re: Russia's Victory Day 2015 Parade

quote:

---

I suppose you are referring to my assertion that the USSR would not have been able to defeat Germany absent US aid and intervention since it's very difficult to refute that FDR was a Soviet sympathizer through and through. And your little referenced quote does not do anything to indicate that the Soviets would have defeated Nazi Germany absent US intervention.

There is very little minimization of Soviet resources in regard to manpower. Their pool of manpower to draw from and land in which to keep their production centers outside of peril from German bombers or capture was immense. That, however, in and of itself, would not have been enough for them to march to Berlin absent US technological and material aid and the effect of US intervention into the war. Yes the USSR displayed tremendous production capabilities in WWII, no one disputes this. But the aid the USSR received from the US and Britain allowed them to conduct, maintain, and sustain massive offensives logistically that they otherwise would have had severe difficulty with. There is much more to winning modern wars than simply producing lots of weapons. The supply of trucks to maintain fast and long moving supply lines in a timely fashion so as to sustain and exploit penetrating offensives was of the utmost importance to the Soviet war effort. That is a technological AND material asset provided to the USSR that itself completely transformed their military capabilities. Rail cars, food stuffs, raw materials, etc. There is a tremendous deal that went into bolstering the Soviet production numbers as well as their ability to fully employ and take advantage of their production through military logistics. Logistics was essential to the fast, penetrative, and decisive style of warfare that was necessary for success in the European theater in WWII. Simply referencing Soviet production capacity is not a valid argument to suggest their ultimate victory over Germany absent US intervention. Otherwise, how does it explain the events of 1941? Economy and production are merely FACTORS in military success.

US intervention was THE deciding factor in WWII. The USSR perhaps could have forced a draw or even taken back a deal of territory, but a drive to Berlin absent US aid and intervention was very unlikely. The British would have been impotent to pose any real threat to Germany at this point as well. US and British bombing campaigns put severe strain on Germany's already limited resources for oil. The Luftwaffe was forced in the latter stages of the war to dedicate immense assets to fighting the Allied bombers, which offered the Soviets even greater domination of the skies in their successful post-1943 operations.

The Soviets were a tremendous force during the Second World War, but they still required the massive resources and efforts of the Western Allies to ultimately defeat Germany in May 1945. Now imagine the US never enters the war at all and offers no supplies the USSR at all. What does a timeline for Soviet victory over Germany look like now? What does it look like if Britain and Germany come to terms? I'd say it looks not particularly good.

---

It is all hypothetical of course, but I tend to disagree. When one considers that the German advance was halted at Stalingrad a mere 8 months after Pearl Harbor (i.e. before we were even in the game), and that by 1943-1944 the Soviets were outproducing Germany in war material, it is logical to conclude that the Soviets would have defeated Germany even without the U.S.

With that having been said, having the U.S. in the war certainly made things better for the Soviets (and of course the British), and probably resulted in shortening the war by a year or so.

quote:

---

Everything they do is first class

---

Opulence! They haaaas it.

quote:

---

It is all hypothetical of course, but I tend to disagree. When one considers that the German advance was halted at Stalingrad a mere 8 months after Pearl Harbor (i.e. before we were even in the game), and that by 1943-1944 the Soviets were outproducing Germany in war material, it is logical to conclude that the Soviets would have defeated Germany even without the U.S.

---

Certainly it is hypothetical, because warfare's outcome hinges on many variables, including many that are very unpredictable. Which is why your assertion that the "evidence" does not support a Soviet failure to defeat Germany was so absurd. Your "evidence" being wartime production figures alone.

And your entire premise is fundamentally flawed. You presume that it is "logical" to conclude Soviet victory based on a higher level of production. This is completely invalid and shows a very rudimentary understanding of warfare. Germany's war production actually INCREASED in the latter stages of the war in many areas as well. This after years of strategic bombing of their factories and plants. Yet their fortunes were much greater when their production was much lower. The German's conquered France in one month with inferior quality and numbers of tanks. Illustrating quite clearly that production is merely a factor, one of many and not necessarily the most significant.

And Soviet production was aided by allied production materials, whether through raw materials or intact items like rail cars. That's not to say that Soviet production numbers would not have fared well in absence of this assistance, surely they would have, but 1943 numbers an onwards reflect many years of foreign aid. Aid to the USSR began almost immediately after the German invasion in June 1941.

The Soviets had far more military equipment than Germany in 1941 but were still routed. Modern warfare NEGATES shear numerical advantages though technological advantages and tactical doctrines. High production is always desirable. High manpower is always desirable. But they guarantee nothing in mobile and technologically advanced warfare.

And Stalingrad was a great Societ victory brought about through strategic consumption, or utilizing the massive expanse of Soviet territory to deplete enemy resources and stretch supply lines prior to the major engagement. It was a success but not a war winner. German forces were still deep in enemy territory. The entire campaign was predicated on Germany's need for oil resources and with knowledge of the impending dilemma of facing a two front war with the United States again. Everything from 1942 onwards took place with the consideration of the unsustainability of the 2 front war and Germany's strategy was to gamble for knockouts of the USSR to force the Western nations to sue for peace. Stalingrad itself was no more indicative of inevitable victory for the USSR than the fall of France was for Germany. It was only in the context of the 2 front war and American entrance that Stalingrad truly proved to be a crippling loss.

If one also considers the incredible technological leaps the Germans were making by war's end, and that the nations that began dropping out of alliance with Germany when Allied victory became unquestionable would have remained to fight the Soviets, this further exemplifies the unlikelihood of Soviet ability to inflict absolute defeat on Germany absent the U.S. entry and aid. The collapse of Italy and later Romania greatly sped up the war's end and would not have occurred as they did absent US intervention.

The USSR was a formidable military force unquestionably, but their casualty figures even facing beleaguered, hopeless, and under equipped Germans while enjoying complete air supremacy were appalling. I see very little to suggest a successful ability to drive from Leningrad/Moscow/Caucasus to Germany inflicting collapse of the German state on their own. Particularly when you yourself concede that the timeline would be increased by a "year or so." I think that's a very conservative estimate in a scenario where full German attention and resources are dedicated to one front and not inhibited by crippling supply shortages. The effect of advanced German technology on Soviet forces in years 1946 onwards would also begin to fully take effect. The Soviets would have had no answer for jet aviation and potential sustained German strategic bombing campaigns. The Soviet successes in the East had far more factors in play then simply "production" figures.

quote:

---

It is all hypothetical of course, but I tend to disagree. When one considers that the German advance was halted at Stalingrad a mere 8 months after Pearl Harbor (i.e. before we were even in the game), and that by 1943-1944 the Soviets were outproducing Germany in war material, it is logical to conclude that the Soviets would have defeated Germany even without the U.S.

With that having been said, having the U.S. in the war certainly made things better for the Soviets (and of course the British), and probably resulted in shortening the war by a year or so.

---

One major factor you're not taking into account is the level of US aid to the Russians. We supplied virtually all their motor transport, which without it the Soviets would never have been able to sustain any sort of offensive operations. We also supplied the vast majority of the rations the Soviets issued their troops along with the boots on their feet. So not only did we keep the Red Army mobile, we fed it and even kept it from having to go barefoot.

So yes, the Soviets were able out outpace the Germans in producing things like tanks and aircraft. But without US aid giving them virtually everything else needed to sustain an army, it would have mattered little

quote:

---

He doesn't take any factors into account except for Soviet production numbers

---

Well if you just look at the surface, it looks like the Soviets won the production war. It's only when to look further that you see just how reliant they were on the US. If memory serves me correct, we also supplied virtually all the grease the Soviets used in WWII. This may seem minor to some. But when you consider how important simple grease is to things like tanks, trucks, artillery, and virtually everything an army uses with moving parts, you can see how vital just this one item really is. You can make tanks, guns, fighters, bombers, and howitzers by the tens of thousands. But if you can't grease them on a daily basis, then all you're left with is a whole bunch of really expensive cool looking paper weights.

Rather than continue to debate this issue, I would simply direct your attention to this wikipedia page which does a good job summarizing Allied vs. Axis production throughout the war.