Soviets were obviously the decisive force against Nazi Germany, it's just great that the Allies were in the way to stop the Sovs from "liberating" Western Europe.

[cut]

We all won WWII the Russian couldn't have won it single handed anymore then the US or the British Empire

[MARINO]

If germany, hadn't fought with Russia, the war would have been more difficult for allies. And for GB.

I think vice-versa. The Soviets were obviously the decisive force against Nazi Germany, it's just great that the Allies were in the way to stop the Sovs from "liberating" Western Europe.
It's also truen. Anyway it was a big mistake, left Berlin to soviets.

[Salty Dog]

We all won WWII the Russian couldn't have won it single handed anymore then the US or the British Empire

you are correct.

[Operation Ivy]

We all won WWII the Russian couldn't have won it single handed anymore then the US or the British Empire

Thank You

Thead now over :D

[cut]

Except you can't really say the Germans won it. They had a loose-loose situation going on then.

[admar2]

that guy can eat a bag of hell
:fork:

[scm77]

Yes he can. You should check out his website and read some of his past columns.

I think it's http://www.ericmargolis.com something like that.

POST 1000!!! woot woot woot woot woot

[usa320]

point of the got being a douche aside...

Russia wouldnt have won without D-Day, and we wouldnt have won without Russia. The strategy to win required that we take germany on both east and western fronts.

[Marmot1]

Rusia would winn without D-Day.. actually D-day saved your EU asses from speaking russian in school like it happened to some countries on east... D-Day also saved a score of german soldiers since most of those captured as POWs by alies were released just after war.. and those captured by russia were released in 50's (well those who survived siberia).

D-Day actualy saved your countries not from germany but from russian ocupation....

[Russian Texan]

Russia wouldnt have won without D-Day, and we wouldnt have won without Russia. The strategy to win required that we take germany on both east and western fronts.

As some German general said: Germany lost the moment its tanks crossed SU border...

Lend lease was much more significant contribution then D-Day.

By the time D-Day happened, Russia was fighting germans outside its territory.
The only reason D-Day was given a "go" - to prevent USSR from "liberating" the rest of the Europe.
If US and UK really wanted to help Russia, D-Day would have happened in 1942, when Stalin have asked for it...

[UkrainianAmerican]

Rusia would winn without D-Day.. actually D-day saved your EU asses from speaking russian in school like it happened to some countries on east... D-Day also saved a score of german soldiers since most of those captured as POWs by alies were released just after war.. and those captured by russia were released in 50's (well those who survived siberia).

D-Day actualy saved your countries not from germany but from russian ocupation....
AWWWWW ****!!!
I agree! rofl

[dez000]

Rusia would winn without D-Day.. actually D-day saved your EU asses from speaking russian in school like it happened to some countries on east... D-Day also saved a score of german soldiers since most of those captured as POWs by alies were released just after war.. and those captured by russia were released in 50's (well those who survived siberia).

D-Day actualy saved your countries not from germany but from russian ocupation....

You EU asses? Did any member of the EU say something bad about the US during the course of this thread?

[Midav]

Some may dispute this, but there's little doubt the Soviets destroyed most of Germany's military capability well before June, 1944. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if Hitler had not invaded the U.S.S.R., and if the Allies would then have landed in Normandy to face intact German forces with air cover.

I'd like to have seen that, plus seeing no war with Japan thus enabling the US/Allies to focus all their power on Normandy.

[mack pl]

Rusia would winn without D-Day.. actually D-day saved your EU asses from speaking russian in school like it happened to some countries on east... D-Day also saved a score of german soldiers since most of those captured as POWs by alies were released just after war.. and those captured by russia were released in 50's (well those who survived siberia).

D-Day actualy saved your countries not from germany but from russian ocupation....

You EU asses? Did any member of the EU say something bad about the US during the course of this thread?

Marmot+Russia+EU+USA=A lot of problems p-)

[Operation Ivy]

Rusia would winn without D-Day.. actually D-day saved your EU asses from speaking russian in school like it happened to some countries on east... D-Day also saved a score of german soldiers since most of those captured as POWs by alies were released just after war.. and those captured by russia were released in 50's (well those who survived siberia).

D-Day actualy saved your countries not from germany but from russian ocupation....

You EU asses? Did any member of the EU say something bad about the US during the course of this thread?

Hes from Poland ;)

[mack pl]

Rusia would winn without D-Day.. actually D-day saved your EU asses from speaking russian in school like it happened to some countries on east... D-Day also saved a score of german soldiers since most of those captured as POWs by alies were released just after war.. and those captured by russia were released in 50's (well those who survived siberia).

D-Day actualy saved your countries not from germany but from russian ocupation....

You EU asses? Did any member of the EU say something bad about the US during the course of this thread?

Hes from Poland ;)

hahaha,yes, but maybe for this guy, Poland is 51st state of USA ;) :lol:

[Vance]

Russia wouldnt have won without D-Day, and we wouldnt have won without Russia. The strategy to win required that we take germany on both east and western fronts.

As some German general said: Germany lost the moment its tanks crossed SU border...

Lend lease was much more significant contribution then D-Day.

By the time D-Day happened, Russia was fighting germans outside its territory.
The only reason D-Day was given a "go" - to prevent USSR from "liberating" the rest of the Europe.
If US and UK really wanted to help Russia, D-Day would have happened in 1942, when Stalin have asked for it...
And launched an assault almost unplanned and with men that were poorly trained for an invasion. :roll: Yeah I'm sure that would have been a success.

[MEGR]

We all won WWII the Russian couldn't have won it single handed anymore then the US or the British Empire

I agree with this.

[Midav]

Yup.

A lot of factors there.

[DE_Six]

We all won WWII the Russian couldn't have won it single handed anymore then the US or the British Empire

True. And it should be the final word of this thread.

[2RHPZ]

Rusia would winn without D-Day.. actually D-day saved your EU asses from speaking russian in school like it happened to some countries on east... D-Day also saved a score of german soldiers since most of those captured as POWs by alies were released just after war.. and those captured by russia were released in 50's (well those who survived siberia).

D-Day actualy saved your countries not from germany but from russian ocupation....

:roll: None from the West cannot understand this, unfortunatelly. Sometimes I wish this liberal scum from overthere experienced that! BTW, we have pretty nice joke about the end of WW II.

"Do you know what was the biggest mistake of the end of WW II? That General Patton could not advance to the East!"

[SerbPVO]

General Zhukov would have crushed him.

[Midav]

General Zhukov would have crushed him.

My daddy is bigger than your daddy!

Meet one Serb, you've met them all.

Food for thought ;)

[ZeroPositive]

I think it was a joint effort more than anything else.

[The Walrus]

Russia definetaly deserves more recognition for it's role in WW2, Russia by far did more than all the other allies put together in combatting and defeating the Nazis. I don't remember this straight but on the western front Germany had something like 10-20 divisions dealing with the Americans/Britons, on the Eastern front it was somewhere in the 200's region.

[Midav]

Why should a soldier from one nation deserve more recognition than his equal from another in fighting the same enemy?

Did the Soviet Union do a lot? Yes they did.

Did they lose millions? Yes they did.

Should that be recognized? Of course it should be.

Only a fool would say anything otherwise.

However, when it actually comes down to the guys fighting, they all deserve equal recognition.

Was Stalingrad a harsh slaughter? Yup.

Was the Huertgenwald a harsh slaughter? Yup.

However, I dare anyone here to tell anyone from the bloody bucket that the actions of the guys in Stalingrad deserve more recognition.

The same can be said for Battle of Britain and Midway....

[Vance]

Russia definetaly deserves more recognition for it's role in WW2, Russia by far did more than all the other allies put together in combatting and defeating the Nazis. I don't remember this straight but on the western front Germany had something like 10-20 divisions dealing with the Americans/Britons, on the Eastern front it was somewhere in the 200's region.
The ginourmous size of Russia might of had something to do with it. Europe was miniscule in comparison. Not taking anthing away from the Russian soldier, though...

[BlackRain]

As you can read by many of the posts here, the panty-waste columist achieved his goal.

He did not seek to congratulate veterans in their victory in WWII but to start division amongst allies.

Don't let this half-a-fag draw you into his bull****.

[Midav]

As you can read by many of the posts here, the panty-waste columist achieved his goal.

He did not seek to congratulate veterans in their victory in WWII but to start division amongst allies.

Don't let this half-a-fag draw you into his bull****.

Point taken!

[Bombtrack]

Yeah didnt Russia get alot of Lend-Lease supplies from the allies anyways? From Bazookas to Sherman tanks? What I'm getting it as that Everyone needed eachother to get the job done. Sure one can speculate that either side would have still won, although after much longer and with some unwanted "liberation" along the way, but theoretical arguments about history, especially in this case is a waste of time - everyone will just piss everyone else off. And that aging liberal hippie douchebag Margolis will get what he wants - (as was said) division & suspicion of allies.

[radon]

Politics aside I think people should have a realistic view on ww2. D-day was important but it wasnt the most important day of ww2. Western allies should not have the impression they mostly beat the nazis and saved people from speaking german but in reality russian.

[Kilgor]

The most important thing about the second allied front is that it saved alot of europe from soviet occupation, ie swapping one dictatorship for another.

Stalin's forces would have chased the remains of the nazis past Berlin and germany right to the edges of europe and quite possibly stayed there for a long time.

Yes soviet forces need to be more recognised for their contribution to ww2. 4/5 of german losses were on the eastern front, but without liberation from from the west, europe would have probably suffered more occupation.

[army cadet_ngcsu]

Although it is true that many German losses were caused by the Soviets, we cannot discount the American and British bombers that could penetrate into deep German territory all through out the war while the Soviets were not able to at certain times. The Anglo- American bombing campaign killed millions and destroyed untold amounts of war building materail and distracted many Luftwaffe assets. And let us not only forget the campaigns in North Africa and Italy. Although small in comparison to the Eastern Front, both served their purpose in halting the Nazis and killing them. And of coarse the Lend Lease programs contributed greatly to all American allies.

But overall, WW2 was not a singular effort, without one ally the other could not survive. The Soviets at one time needed our material and industrial help, what French and Polish troops that were able to escape the Nazis and fight another day needed British help in ferrying them to the Isles. The US needed Britian as a staging ground for the D Day landings and the British trained our Rangers with their Commandos and put alot of input into the planning of D Day.

[Brozozo]

Let's not forget that the Germans probably also inflicted more casualties on the Soviets then they did on the rest of the allies (put together?).

[Abbyy]

Marmot+Russia+EU+USA=A lot of problems p-)

Poland dudes + Russian dudes = definitely a lot of problems here :)

Peace! p-)

[stuntman]

Although I am the less knowledgeably of here wasn't it true we actually made it to Berlin quicker then the Soviets but because of there great loss and turn of events we honored them with entering Berlin first sort of like we did in Desert Storm?

[FallenAngel]

Although I am the less knowledgeably of here wasn't it true we actually made it to Berlin quicker then the Soviets but because of there great loss and turn of events we honored them with entering Berlin first sort of like we did in Desert Storm?

I think it's more geographical....The Russians had already pushed the Germans back into Poland by Jun 1944. They were closer to Berlin to begin with.

[Abbyy]

Although I am the less knowledgeably of here wasn't it true we actually made it to Berlin quicker then the Soviets but because of there great loss and turn of events we honored them with entering Berlin first sort of like we did in Desert Storm?

I'm not sure about it because of the price Soviet Army paid to take Berlin. There was very heavy resistance. I'd rather think that US decided to stay aside and save their soldiers lives.

Also Soviet Union paid a great price of human lives to save yours ones in Ardennes by starting unprepared offensive on the East after request of US command.

[OB Kenobi]

Totally true, but you can't really argue with the article. I think he's right about this.

By the way, this fella(Eric Margolis), when he's not bashing Bush & Co, is a total Russo-phobe and Serb-hater. You should have read his articles during the Kosovo war in my country, back in 1999. What a moron.

Then he is likely on the Demorat payroll. It is the same as the Fox News people, and the Neocons; they don't report news, they spread propaganda. I say **** them all.

As for why the Germans lost in Normandy, besides the obvious--fighting an impossible war--Hitler didn't listen to his greatest general, Irwin Rommel.

Rommel correctly predicted the site of the D-Day landings, Rommel correctly planned to bring in all the available Panzer divisions to cordone off the coastline rather than allow the Allies to advance inside Normandy's difficult territory. If Hitler had listened, the armor and firepower concentrated at the site of the landings would have eliminated the Allies before they even got off the beaches.

But, this still wouldn't make any difference. Even with Rommel's plan, the fact is those Panzer divisions would still be tied up in Normandy and could not be withdrawn to the Eastern Front again because there would be more D-Day landings. The Allies would also continue to bomb German industry, the result would eventually be the same, except maybe with the USSR capturing all of Germany.

[martinexsquaddie]

I think the red army lose points because the allies were bringing freedom all the red army brought was a diffrent flavour of tyranny :(
albeit with a slightly less genocidal bent
Plus there uniforms were not nearly as cool rofl

[Gordon]

Basically, from a tactical point of view, Hitler screwed up. He screwed up in the way that Napolean screwed up, except the major difference being, that Russia was Hitler's ally until he invaded. He really screwed up.

If Hitler had not opened up the Eastern Front, quite frankly .. stuff wouldn't be as it is now. It is his biggest screw up, along with the decision to bomb Brit cities as opposed to RAF airfields during the Battle of Britain.

Maybe someone wiser than me can tell me different, but if it was not for the Eastern front the D-Day landings would not have worked, that is not to say the allies would not have triumphed, but there was a large amount of pressure and resources given to the Russians, as has already been said in this thread.

People compare the kill count of Russians to Germans on the Eastern Front to those on the West. It is not proper. In the West there were less people to deal with, hence the army was smaller. In Russia the population was larger, the terrain was massive, larger than the whole of Europe. It sucked up resources, resources that the Germans had for a short, swift campaign ... a lightening campaign, but not a prolonged one, and not a winter one.

People have been saying, in this thread, that the US and others, though the US mainly, were providing the Russians with equipment. That is because it was imperative that the Russians could fight the Germans in the East, believe me, that was an integral tactic .... why do you think the allies spent so many people and resources running convoys to Murmansk, and other places. Those convoys had insane casualty rates.

All of those people, be they Russian, Polish, French, American, Yugoslavian, Belgium, British, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Dutch, Norweigian ... and all others that I didn't mention played a major part.

The historic fact is, and I may be wrong, that without the Eastern front, the Western Front and D-Day would not have been possible. Hitler, for some reason, decided that Russia was an enemy and he invaded .... the rest is history and the biggest cluster****, maybe second to Napolean, thats has occurred, militarily in recent times.

Please feel free to correct me.

[Abbyy]

Basically, from a tactical point of view, Hitler screwed up. He screwed up in the way that Napolean screwed up, except the major difference being, that Russia was Hitler's ally until he invaded. He really screwed up.


Technically they weren't allies since they didn't provide any kind of military support to each other. Official policy just was to consider Germany as friendly nation. This actually big difference comparing to being allies.

[radon]

Basically, from a tactical point of view, Hitler screwed up. He screwed up in the way that Napolean screwed up, except the major difference being, that Russia was Hitler's ally until he invaded. He really screwed up.

If Hitler had not opened up the Eastern Front, quite frankly .. stuff wouldn't be as it is now.

Hitler and the nazis had to make war to the east. It was part of nazi ideology. It was essential to nazis to go into the east. Nazis showed Wehrmacht generals plan to conquer the east already in the early-mid 1930s. Anyone who has read Hitlers book will see a attack to the east could only come.

Now something "less factual". Hitler wanted to get allied with the Russians so he wouldn't get stabbed in the back by west Europeans. First deal with the westerners then with Russians.
Stalin knew this , so Stalin plan was that nazis were fighting a war in the west so he could send his troops into the war tired west. Stalin did not get the chance for his backstab tactic , because nazis invaded first. In the east were already disorganized russians waiting for an invasion of Germany. If Hitler would not have attacked the east then the Russians would have.

edit: And Russians expansionalism would have existed even if Germany would have been a peaceful nation at the time. Stalin alone would have made a war in Europe.

[mi35d]

D-Day gets the glory, but what is forgotten is the fact that the US already HAD opened a second front in Europe a year before D-Day.

The Invasion of Italy in 1943 and the subsequent fight North was a harder won campaign than the fight across France but it gets glossed over by the fame of D-Day. The men who landed in France would fight for the next 11 months until VE day. Meanwhile, the guys who fought in Italy had previously fought in Africa and then would fight through the Hurtigen forest and THEN fight through the Battle of the Bulge.

These men deserve more recognition than they have recieved.

As for the Allies/Russia debate, yes, Russia deserves a great deal of credit. Yet, the constant attacks by air and sea by the Allies before D-Day must be considered. Germany lost critical supply routes via Allied Seapower and her factories were consistantly pummelled by Allied Air Power. The drain on resources can't be underestimated.

[Marmot1]

Basically, from a tactical point of view, Hitler screwed up. He screwed up in the way that Napolean screwed up, except the major difference being, that Russia was Hitler's ally until he invaded. He really screwed up.


Technically they weren't allies since they didn't provide any kind of military support to each other. Official policy just was to consider Germany as friendly nation. This actually big difference comparing to being allies.

Wrong..... german units trained in SU before war, mainly panzer units were trained in 30's on ukraine since germans were forbiden to have tanks so all large manevres were performed on ukraine also test of new equipment etc.... there was a lot of comon training before war and at the end of August 1939 there was Libentrop-Molotov Treaty which divided influence zones in europe and under this treaty Germany and SU divided Poland...

[Sabre]

Lads, please don't confuse the issue.

WW2 is still a very emotive subject, especially amongst those who know something of war (ie: us).

But let's not confuse our regard for the sacrifice made by each individual in that war with patriotic boasting.


Why should a soldier from one nation deserve more recognition than his equal from another in fighting the same enemy?

Did the Soviet Union do a lot? Yes they did.

Did they lose millions? Yes they did.

Should that be recognized? Of course it should be.

Only a fool would say anything otherwise.

However, when it actually comes down to the guys fighting, they all deserve equal recognition.

Was Stalingrad a harsh slaughter? Yup.

Was the Huertgenwald a harsh slaughter? Yup.

However, I dare anyone here to tell anyone from the bloody bucket that the actions of the guys in Stalingrad deserve more recognition.

The same can be said for Battle of Britain and Midway....

I think that sums it up.

I think that the USSR would have been able to push the germans back to the channel. By 1944, the Red Army was a battle-hardened organisation with top-class equipment, good air-ground support and sound, modern tactics (miles away from the costly 'suicide charges' of 1941). One only needs to read about the massive advances through eastern europe of that time to get a feel of the proficiency of the russian troops (in river crossings, open armoured warfare, urban warfare...) Once the german fatherland had been overrun, the remaining units in France and the low countries (depleted and poorly equipped as they were) could never have held out long. Of course, the losses on all sides (russian, german and civillian) would have been very high.

That is simply a testimony to the determination of the russian soldier and the skill of his commanders. It doesn't cast aspertions on the skill or courage of his western ally, who successfully effected the landings in Normandy and pushed tenaciously through to the Elbe.

The point raised is that the amazing success of that invasion of June 6th 1944 would have been far harder to achieve had the considerable 'front-line quality' troops and armour/arty/air cover that was tied up in the East been present along the coast of France. After all, it can't be argued that having possibly up to 1 million more men of high quality training and equipment in the area would have made it easier. Not to mention that the focus of the german high command would have been solely on the defence of coast.

[RomanS]

If Patton would of invaded Russia after WW2, this would be the end of USA's presence in Europe. USA would of lost all they had there.

People keep forgeting the major invention for the war that came from Russia

the AK-47 in 1947

US troops with Tommy guns, and Garands would be no match for the AK-47s.
Plus with other great Soviet military hardware coming out just couple of years after the WW2, US would of lost that war pretty damn fast.

[Kilgor]

But... the US had the bomb

[RomanS]

But... the US had the bomb

so did we ;)
shortly after

[StukaJr]

US had the bomb but did not have the means to produce them nearly as fast - basically, the "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were the only bombs available at the time and those were used as a show of force against Japan. So in 1946 - the Soviets' nuclear arsenal would be equal to that of the US - as in zero for both sides. Also, the bomb was effective against Japan as US had its major cities within reach of its bombers and complete air superiority. To deliver nuclear payload anywhere in USSR, bombers would have to fly through a lot less welcoming air power and AAA cover, not to mention that most of the front line troops would be stationed in Europe and armed with better machines.

Also one has to remember that Soviet Union moved most of its production to and beyond Ural mountains, making soviet war production out of reach of Allied bombers. In late 40's, most of the strategic military targets were out of reach of US, pretty much...

True, Soviets introduced a lot of new weapons at the closing days of WWII - more than AK47, one should remember the new fleet of Joseph Stalin III tanks... JSIII tanks were far more superior to any tank that either Axis or Allies had at the time and would stay so at least for the next decade. Quantity of JSIII tanks were significant in 1945 though it's quiestionable if they actually took part in any of the military actions of the WWII...

[Durandal]

Some may dispute this, but there's little doubt the Soviets destroyed most of Germany's military capability well before June, 1944. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if Hitler had not invaded the U.S.S.R., and if the Allies would then have landed in Normandy to face intact German forces with air cover.

My own view: The Allies would have been beaten.


What a joke. The United States would have simply waited and bombed them into submission.

The United States and England were both doing something neither Germany OR Russia could do...strategic bombing.

Let's not forget the A-Bomb...

If Russia were NOT involved, Berlin would have been a glowing pile of rubble.

Sure Russia took on the brunt of the military ground forces from Germany, but its not like the other Allies waded through C rated formations of old men and young boys...in '45 that may have been true but not on D-Day. We were fighting three fronts simultaneously while Russia (keep in mind the Russians did not focus on Japan till AFTER Germany was defeated) dealt with Germany.

Not to mention the VAST amount of lend lease that was given to the Soviets while they were relocating their factories. Ford, Dodge, and GM were JUST as important on the Eastern front as the were on the West...

Let us also not forget that a large portion of the Luftwaffe was erased during the ill fated "Battle of Britain" air campaign. Many of the veterans of France and Poland were lost in this campaign (This dude needs to read some Williamson Murray).

Lastly, if America needed it, they could have raised enough Divisions to deal with Germany. Period.

The Allies (at least the ones NOT bent of world domination) would have waded ashore under their air supremacy, oceans controlled, and victory inevitable.

And lets not forget the greatest ally for the Allies...Hitler (dude was nuts and made HORRIBLE decisions for his commanders).

I hate this revisionist crap...

[Kilgor]

But... the US had the bomb

so did we ;)
shortly after

care to admit where you "liberated" the plans from ?

Soviets didnt even have a word for implosion :P

[Durandal]

Nor did they have a bomber to reach Washington, D.C.

rofl

9 Bombs and WINGS of B-29s that the Russians could not touch...ALL before the Russians could ever get a successful A-Bomb test...

[Kilgor]

Aircraft like the Pe-8 were quite inferrior compared to the B-29, one of the most expensive, effective and complicated aircraft to come out of the war.

and russian fighters were designed for low attitude combat, escort fighters like the mustang and jug would have cleared the skys for the b-29

[RomanS]

We're not saying Soviets could of reached Washington or not. We are saying -

if Patton kept on going East liek he wanted, this would be the end for USA in Europe.

[EvanL]

We're not saying Soviets could of reached Washington or not. We are saying -

if Patton kept on going East liek he wanted, this would be the end for USA in Europe.
The soviets couldnt have kept up with production like the U.S. and Allies could have.
There factories would be attacked and it would slow production. the U.S. on the otherhand has factories thousands of miles away.

[RomanS]

We're not saying Soviets could of reached Washington or not. We are saying -

if Patton kept on going East liek he wanted, this would be the end for USA in Europe.
The soviets couldnt have kept up with production like the U.S. and Allies could have.
There factories would be attacked and it would slow production. the U.S. on the otherhand has factories thousands of miles away.


You mean just like Hitler atacked all the factories in Russia when the war started?

Oh he tried, accept his planes couldnt even get close to IZHMASH, TULA, KURGANMASH, MOLOT

USA's planes would be shot down with Russian AAA. Which were the best during that time.

[Durandal]

We are saying -

if Patton kept on going East liek he wanted, this would be the end for USA in Europe.

Well, my opinion here...

I have to weight the cost in lives of Americans AND Europeans

vs.

Freedom from oppression for all of Eastern Europe under a Soviet bootheal (how many perished under hardline Soviet occupational rule?) AND a much better economic situation rather than playing catch-up with the rest of Europe.

Patton could have done it and you would have seen three or four Russian cities and a couple Shock Army Groups vanish into atoms...the factories in the Urals would have no longer existed and no major Russian city would have been left standing.

Swaggering bravado does little to ovecome reality.

I do not like locking horns with you man, but on this one I disagree with you completely.

[RomanS]

We're not saying Soviets could of reached Washington or not. We are saying -

if Patton kept on going East liek he wanted, this would be the end for USA in Europe.
The soviets couldnt have kept up with production like the U.S. and Allies could have.
There factories would be attacked and it would slow production. the U.S. on the otherhand has factories thousands of miles away.

ANother thing you forget, US would have to bring their equipment and men over the ocean. Russian submarines were some of the best towards the end of WW2.

Arguying can go on for a long time. But it is simple to understand, and hard to admit. US would never win over Russia in a conventional war.
Bigger generals, strategists, and more serious people know it.
;)

[EvanL]

We're not saying Soviets could of reached Washington or not. We are saying -

if Patton kept on going East liek he wanted, this would be the end for USA in Europe.
The soviets couldnt have kept up with production like the U.S. and Allies could have.
There factories would be attacked and it would slow production. the U.S. on the otherhand has factories thousands of miles away.

ANother thing you forget, US would have to bring their equipment and men over the ocean. Russian submarines were some of the best towards the end of WW2.

Arguying can go on for a long time. But it is simple to understand, and hard to admit. US would never win over Russia in a conventional war.
Bigger generals, strategists, and more serious people know it.
;)
The U.S. had and has more allies than the USSR did.
Most of their equiptment was already there. And with the U.S./Canadian patrols in the Atlantic. The Soviets would not have been able to attack convoys to the extent that the U-Boats managed to.

[RomanS]

We are saying -

if Patton kept on going East liek he wanted, this would be the end for USA in Europe.

Well, my opinion here...

I have to weight the cost in lives of Americans AND Europeans

vs.

Freedom from oppression for all of Eastern Europe under a Soviet bootheal (how many perished under hardline Soviet occupational rule?) AND a much better economic situation rather than playing catch-up with the rest of Europe.

Patton could have done it and you would have seen three or four Russian cities and a couple Shock Army Groups vanish into atoms...the factories in the Urals would have no longer existed and no major Russian city would have been left standing.

Swaggering bravado does little to ovecome reality.

I do not like locking horns with you man, but on this one I disagree with you completely.

So what you saying is Patton would of attacked Russia, and Russian forces would of sat there and watched our cities disapear, and our factories in Urals turn into dust.

Do you even think about what you are saying?

History tells no lies.

No country on the planet can take Russia ever.

Big leaders, bigger armies tried it and were defeated. And that when Russians weren't pissed that much. Ask any Russian, what happens to things and places, and people, and countries if Russians are pissed.

[RomanS]

We're not saying Soviets could of reached Washington or not. We are saying -

if Patton kept on going East liek he wanted, this would be the end for USA in Europe.
The soviets couldnt have kept up with production like the U.S. and Allies could have.
There factories would be attacked and it would slow production. the U.S. on the otherhand has factories thousands of miles away.

ANother thing you forget, US would have to bring their equipment and men over the ocean. Russian submarines were some of the best towards the end of WW2.

Arguying can go on for a long time. But it is simple to understand, and hard to admit. US would never win over Russia in a conventional war.
Bigger generals, strategists, and more serious people know it.
;)
The U.S. had and has more allies than the USSR did.
Most of their equiptment was already there. And with the U.S./Canadian patrols in the Atlantic. The Soviets would not have been able to attack convoys to the extent that the U-Boats managed to.

What allies? The ones that were tired, didnt want to fight anymore, and raised many many white flags when Germans whooped them at the begining. The casualties of WW2 brought a lot more pride to the Russians, and the younger generation were ready to tear anyone apart who would dare to come to us.

[EvanL]

We're not saying Soviets could of reached Washington or not. We are saying -

if Patton kept on going East liek he wanted, this would be the end for USA in Europe.
The soviets couldnt have kept up with production like the U.S. and Allies could have.
There factories would be attacked and it would slow production. the U.S. on the otherhand has factories thousands of miles away.

ANother thing you forget, US would have to bring their equipment and men over the ocean. Russian submarines were some of the best towards the end of WW2.

Arguying can go on for a long time. But it is simple to understand, and hard to admit. US would never win over Russia in a conventional war.
Bigger generals, strategists, and more serious people know it.
;)
The U.S. had and has more allies than the USSR did.
Most of their equiptment was already there. And with the U.S./Canadian patrols in the Atlantic. The Soviets would not have been able to attack convoys to the extent that the U-Boats managed to.

What allies? The ones that were tired, didnt want to fight anymore, and raised many many white flags when Germans whooped them at the begining. The casualties of WW2 brought a lot more pride to the Russians, and the younger generation were ready to tear anyone apart who would dare to come to us.
I guess you have made your point clear.
Russia is the greatest. We should all kneel down and kiss their hobbit feet.
In no way would it ever be possible to defeat Russia. They are just too mighty and powerful. I mean its not like there soldiers were ever shot for retreating and fed horrible food. they were all willing to die for Stalin and his chronies right?
I understand Permskii.

[RomanS]

We're not saying Soviets could of reached Washington or not. We are saying -

if Patton kept on going East liek he wanted, this would be the end for USA in Europe.
The soviets couldnt have kept up with production like the U.S. and Allies could have.
There factories would be attacked and it would slow production. the U.S. on the otherhand has factories thousands of miles away.

ANother thing you forget, US would have to bring their equipment and men over the ocean. Russian submarines were some of the best towards the end of WW2.

Arguying can go on for a long time. But it is simple to understand, and hard to admit. US would never win over Russia in a conventional war.
Bigger generals, strategists, and more serious people know it.
;)
The U.S. had and has more allies than the USSR did.
Most of their equiptment was already there. And with the U.S./Canadian patrols in the Atlantic. The Soviets would not have been able to attack convoys to the extent that the U-Boats managed to.

What allies? The ones that were tired, didnt want to fight anymore, and raised many many white flags when Germans whooped them at the begining. The casualties of WW2 brought a lot more pride to the Russians, and the younger generation were ready to tear anyone apart who would dare to come to us.
I guess you have made your point clear.
Russia is the greatest. We should all kneel down and kiss their hobbit feet.
In no way would it ever be possible to defeat Russia. They are just too mighty and powerful. I mean its not like there soldiers were ever shot for retreating and fed horrible food. they were all willing to die for Stalin and his chronies right?
I understand Permskii.

Take it how you want it buddy. Above is your conclusion, not mine.

For me its easier to understand my history, military, strategy and mentality. I lived there for many years, and spent quality time around military staff. I think I also know my people and soldiers more than you.

And since I'm in the States at the moment, I learned US history as much as I could, this way I know something about both sides.

Russia is the greatest for me. Canada is the greatest for you. I never say anything bad about either. But I am not the only one that can tell you Russia can't be defeated on her soil. I'm just one of a million who thinks that.

I guess you can call us insane, crazy, whatever...
But we are as big of a patriots as Americans. That what makes the 2 countries GREAT.

[Durandal]

Do you even think about what you are saying?

Yes, I KNOW what I am saying. It is a matter of morality. Is an extension of World War II between Soviets and the U.S. worth it?

The MORAL answer is yes. To some degree. Eastern Europe SUFFERED under Soviet occupation.

But would Eatern Europe want to live through what they had in 1944 and 45? Probably not...then again, who knows?

The argument isn't about INVADING Russia, there would be no reason to. Just kicking it out of Europe and the cost involved. The United States winning it is not even a matter of argument. In a blink of eye and three months you would have had a bombing campaign that would have eliminated more Soviet divisions and army groups than all of World War II combined, reduced a majority of Soviet industries, and razed Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad. Russia could not afford to lose another 40, or hell, maybe even 60 or 80 million people.

It would not have been conventional. It would be nukes and B-29s with a Navy and three Marine Divisions in the Black Sea...

That is IF we decided to keep going.

The question is not IF we could (that is a given) but IF it would have benefited the people that suffered under the Soviet rule following World War 2.

[EvanL]

We're not saying Soviets could of reached Washington or not. We are saying -

if Patton kept on going East liek he wanted, this would be the end for USA in Europe.
The soviets couldnt have kept up with production like the U.S. and Allies could have.
There factories would be attacked and it would slow production. the U.S. on the otherhand has factories thousands of miles away.

ANother thing you forget, US would have to bring their equipment and men over the ocean. Russian submarines were some of the best towards the end of WW2.

Arguying can go on for a long time. But it is simple to understand, and hard to admit. US would never win over Russia in a conventional war.
Bigger generals, strategists, and more serious people know it.
;)
The U.S. had and has more allies than the USSR did.
Most of their equiptment was already there. And with the U.S./Canadian patrols in the Atlantic. The Soviets would not have been able to attack convoys to the extent that the U-Boats managed to.

What allies? The ones that were tired, didnt want to fight anymore, and raised many many white flags when Germans whooped them at the begining. The casualties of WW2 brought a lot more pride to the Russians, and the younger generation were ready to tear anyone apart who would dare to come to us.
I guess you have made your point clear.
Russia is the greatest. We should all kneel down and kiss their hobbit feet.
In no way would it ever be possible to defeat Russia. They are just too mighty and powerful. I mean its not like there soldiers were ever shot for retreating and fed horrible food. they were all willing to die for Stalin and his chronies right?
I understand Permskii.

Take it how you want it buddy. Above is your conclusion, not mine.

For me its easier to understand my history, military, strategy and mentality. I lived there for many years, and spent quality time around military staff. I think I also know my people and soldiers more than you.

And since I'm in the States at the moment, I learned US history as much as I could, this way I know something about both sides.

Russia is the greatest for me. Canada is the greatest for you. I never say anything bad about either. But I am not the only one that can tell you Russia can't be defeated on her soil. I'm just one of a million who thinks that.

I guess you can call us insane, crazy, whatever...
But we are as big of a patriots as Americans. That what makes the 2 countries GREAT.
Were not talking about today.
Were talking about during WW2. I hardly think Russians were very patriotic under the Soviet Regime.

[RomanS]

The argument isn't about INVADING Russia, there would be no reason to. Just kicking it out of Europe and the cost involved. The United States winning it is not even a matter of argument. In a blink of eye and three months you would have had a bombing campaign that would have eliminated more Soviet divisions and army groups than all of World War II combined, reduced a majority of Soviet industries, and razed Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad. Russia could not afford to lose another 40, or hell, maybe even 60 or 80 million people.

It would not have been conventional. It would be nukes and B-29s with a Navy and three Marine Divisions in the Black Sea...

That is IF we decided to keep going.

The question is not IF we could (that is a given) but IF it would have benefited the people that suffered under the Soviet rule following World War 2



interesting

US would not be as dedicated to fight Russians as they were fighting Nazis. US soldier's morale would be much different fighting against Soviet Union. Nazis atacked US, so there was a payback coming. But this would turn for US into Korea and Vietnam times 10000. That war would quickly become very unpopular, and the parents of the soldiers would not like their sons coming back in body bags (lots of them).

I learned from history that if you attack Russia, Russians often turn into crazier "jihadists type". We wouldnt give a **** about dying, we would be dying for Russia. What would US soldiers be dying for? Pushing Russia away from non-US teritory ?

[RomanS]

It would not have been conventional. It would be nukes and B-29s with a Navy and three Marine Divisions in the Black Sea...

Durandal, how much do you know about Russian Naval Infantry of Black and Caspian Seas? Do you know what kind of things they did when they fought Germans?

I wonder why in US they didnt teach you history about Eastern Front, and Russian heroes. Im sure I have a clue..

[Kilgor]

I learned from history that if you attack Russia, Russians often turn into crazier "jihadists type". We wouldnt give a **** about dying, we would be dying for Russia. What would US soldiers be dying for? Pushing Russia away from non-US teritory ?

When a comisar is ready to blow your brains out if you take "not one step back" courage is either chosing between german machine guns or your own.

[StukaJr]

"Cold War" happened for a reason... With the exception of few hardheads like Patton and McArthur (thank god nobody listened to those fools) - people had enough fighting and would rather settle for uneasy peace than an all out war with a brand new enemy... I won't even bother to respond to how riduculous "3 month campaign" sounds or how little base on reality of things it has. Nor the B-29 and Nukes comment - it took years until US had the next singular nuclear bomb ready and by then Soviets had made their own nuclear test debut... Raizing Stalingrad and Leningrad - those cities were rubble by then and still the deffense went on... Neither Moscow, nor Stalingrad are in the range of a B-29 - get off the rock! Bling Bling!

I can't belive you people don't get the whole point of Lend-Lease! I don't see words like "freebies", "free" or "give away" in the phrase - Lend-Lease. Since the Soviets never gave anything back, with the exception of few bombers, ditched en-route from Japan - US were still hoping to get paid for the aid once the war was over. Perhaps, that could be a good reason why Roosevelt worked so hard to appease Stalin in making sure that Soviets got away with most war booty.

What's really funny - Lend-Lease basically meant that Soviets had great number of the latest and greatest US technology, knew its capabilities and weaknesses. While US didn't have many (or any) of the Soviet armaments. Kinda

The truth is - the US army went lax right after the war, demilitarized most of its army soon after and chose to scrap most of its equipment together with tactics - in exchange for riding out the economical boom the war has created... Great Britain and France had more pressing matters - like trying to salvage their old empires and try to recapture their old colonies... I doubt picking another fight was in anybody's right mind.

[Russian Texan]

People, can you read or you are just hopelessly dumb?

US had nothing that could have even reached/touched Russian production facilities. If you can't read, look at the map.

I know that from childhood you have heard about America's industrial giant, well guess what - SU production capabilities were no less, just look at its wartime production numbers. What's even more impressive - all of that harware was produced by the relocated factories built under the open sky.

Patton was a joke and an asshole, US need's a wartime hero - we give you Patton. I just don't get it, the man is praised for "beating" Rommel who run out of gas and ammunition...
Patton also didn't have the experience to challenge soviet generals. If Patton, in some insanity stupor, decided to attack soviet troops, he would be outclassed (and that is a very weak word for it) on every level by the Zhukov and Co.

Let me chew it up for you:
Leadership - SU
Tanks - SU had T34 and JS series, while US couldn't come up during the entire war with anything better than the Sherman
Artillery - SU's trademark
Airforce - SU had excellent fighters and ground attack and pilots with 4 years of experience vs Germany's best.
Quality of soldiers - nothing wrong with US grunts but again, soviet troops fought Germany's best for 4 years, while US mostly dealt with the "rotational divisions".

At the end of the war there was a "skirmish" between advancing soviet and american troops, it is a very little known fact but it did happen nevertheless: Soviet troops mistook Americans for Germans. Italians, Romanians or someone else, engaged the enemy and pushed 15 miles into the US controlled territory before someone in HQ said: "Oh sh*t" and ordered to pull back.

To sum it all up, Patton and his forces would be annihilated if he decided to proceed with his insane plan. SU had everything going for them: equipment, experience on the very basic level and quality leadership (read up on eastern front operations - you'll be impressed).

In 1945 US had only two "A" bombs, so what exactly would they use it on :roll: : all of the Russian cities were already in ruins...
Fleet of bombers.... look up the number and type of aircraft SU had at the end of WW2.

In short, US attacks - SU "liberates" the rest of the Europe, and US has to deal with Japan all by herself...

[Russian Texan]

When a comisar is ready to blow your brains out if you take "not one step back" courage is either chosing between german machine guns or your own.
:roll:
What a load of BS!

You have watched "Enemy at the gates" just a tad too many times..
You know, Hollywood has a tendency to eggagerate, really..

Penal battalions (criminals) are the only ones who had NKVD troops "watching their backs".

[Kilgor]

No, I knew of not one step back before enemy at the gates.

Stalins famous directive, which was followed to the exact letter.





ORDER #227 BY THE PEOPLE’S COMMISSAR OF DEFENCE OF THE USSR

Moscow, 28 July1942


The enemy feeds more and more resources to the front, and, paying no attention to losses, moves on, penetrates deeper into the Soviet Union, captures new areas, devastates and plunders our cities and villages, rapes, kills and robs the Soviet people. The fighting goes on in Voronezh area, at Don, in the Southern Russia, at the gates of the North Caucasus. The German invaders are driving towards Stalingrad, towards Volga, and want to capture Kuban and the North Caucasus with their oil and bread riches at any price. The enemy has already captured Voroshilovgrad, Starobelsk, Rossosh, Kupyansk, Valuiki, Novocherkassk, Rostov on Don, half of Voronezh. Some units of the South front, following the panic-mongers, have abandoned Rostov and Novocherkassk without serious resistance and without order from Moscow, thus covering their banners with shame.

The people of our country, who treat the Red Army with love and respect, are now starting to be disappointed with it, lose faith in the Red Army, and many of them curse the Army for its fleeing to the east and leaving the population under German yoke.

Some unwise people at the front comfort themselves with arguments that we can continue the retreat to the east, as we have vast territories, a lot of soil, many people, and that we will always have abundance of bread. By these arguments they try to justify their shameful behaviour at the front. But all these arguments are fully false, faked and working for our enemies.

Every commander, every soldier and political officer have to realise that our resources are not infinite. The territory of the Soviet Union is not a wilderness, but people – workers, peasants, intelligentsia, our fathers and mothers, wives, brothers, children. Territory of USSR that has been captured by the enemy and which enemy is longing to capture is bread and other resources for the army and the civilians, iron and fuel for the industries, factories and plants that supply the military with hardware and ammo; this is also railroads. With loss of Ukraine, Belorussia, the Baltics, Donetsk basin and other areas we have lost vast territories, that means that we have lost many people, bread, metals, factories, and plants. We no longer have superiority over enemy in human resources and in bread supply. Continuation of retreat means to destroy us and also our Motherland. Every new piece of territory that we leave to the enemy will strengthen our enemy and weaken us, our defences, our Motherland.

This is why we have to eradicate the conversations that we can retreat without ending, that we have a lot of territory, that our country is great and rich, that we have a lot of population and we will always have enough bread. These conversations are false and harmful, as they weaken us and strengthen the enemy, for if we do not stop retreating, we will be left without bread, without fuel, without metals, without raw materials, without factories and plants, without railways.

The conclusion is that it is time to stop the retreat. Not a single step back! This should be our slogan from now.

We need to protect every strongpoint, every metre of Soviet soil stubbornly, till the last droplet of blood, grab every piece of our soil and defend it as long as it is possible. Our Motherland is going through hard times. We have to stop, and then throw back and destroy the enemy, whatever it might cost us. The Germans are not as strong as the panic-mongers say. They are stretching their strength to the limit. To withstand their blow now means to ensure victory in the future.

Can we stand and throw the enemy back toward west? Yes, we can, as our plants and factories in the rear areas are working perfectly and are supplying our army with more and more tanks, planes, artillery and mortars.

So what do we lack? We lack order and discipline in companies, regiments and divisions, in tank units, in the Air Force squadrons. This is our major drawback. We have to introduce the strictest order and strong discipline in our army, if we want to save the situation and defend our Motherland.

We can no longer tolerate commanders, commissars, and political officers, whose units leave their defences at will. We can no longer tolerate the fact that the commanders, commissars and political officers allow several cowards to run the show at the battlefield, that the panic-mongers carry away other soldiers in their retreat and open the way to the enemy. Panic-mongers and cowards are to be exterminated at the site.

From now on the iron law of discipline for every officer, soldier, political officer should be – not a single step back without order from higher command. Company, battalion, regiment and division commanders, as well as the commissars and political officers of corresponding ranks who retreat without order from above, are traitors of the Motherland. They should be treated as traitors of the Motherland. This is the call of our Motherland.

To fulfil this order means to defend our country, to save our Motherland, to destroy and overcome the hated enemy.

After their winter retreat under pressure of the Red Army, when morale and discipline fell in the German troops, the Germans took some strict measures that led to pretty good results. They have formed 100 penal companies that were comprised of soldiers who broke discipline due to cowardice or instability; they have deployed them at the most dangerous sections of the front and have ordered them to redeem their sins by blood. Further on, they have formed around ten penal battalions comprised of officers who had broken discipline due to cowardice and instability, deprived them of their decorations and put them at even more dangerous sections of the front and ordered them to redeem their sins by blood. And finally, the Germans have formed special guards units and deployed them behind unstable divisions and ordered them to execute panic-mongers at the site if they tried to leave their defensive positions without order or if they tried to surrender. As we know, these measures were effective, and now the German troops fight better than they fought in winter. What we have here is that the German troops have good discipline, although they do not have an uplifted mission of protection of the Motherland, and only have one goal – to conquer a strange land. Our troops, having defence of defiled Motherland as their mission, do not have this discipline and thus suffer defeat.

Shouldn’t we learn this lesson from our enemy, as our ancestors learned from their enemies in the past and overcame their enemies? I think that we should.

THE SUPREME COMMAND OF THE RED ARMY ORDERS:

1. The military Councils of the fronts and first of all front commanders should:

a) In all circumstances decisively eradicate retreat attitude in the troops and with an iron hand prevent propaganda that we can and should continue the retreat to the east, and this retreat will not be harmful to us;

b) In all circumstances remove from offices and send to Stavka for court-martial those army commanders who allowed their troops to retreat at will, without authorisation by the Front command;

c) Form within each Front 1 to 3 (depending on the situation) penal battalions (800 personnel), where commanding, senior commanders and political officers of corresponding ranks from all services, who have broken discipline due to cowardice or instability, should be sent. These battalions should be put on the more difficult sections of a Front, thus giving them an opportunity to redeem their crimes against the Motherland by blood.

2. The Military Councils of armies and first of all army commanders should:

a) In all circumstances remove from offices corps and army commanders and commissars, who have allowed their troops to retreat at will without authorisation by the army command, and send them to the Military Councils of the Fronts for court-martial;

b) Form 3 to 5 well-armed guards (barrage) units (zagradotryads), deploy them in the rear of unstable divisions and oblige them to execute panic-mongers and cowards at site in case of panic and chaotic retreat, thus giving faithful soldiers a chance to do their duty before the Motherland;

c) Form 5 to 10 (depending on the situation) penal companies, where soldiers and NCOs, who have broken discipline due to cowardice or instability, should be sent. These units should be deployed at the most difficult sectors of the front, thus giving their soldiers an opportunity to redeem their crimes against the Motherland by blood.

3. Corps and division commanders and commissars should:

a) In all circumstances remove from offices regiment and battalion commanders and commissars who allowed their troops to retreat at will without authorisation from divisional or corps command, deprive them of their military decorations and send them to the Military Councils of fronts for court-martial;

b) Provide all possible help and support to the guards (barrage) units (zagradotryads) of the army in their work of strengthening discipline and order in the units.

This order is to be read aloud in all companies, troops, batteries, squadrons, teams and staffs.


The People’s Commissar for Defence

JOSEPH STALIN

[Kilgor]

b) Form 3 to 5 well-armed guards (barrage) units (zagradotryads), deploy them in the rear of unstable divisions and oblige them to execute panic-mongers and cowards at site in case of panic and chaotic retreat, thus giving faithful soldiers a chance to do their duty before the Motherland;

[Russian Texan]

b) Form 3 to 5 well-armed guards (barrage) units (zagradotryads), deploy them in the rear of unstable divisions and oblige them to execute panic-mongers and cowards at site in case of panic and chaotic retreat, thus giving faithful soldiers a chance to do their duty before the Motherland;


That is called taking things out of the context

Form within each Front 1 to 3 (depending on the situation) penal battalions (800 personnel), where commanding, senior commanders and political officers of corresponding ranks from all services, who have broken discipline due to cowardice or instability, should be sent. These battalions should be put on the more difficult sections of a Front, thus giving them an opportunity to redeem their crimes against the Motherland by blood.

Form 5 to 10 (depending on the situation) penal companies, where soldiers and NCOs, who have broken discipline due to cowardice or instability, should be sent. These units should be deployed at the most difficult sectors of the front, thus giving their soldiers an opportunity to redeem their crimes against the Motherland by blood.

Paints a little bit different pictur, doesn't it?
I have read numerous WW2 memuars and interviews with veterans and everytime this issue was brought up, they would completely dismiss it, just like another myth: unarmed troops attacking Germans at Stalingrad.
Who comes up with that stuff anyways?

[Kilgor]

Stalin purged over 40,000 high level russian officers, do you think he would care about grunts ?

[Russian Texan]

Stalin purged over 40,000 high level russian officers, do you think he would care about grunts ?

No, I don't think so. I'll tell you even more: the sole responsibility of USSR being unprepared for war, high number of casualties and POWs in the early stage of the war lays entirely on Stalin and his policies.
People/soldiers to any politician/President/Dictator were/are just numbers...

But the fact remains: "zagrad otryady" were not a common thing, they were attached to penal battalions to provide some extra "motivation".

Actually it is nothing special, Germans used to "motivate" their machinegunners by chaining them down so those couldn't retreat.

[StukaJr]

Very well... But still - Soviets would have rolled out onto the beaches of Normandy by 1946 - that's a plain fact!

___________________________________________________________

Back off topic, Axis had gestapo roaming their rear echelon and frontline units, starting as early as 1944 - shooting deserters or anybody with no legitimate excuse for not being in the trench. In Panzer Commander, Hans Von Luck remembers how one of his officers went back into the rear to secure some parts and was shot on the spot by a gestapo officer, not sattisfied with the explanation. That's not including german Feldgendarme units - your basic Military Police with "extra" chip on their shoulders... Such actions are the sign of desperate meassures, used to buy more time and delay enemy advance - I can assure you that while such actions were common during the first years of the war, it wasn't the common practice once the Soviets regained control and took back the initiative.

You make it sound like every soviet soldier had a gun to his back - that's complete nonscense. You had your share of herded conscripts, oblivious to why they were fighting, but one can never compare that to the sheer volume of volunteers in every rank. One must remember, that soviets were never given a choice better then death by the germans - when somebody opts to turn your city into a Lake, I'm sure you are to fight without giving much thought to surrender. Also, the resulted behavior of Axis troops in the occupied territories left an easy job for soviet propaganda bureau to dehumanize the enemy - that worked rather too well...

[Operation Ivy]

Well that was back then, lets see whos better now ;)

[RomanS]

Well that was back then, lets see whos better now ;)

Look for answers in Iraq

[ExtraT]

Stalin purged over 40,000 high level russian officers, do you think he would care about grunts ?

I'm afraid this number is not correct. The purges of Red Army command were not that extensive, and primarily concentrated on NKVD units (some of them were in the army). I can provide full analysis of this 40,000 number, if you want, but for now it would suffice to say that most of these "40,000" were not even purged, but dismissed. And a lot of them were later returned to service (long before German invasion).
The "army beheading" story is a decoy produced by Soviet historians to hide USSR's preparations for invasion of Europe in 1941.

[stuntman]

Well that was back then, lets see whos better now ;)

Look for answers in Iraq

Don't you mean afghanistan?

[Kilgor]

Stalin purged over 40,000 high level russian officers, do you think he would care about grunts ?

I'm afraid this number is not correct. The purges of Red Army command were not that extensive, and primarily concentrated on NKVD units (some of them were in the army.

From what ive read, stalin purged (killed) every head of the armed forces .. army, navy , air...etc. Id have to get the book and quote the sentances.

Plus, the purges were so significant that it explains the red army's hopeless attempt to conquer finland, which should have been a walkover.

[StukaJr]

From what ive read, stalin purged (killed) every head of the armed forces .. army, navy , air...etc. Id have to get the book and quote the sentances.


If it in fact says "every" head of armed forces - perhaps you should recycle that book so at least it does some good. Otherwise - how would you explain miraculous resurection of those generals who led the war, generals like Zhukov, Voroshilov etc? Where you are mistaken - Stalin did execute 90% of his political rivals by 1939 and many of them held military ranks. However, most of them, didn't do anything military for decades since the Civil War nor were anything but a bunch of yes-men to Koba - making them quite different from the actual military commanders.

What really made Soviet Army so vulnerable - were executions and jailing of majority of Soviet middle rank commanders. Many generals were sent to Gulag but there were fewer of high ranking generals and they received more individualized treatment - when the war started, there were easy to find and give "pardons". Lower level officers went through the system and dissapeared - leaving untrained cadets in ranks of captains with no addequately trained NCO's.

In 1930's, the only nations to mobilize their armies were Germany, Italy, Japan and USSR - Stalin felt the danger from germany and felt the nesessity to interfere sometime around '42 or '43...




Plus, the purges were so significant that it explains the red army's hopeless attempt to conquer finland, which should have been a walkover.

First of all, Soviets never attempted to conquer the entire of Finland - just the area of Karelia. Secondly - these "hopeless attempts" that you are speaking off - only lasted for few months and were caused by poor planning, logistics support,impropper equipment and many other factors. When the soviet command realized their mistakes - they threw overwhelming number of people and machines, forcing Finnland to sign a peace treaty. The Treaty yielded more territory from Finland than Stalin originally requested - making it a quiestionable success for the Finns.

[hedgehog]

D-Day was just a minor diversion. Look at the division of german forces.. the highest percentage were on the eastern front and had been slugging it out againt the Russians. Army group centre... who took care of that? My grand dad fought on the eastern front and to him it was a vaction when he got to go to the west in late 44. Considering the Western allie fought with total air superiority it is actually surprising it took them that long. The Russians would have won no matter what. The Allies only finally invaded as it was startingf to be in their interest not to loos e the western countries to communism.. Also,, how come Russia never admitted guilt for invading Poland? Finland? Ooopps...

Also... for the reunion it is important that everyone comes together to celebrate that they have managed to live in peace after such a terrible war. A soldier does his duty no matter what country he his fighting for or died fighting for .. unfortunately one side usually ends up being the bad guys. I respect every soldier that died fighting for his country.

[Operation Ivy]

Considering the Western allie fought with total air superiority it is actually surprising it took them that long

Well you think its easy having to plan an invasion with 125,000 people you have to take care of?

[ExtraT]

From what ive read, stalin purged (killed) every head of the armed forces .. army, navy , air...etc. Id have to get the book and quote the sentances.

Well, don't trust every book on that. As I said, there is a lot of disinformation floating around about this. Latest studies show that these purges were actually beneficial to the Red Army.



Plus, the purges were so significant that it explains the red army's hopeless attempt to conquer finland, which should have been a walkover.

Oh, I'm afraid this wouldn't have been a walkover, no matter how capable was the invading army. Finns were preparing for a Soviet invasion for almost two decades, and the weather conditions under which the Red Army fought the "Winter war" (ever asked yourself why it's called "The Winter War", eh?) were genuinely terrible.
Oh, and BTW, Red Army did win this war, and captured significant amount of territory. And this victory had very significant effect on Finland's participation in WWII as an ally of Germany - they refused to commit themselves fully to the war against USSR, and only recaptured the territory lost in 1940.

[ExtraT]

One more thing, about the 40,000 officers purged by Stalin from the Red Army.

This number comes from a Red Army command internal letter from 19.9.1938, in which the following numbers are given (the letter covers years 1937 and 1938, the two years considered the bloodiest):

1937: 20643 people dismissed, of those 5811 are arrested;
1938: 16118 people dismissed, of those 5057 are arrested.

In addition, there is another document from 5.5.1940 which sais:

"Up until 1.5.1940, 12461 unfairly dismissed are returned to service"

As a proof of this I'll give you an example: Several of the most successful Soviet WWII generals (Rokossovski, for example) were one of these "40,000 purged". They were dismissed and arrested, then released and reinstated to their former ranks, all that long before the German invasion.

[stuntman]

D-Day was just a minor diversion. Look at the division of german forces.. the highest percentage were on the eastern front and had been slugging it out againt the Russians. Army group centre... who took care of that? My grand dad fought on the eastern front and to him it was a vaction when he got to go to the west in late 44. Considering the Western allie fought with total air superiority it is actually surprising it took them that long. The Russians would have won no matter what. The Allies only finally invaded as it was startingf to be in their interest not to loos e the western countries to communism.. Also,, how come Russia never admitted guilt for invading Poland? Finland? Ooopps...

Also... for the reunion it is important that everyone comes together to celebrate that they have managed to live in peace after such a terrible war. A soldier does his duty no matter what country he his fighting for or died fighting for .. unfortunately one side usually ends up being the bad guys. I respect every soldier that died fighting for his country.

This is a crude attempt at a joke right? I am glad your grand daddy made it back along with mines but your comment is out of your blind knowledge of ww2 on the eastern front! I'm sorry to offend my Russian Brothers but Digging in and waiting for winter is not a tactic...

[ExtraT]

I'm sorry to offend my Russian Brothers but Digging in and waiting for winter is not a tactic...

You know, for your amazing historical discovery you should be awarded.... with a nazi Iron Cross!! :bash:

Do you also, by any chance, believe that Russians are a genetically inferior race?

[stuntman]

I'm sorry to offend my Russian Brothers but Digging in and waiting for winter is not a tactic...

You know, for your amazing historical discovery you should be awarded.... with a nazi Iron Cross!! :bash:

Do you also, by any chance, believe that Russians are a genetically inferior race?

Your kidding right? At what exact point did I make a anti Zionest or pro nazi remark? My comment was towards hedgehogs post I just fiercly disagree and also I never hid the fact that I might know lesser then most here so stop trying to flame this post for that is the definition of nazism!

[ExtraT]

Your kidding right? At what exact point did I make a anti Zionest or pro nazi remark?


FYI, "Russian winter was terrible" is a classic nazi explanation for defeats on the Eastern front. That, and "Russians had T-34s. It's unfair!!" :)
That's why I said that your discovery deserves a nazi Iron Cross :).

And what does Zionism have to do with that? FYI, I'm of Russian origins, and my grandfather fought in WWII. And my other Grandfather fought in the Winter War.


... I might know lesser then most here....

You certainly do. How old are you, anyways? ;)



so stop trying to flame this post for that is the definition of nazism!

Really?? And I thought (silly me) that definition of nazism was all about racial superiority....

Anyhoo, I didn't flame, I simply responded to your insult of (among other people) my grandfather.

In the future, think before you click "submit". Oh, and growing up alittle wouldn't hurt either.

[stuntman]

Your kidding right? At what exact point did I make a anti Zionest or pro nazi remark?


FYI, "Russian winter was terrible" is a classic nazi explanation for defeats on the Eastern front. That, and "Russians had T-34s. It's unfair!!" :)
That's why I said that your discovery deserves a nazi Iron Cross :).

And what does Zionism have to do with that? FYI, I'm of Russian origins, and my grandfather fought in WWII. And my other Grandfather fought in the Winter War.


... I might know lesser then most here....

You certainly do. How old are you, anyways? ;)



so stop trying to flame this post for that is the definition of nazism!

Really?? And I thought (silly me) that definition of nazism was all about racial superiority....

Anyhoo, I didn't flame, I simply responded to your insult of (among other people) my grandfather.

In the future, think before you click "submit". Oh, and growing up alittle wouldn't hurt either.
BLA BLA BLA
Your just mad we had to save your asses!
point blank!
ANd please spare me the break down reply for it's tired some and I am never wrong! :P

[ExtraT]

BLA BLA BLA
Your just mad we had to save your asses!
point blank!
ANd please spare me the break down reply for it's tired some and I am never wrong! :P

Congradulations. You have just made it to the Local Zoo. rofl For your benefit, I've added a special "infant" wing. You do, after all, seem to be no older than 13 years old. rofl

[stuntman]

BLA BLA BLA
Your just mad we had to save your asses!
point blank!
ANd please spare me the break down reply for it's tired some and I am never wrong! :P

Congradulations. You have just made it to the Local Zoo. rofl For your benefit, I've added a special "infant" wing. You do, after all, seem to be no older than 13 years old. rofl

By the way whats so bad about being 13 or the zoo?

[ExtraT]

By the way whats so bad about being 13 or the zoo?

There is nothing bad about being a 13 year old. As long as you act your age, and stay out of gown-up conversations.

And about "The Local Zoo": Every active forum member shows his/her colors eventually. At this moment of truth, everybody else finally realizes who they are dealing with. And some of the people turn out to be not very nice (or sane). Some of them are nazis, others are dangerously and incurably liberal, others are just plain imbeciles. All these specimens of human scum receive a private cage in what I call "The Local Zoo", a place where they can be isolated and displayed as a lesson and a warning to other members.

You can be proud, you actually caused an opening of a new Local Zoo Sector
rofl rofl rofl

[Sergei]

Quote of the day



I'm sorry to offend my Russian Brothers but Digging in and waiting for winter is not a tactic...

You are obviously very young to say stupid things like that. If you do have some history books on Eastern front which I doubt that you have any I would advise you to open them on pages about Yelnia salient battle back in the summer 1941 to show that soviet troops were quite successful in the summer campaigns too.
And I'm not talking about Kursk and Bagration which was the time when soviet generals have already acquired the necessary experience on how to beat the living **** out of Germans.

[StukaJr]

I'm sorry to offend my Russian Brothers but Digging in and waiting for winter is not a tactic...

Idiots don't offend me personaly, but I do try to reason with one just to see if there is a hope of some sanity still left...

First - the Russian Winter is a myth and not the real reason why Moscow was not captured in 1941. Winter of '41 just happened to be extremely cold but no meteorologist of that time would have been able to predict that, neither did the Soviet high command have any idea how unprepared the germans were for any kind of cold weather. Summer ends in August in form of heavy rainfall, following frost and mild snow as early as October, with real winter starting in December... Actually, the winter returned some manueverability to Axis spearhead - majority of german supply lines ran by dirt roads, rains turned them into muddy quagmire and significantly hampered re-supply efforts. Early frost hardened the ground and made most roads accessible again.

Of course - Axis did not have adequate ammounts of winter uniforms - Soviet command had no way of knowing, other than one day Axis just stopped attacking. It's not Soviets that dug in for the winter - it were the Axis that stopped their offensive, giving soviets ample time to mass reserves from the East, recoup and counter-attack. The gun oil that germans used froze up and rendered weapons useless, while soviets used sunflower oil - the lowest tempretare freezing oil... Field mice made homes inside the tanks and chewed through wiring, crippling tanks...

With all of that said - germany has winter of their own and while they chose when and where to fight in the summer on 1941, they somehow belived that they could also choose when to take breaks from fighting. Soviets fought their own way, with their own tactical excellences and flaws - it's understandable to be a sore looser for few decades after your super nation is defeated by a nation of sub-humans, but history deserves the truth...

[mi35d]

Read the thread. Some minor points, especially since US technology advancements in 1944 and 45 seems to always get forgotten...

It didn't take the US "years" to detonate another nuke. We had new tests a few months after Hiroshima/Nagasaki in 1946. Consider that once the war was won, funding and the sense of urgency dropped considerably. If there was a continuation of the war, atomic weapons of either of the two designs could have been built at a rapid pace.

Means to deliver? There was a minor, tiny little airplane called the B-36 coming off the line in '46. It would have been able to reach nearly any target in Russia. (And by 1945 the US also had the B-32 Dominator which had longer range and higher altitude than the B-29.)

The P-80 jet fighter had already flown in 1944 and was in production by the end of 1945. Several other designs were also in the works.

Although the T-34 was a superior tank than the Sherman, by 1945 the US was fielding several new tank destroyers and a modernized tank design that was the equal or better than the T-34.

The Russian sub fleet was miniscule compared to the US. Heavy mining of the routes out of Western Russia would have neutered any threat.

Meanwhile, the Russians had far more men on the ground.

As for the AK-47, it wasn't even accepted into service until 1949 and into general production in the early 1950's.

Given the fact that the US was working on a replacement or a modenized Garand throughout the 1940's it would seem that something would have been produced as an improvement.

Lastly, the US wouldn't have been toting "Thompsons". By the end of the war most had been replaced by M-3's.

[StukaJr]

if wars were won and lost by technical supperiority alone - you would have been right... but - some small comments on what you said :)

M18's "Wolverines" and M36's may have been effective tank killers but there were antiquated pretty much right after the war - given as freebies to rebuilding european nations. They may have been successful in ambushing individual T-34 but would be no match for return fire of the L/43 122mm of JS II/JS III tanks. JS III tanks had thickness of its frontal armor reaching 250 mm with its displacement lower than JS II and even that of a Tiger I - defenitely, not something US tanks were meant to combat. Now add into the picture supperior JSU-100, 122 and 152 and you have a supperior tank fleet to deal with.

1000 mile range is still not enough to reach Urals - the usual US tactic of bombing civilian population would leave Soviet industry rather intact and spitting out war materiel. Soviets would also have half the supply rou

Now - the human factor.

It's a well known fact that Churchill openly considered going head to head with the soviets - making plans to re-arm german POW's etc. However, I do not think that Stalin had any pipedreams of ever making war with the West - Soviet Union was the only nation to gain land from the conflict, so risking all that war booty would have been ridiculous. While Allies pushed for desisive military action - Soviets were always the masters of making things semi-legit with international community and the divide-and-conquer.

Spread of communism - remember that majority of worker unions were either communist or pro-communist - many of them, undermining war production/home efforts in 1939-1940 in Great Britain, before the Soviet Union got invaded...

Basically, either side had a plus and means of spearheading some kind of damage - but remember, it would hardly be a "liberation" of Europe... More like - making Euroasia completely unlivable, making Canada a new home for the Soviet empire :) Close enough, where US won't use nukes...
Nukes - LOL! Once again, glad nobody listened to the McArthur Loon
________________________________________________________

P.S. But really - the Cold War has happened because every side had rather enough of fighting, seemingly achivable peace and reason (didn't quite work out but I'm sure it seemed close) and every side had its share of technological advances, most of which were bluffs. Both sides deemed their opposition stronger then they in fact were - so coming into direct conflict would have defenitely dispell those myths...