I think there is a greater appreciation now, but generally most Americans really can't appreciate what happened on the easter front. There really should be a trilogy about Kursk.
I need a French version too.
I was born in Moscow, Russia in the early eighties. When I lived there, there were concrete "ninja star"anti-tank barriers all over the place. They were left there as a reminder of the war and how close it was to home. Just to give you guys some perspective, EVERY family in Russia lost someone in WW2. It is not a hyperbole. Here are the losses in my family that I know about:
My great grandfather on my mother's side died in Kursk. he was 22.
On my fathers side, there were three brothers (great grand parents), only one came back.
My grand parents on my mother's side met during WW2 (both participated in the war effort). I would not be alive today if WW2 did not occur...
I know for a fact that Russia beat Germany. America was indeed a great help, but by the time they joined, Russia winning was inevitable. Stalingrad pretty much cemented Germany's loss.
You have to realise that America joined the war effort in December 1941, when Russia was fighting in defence of Moscow, not Stalingrad. Stalingrad was the point where Germany's 1942 summer offensive was halted and turned back, this was the latter half of 1942 and early 1943. And while Germany was halted at Moscow in 1941, this was by no means a situation where the USSR could be confident of victory. 1942 would be another incredibly costly year for the Red Army, until they finally managed to turn the tide at Stalingrad.
Of course, I do consider things generally having swung in the Allies' favour in December 1941, but America's entry into the war with its virtually limitless industry and resources was essential for that.
You have to realise that America joined the war effort in December 1941, when Russia was fighting in defence of Moscow, not Stalingrad. Stalingrad was the point where Germany's 1942 summer offensive was halted and turned back, this was the latter half of 1942 and early 1943. And while Germany was halted at Moscow in 1941, this was by no means a situation where the USSR could be confident of victory. 1942 would be another incredibly costly year for the Red Army, until they finally managed to turn the tide at Stalingrad.
Of course, I do consider things generally having swung in the Allies' favour in December 1941, but America's entry into the war with its virtually limitless industry and resources was essential for that.
You have to realise that America joined the war effort in December 1941, when Russia was fighting in defence of Moscow, not Stalingrad. Stalingrad was the point where Germany's 1942 summer offensive was halted and turned back, this was the latter half of 1942 and early 1943. And while Germany was halted at Moscow in 1941, this was by no means a situation where the USSR could be confident of victory. 1942 would be another incredibly costly year for the Red Army, until they finally managed to turn the tide at Stalingrad.
Of course, I do consider things generally having swung in the Allies' favour in December 1941, but America's entry into the war with its virtually limitless industry and resources was essential for that.
America didn't open a front until Normandy happened and war was a done deal by then. The US was just trying to prevent the entire Europe from falling into Russian hands by that point.
Landed in Africa in '42, invaded Italy in '43. Normandy was the big European push but it's not true that they made no moves against the European powers until '44. Air raids on Germany and allies were being run with increasing frequency starting in 1942, damaging industry, supply lines and forcing LW resources to stay in the west.
Landed in Africa in '42, invaded Italy in '43. Normandy was the big European push but it's not true that they made no moves against the European powers until '44.
America didn't open a front until Normandy happened and war was a done deal by then. The US was just trying to prevent the entire Europe from falling into Russian hands by that point.
But they did not expose themselves to any sort of major threat by the Germans until Normandy. The US didn't start the major campaign until German resistance in Europe was almost completely smashed. Wehrmacht was completely shattered by 1944 thanks to the Eastern Front.
Normandy is the only time Allied causalities were even remotely comparable to what the Soviets were experiencing. It's well documented Churchill was content with the Soviets taking on the brunt of the Wehrmacht while the Allies probed the soft underbelly Europe looking for a way in that wouldn't cause massive casualties. Comparing something like Operation Torch with say, the Lower Dnieper Offensive, is just completely laughable.
Lots of countries don't get proper recognition for what they did in WW2. Hell Russia wiped out 80% of the German military, and Americans still like to think they won it all on their own.
Chuck's gone senile in his extreme age. The English make crappy stuff. But the Spitfire wasn't one of them. T'was an excellent plane.
We're not comparing casualty counts. Kabouter was in a discussion about, essentially, the utility of the United States with respect to the Eastern front. We know they didn't do very much dying, but this isn't a pissing contest. Anglo-American forces kept Heer units pinned in the West and guarding the Atlantic coast was a manpower drain the WM couldn't afford - not to mention the bunkers, batteries, obstacles and minefields placed along the length of the atlantic wall. Bombers from the UK and America killed Germans and damaged industry (not just factories directly, but electricity generation and so on). The Luftwaffe dedicates resources to protecting itself from Air Raids, and the Mediterranean theater results in the destruction of thousands of aircraft and experienced pilots they can't replace. For 1943, see charts I and II. For '42 see here.
In retrospect it's easy for you to say that the WM was doomed by the end of 1942, but we always have to caution against historical determinism. If Hitler didn't have to fight in Africa or guard his western flank, this means more production, more units to replace losses in the east, and far more air power that can be dedicated to the east. Again, I don't want to seem like I'm dismissing or trivialising the Soviet contributions. They absolutely are the biggest single player in the war. But they were never alone, and the Americans did help, even ignoring LL.
America didn't open a front until Normandy happened and war was a done deal by then. The US was just trying to prevent the entire Europe from falling into Russian hands by that point.
IMO that was 80% of the decision to open up the front in 1944. As much as the US hated the Nazis, they feared an iron curtain over the entirety of Europe even more. To be fair, I don't really blame the US. Many people in Russia consider Stalin to be worse than Hitler because Stalin murdered way more of his own people.
After Stalingrad the most positive outcome possible for the Germans was forcing the Soviets into a bloody stalemate. That went out the window after the Red Army rolled them in operation Bagration. People should not underestimate what the Red Army had become by then. It wasn't just this mass of poorly armed and trained canon fodder zerging the Germans. Quality wise I would put the Soviets as equals, man to man, canon to canon, tank to tank and plane to plane, to any other force on the field. I've read a lot of military history and the Red Army was one of the most fearsome militaries that ever existed. Ever. And the African front's biggest contribution was burning out Rommel for the Germans. As close as it came to the Africakorps breaking the British Empire's back, they did it with a surprisingly low investment in men and material.
Normandy not happening at all would merely add a few more million to the Eastern Front casualties. For both parties it was a war of extermination. It wouldn't end until one of them was ruined. There weren't any questions on civilian morale, or money running out, or material running out. It was a war to the last man and to the last bullet.
"
I would disagree with that. On the tactical level Soviets were inferior up until the end of the war. Despite having massive numerical superiority on a long front and being able to reap benefits from plethora of encirclements, they still took disproportionately huge losses. IIRC Bagration was the time when the best casualty ratio was achieved and yet Soviets still had more casualties than Germans. ( Though much, much less irrevocable ones.) At Kursk the ratio was about to 3-1 in favor to Germans and they were attacking heavily fortified defense belts. While I think that at operation level Red Army were the best among the major combatants, at tactical level, they were still several steps behind the others..
A big factor in Soviet losses late in the war was the fact that they mostly didn't care. As long as they had enough men left over to keep their objective they considered a win (even with losses that would cause any commander in the US Army to get dismissed) as a win. If anything their losses were a result of STAVKA's and Stalin's disregard for casualties.For the Red Army it was Omaha beach everywhere, all the time.
Don't forget they were fighting against the best formations of the best army of WW2.
Quality wise I would put the Soviets as equals, man to man, canon to canon, tank to tank and plane to plane, to any other force on the field
Why did the Americans wait so damn long before entering the war.
I bet it could of been finished ages earlier if they had got of their asses.
I think this is a gross over simplification. Stavka didn't send their soldiers to death just for the kicks of it. There was a continuous effort to improve the efficiency of the army. By 43/44 I regard Soviets as being better in conducting major offensives. They had better method to achieve deep penetrations, (using Shock/Rifle armies to achieve the breakthrough and then having Tank armies exploit them rather than the German manner of having Panzer Divisions do both.) They were much superior in use of artillery and concentrated their forces in shorter breakthrough sectors achieving unparalleled densities of infantry/guns/tanks. All this they cloaked in deception veil that from summer of 1944, continuously misled the WH about the location of main Soviet effort.
The RA could and did push some of their offensives past a reasonable point but they were hardly alone in this. As to the disregard for casualties I would point to calling up able bodied men in freshly liberated territories and sending them to the front units without adequate training. This in turn translated itself into poor tactical showing and large casualties, But tactical deficiency has little to do with operational prowess, the Soviet commanders simple had to make do with what they had.
Doesn't that run counter to this ? ;P
We didn't want to get involved in another European conflict after WWI. It wasn't really seen as our concern at the time, and bare in mind that the US had been suffering through the Great Depression in the decade leading up to WW2, and wars are costly endeavors. We had no problem supplying the Allied forces, but until Pearl Harbor dragged us into the war we were perfectly fine with letting the Europeans figure their own shit out.
I recently came to realize how little I knew of WWII when I learned the Soviets were Allies and Stalin was Russian (yeah....). I'm certainly fascinated with the German invasion of Russia. This twitter account is the best thing ever. www.twitter.com/realtimewwii The German invasion was 1 month ago and I've been blown away by the insanity in just this one month alone.
After Stalingrad the most positive outcome possible for the Germans was forcing the Soviets into a bloody stalemate. That went out the window after the Red Army rolled them in operation Bagration. People should not underestimate what the Red Army had become by then. It wasn't just this mass of poorly armed and trained canon fodder zerging the Germans. Quality wise I would put the Soviets as equals, man to man, canon to canon, tank to tank and plane to plane, to any other force on the field. I've read a lot of military history and the Red Army was one of the most fearsome militaries that ever existed. Ever.
Normandy not happening at all would merely add a few more million to the Eastern Front casualties. For both parties it was a war of extermination. It wouldn't end until one of them was ruined. There weren't any questions on civilian morale, or money running out, or material running out. It was a war to the last man and to the last bullet.
Why did the Americans wait so damn long before entering the war.
I bet it could of been finished ages earlier if they had got of their asses.
Public was partially a reason. The main point was that post WWI and Great Depression the US military was largely outdated, undermanned, and ill trained. If the US had gotten involved earlier it would have been largely ineffective. WW2 saw the US military at it largest size in "peacetime" and the only draft in peacetime as well. Pearl Harbor got the US involved slightly early but war inevitably in the immediate future when war was declared.The American public was the reason war wasn't declared sooner. The administration was taking steps to be as much of a participant in the war as they could without actually declaring war. Sending US escorts for Allied convoys, taking over occupation duties in Greenland and Iceland from the British, and giving generous trade agreements to the Allies, eventually going as far as just giving them free war materials.
The attitude of the public was that although they favored the French/Commonwealth side, they felt it was a European affair and did not want to send Americans to die in somebody else's war. The Lend Lease act was sold to the public with the simple analogy that if your neighbor's house is on fire, you lend him your hose so he can put it out and you don't expect him to pay you for it - although he might replace it afterwards. This idea that the United States could help out but not have to send people to die was, as I understand it, something that the public was ok with.
It stands to reason that the US would still have gotten involved directly without Pearl Harbour, probably some time in 1942. A couple more accidental attacks on US shipping from the U-Boat fleets would probably have done the trick in the process of drumming up support for an entry.
Why did the Americans wait so damn long before entering the war.
Why did the Americans wait so damn long before entering the war.
I bet it could of been finished ages earlier if they had got of their asses.
Why did the Soviets supply the Nazis with all the raw materials they needed to build their armies and let them train in secret in their country ? The whole war could never have started without that.
or why did the Soviets start the war in the first place by agreeing to invade Poland with Germany
The Soviet Foreign Ministry files were declassified and released a while ago. Apparently they were convinced from spy reports and data they had that the Western powers' attitude towards Germany wasn't what it appeared to be. It was appeasement only on the surface. The Soviets believed that the West was trying to channel German aggression towards them. So they decided to stab the West in the back first. Hence the Ribbentrop/Molotov pact and the joint invasion of Poland. Katyn was a result of Soviet paranoia too. They were convinced that Poland's anti-Soviet feelings would eventually lead them to joining Germany against them.
I personally feel that they were not completely correct, but that was what they believed at the time.
It's hard to imagine that when the 1941 German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement was signed in january 1941 the Soviets still thought the invasion of France and the Battle of Britain were some sort of massive ruse. To me it's more likely Stalin was perfectly happy with Hitler waging war in Western Europe and he was in no way acting out of a misplaced sense of fear.
It's hard to imagine that when the 1941 German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement was signed in january 1941 the Soviets still thought the invasion of France and the Battle of Britain were some sort of massive ruse. To me it's more likely Stalin was perfectly happy with Hitler waging war in Western Europe and he was in no way acting out of a misplaced sense of fear.
Think of it as a bribe more than aid. Also Stalin thought reports of German aggression were nothing more than British attempts to start a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. I think that Stalin knew in his heart of hearts that there would eventually be a war between the two, just not as soon as 1941. Hence the rapid rearmamnent of the Red Army and creation of defense belts on the frontier from 1940 on.Why did the Soviets supply the Nazis with all the raw materials they needed to build their armies and let them train in secret in their country ? The whole war could never have started without that.
I know it's a machine of war and everything, but man, the P-51 is just a stunning looking thing.
I said that they didn't much care for casualties. Not that the casualties happened because of incompetence. The Red Army just had a culture, set from Stalin through STAVKA, of pushing through no matter what. Or standing their ground. The very large numbers of casualties they took early on were in big part because Soviet units would hold their ground and fight literally to the last bullet.
Can anyone suggest a book on the siege of Odessa? I am fine with a book on the eastern front in general, but I am looking for details about the battle for Odessa in particular.
Eh, what good are fancy uniforms in war? Some European countries went into the First World War with all these fancy, brightly coloured, relatively ornate uniforms. Sure changed their minds on that quickly.
N. Krylov "Glory Eternal Defence of Odessa 1941 It's an old one and written from Soviet perspective.
Other than that I think you're largely condemned to a dozen of pages in general accounts on Romanian Army on Eastern Front.
Mark Axworthy "Third Axis Fourth Ally"
Mihai Tone Filipescu "Reluctant Axis: The Romanian Army in Russia
Eh, what good are fancy uniforms in war?
Say what you will about the Nazis, but they had the coolest-looking uniforms of the war, bar none. All the other countries wore boring drab brown, but when the Germans went to war, they went to war in style. Who cares about shit like genocide when you have this much swagger?