Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    The Insane Bakis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    16,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey View Post
    Stalin had nothing to do with Germans not being able to overcome Russians, winter did it, even partisans played a bigger part than the actual army.
    The only thing Russian army had going for them was sheer numbers, and even that wasn't enough to compensate for how inadequate it was. Take a look at WWII Finland vs. Russia for example. It's not just that the Finnish were beastly (which they were), the Russians just couldn't keep their shit together in the field.
    Also keep in mind that Russia would have lost without the enormous ammount of material that was given to them when they needed it the most by mostly the US.
    Also without the 2nd front Russia might very well have lost in the end either way.
    The russian military was a joke, specifically in terms of equipment and leadership, the old saying of pairing up soldiers 2 and 2 is true. One ran in front and when he died the other one picked up his rifle since there wasn't enough rifles to equip all the soldiers.

    I can only think of two things that the russians themselves contributed with. Sheer number and the extreme bravery and will to die in battle in the defense of their motherland by the grunts.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Fullmetal89 View Post
    So instead of going straight for Moscow he had the Germans turn around and take some pointless oilfields. Slowing the Germans long enough for them to catch the winter and lose the momentum of the Blitzkrieg. In the process starving/freezing his men essentially rendering his army useless in the Russian front. I believe if it wasn't for that one mistake Hitler might have actually won the war.
    It's doubtful. Hitler was really needing those oilfields, after all.

    The biggest problem was that Soviet industrial production was ramping up and by 1943 was overproducing Germany. Even if Germany had managed to take Moscow on 1941 or 1942 and force a Soviet surrender where the Soviets would have to retreat below the Urals, the industrial production of Siberia would have overtaken Germany earlier than 1950s, when the Soviets more than likely would have restarted the war.

    Germany's biggest problem wasn't General Winter, wasn't a 2-front war, etc. Germany was doomed to lose that war because they didn't have enough heavy industry, because their industrial doctrine was shit (disposable slaves aren't the best skilled workforce) and because it hadn't secured enough oil to keep their industry/army running for a long war. It would have taken longer or not, but Germany was doomed from the beginning.

  3. #43
    I am Murloc! Charge me Doctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Russia, Chelyabinsk (Tankograd)
    Posts
    5,455
    Oh, and to point out something:
    Many killers, drug dealers, drug users, crazy people was moved to labor camps (GULAG) and died there because of sucky management (living conditions was horrible) and overall effectiveness of such workers was low. So, what's better, keep ~3 millions of prisoners in jails, or use them to build, for example, a dam, or to cut forests? In papers it's OK but in reality many bad people died. I assume that not all of them was guilty and so on, but we have same flaws in judge systems now
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Dictionary
    Russians are a nation inhabiting territory of Russia an ex-USSR countries. Russians enjoy drinking vodka and listening to the bears playing button-accordions. Russians are open- and warm- hearted. They are ready to share their last prianik (russian sweet cookie) with guests, in case lasts encounter that somewhere. Though, it's almost unreal, 'cos russians usually hide their stuff well.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Charge me Doctor View Post
    Oh, and to point out something:
    Many killers, drug dealers, drug users, crazy people was moved to labor camps (GULAG) and died there because of sucky management (living conditions was horrible) and overall effectiveness of such workers was low. So, what's better, keep ~3 millions of prisoners in jails, or use them to build, for example, a dam, or to cut forests? In papers it's OK but in reality many bad people died. I assume that not all of them was guilty and so on, but we have same flaws in judge systems now
    Yes, but remember that "crazy people" included "people who thought communism was wrong".

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Bakis View Post
    Also keep in mind that Russia would have lost without the enormous ammount of material that was given to them when they needed it the most by mostly the US.
    Also without the 2nd front Russia might very well have lost in the end either way.
    The russian military was a joke, specifically in terms of equipment and leadership, the old saying of pairing up soldiers 2 and 2 is true. One ran in front and when he died the other one picked up his rifle since there wasn't enough rifles to equip all the soldiers.

    I can only think of two things that the russians themselves contributed with. Sheer number and the extreme bravery and will to die in battle in the defense of their motherland by the grunts.
    The things that turned the tide in Russia were slightly more complicated than that. It was materials (especially tanks) that the Russian Factories built after the factories were literally picked up and moved from eastern Europe (using US-"donated" supply trucks and freight cars), the lack of german supplies (ammunition and cold weather gear, and Oil for their tanks) after moving towards Moscow, and the Brits never either surrendering or agreeing to a cease-fire with the Germans.

    If any of those things changed, well, once Moscow fell the USSR was essentially beaten, and those Oil Fields to the south would have allowed the superior german tanks to assert land dominance, and even if the rest of the allies did attempt a European landing, it would have been different if the panzer divisions were allowed free reign.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    What about the supplies the British sent them...months before US aid ever began...and the British never asked for a penny back. Nevermind that Canadians were also escorting your merchant ships through the arctic.

    Unless I'm missing the actual intention here and this isn't some thinly veiled "US won WW2 for everyone" post.

    No "thinly veiled" anything. Just simple facts. But I will respond to your "thinly veiled" insinuation that the US charged for gifts during lend lease......which they did not. All aid sent to the UK, Russia, China and other allies was entirely free during the war. All materials requested by those countries after the war ended were at a 90% discount. In total over $50 billion was gifted from the US to the allies which would be $639 billion in current US dollars.

    If you wish to check the veracity of this claim here is the text of the bill passed by Congress authorizing said aid:

    http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-23.htm
    Last edited by Kulanae; 2013-05-17 at 07:31 AM.

  7. #47
    Banned Manakin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cambridge!
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Charge me Doctor View Post
    Oh, and to point out something:
    Many killers, drug dealers, drug users, crazy people was moved to labor camps (GULAG) and died there because of sucky management (living conditions was horrible) and overall effectiveness of such workers was low. So, what's better, keep ~3 millions of prisoners in jails, or use them to build, for example, a dam, or to cut forests? In papers it's OK but in reality many bad people died. I assume that not all of them was guilty and so on, but we have same flaws in judge systems now
    You're kidding?

    Stalin era gulags were oft filled with political dissidents and those who were considered a threat by a dying, paranoid man. SURE a % may of been actually guilty of the crimes described - but during and after the WW2 era innocent people were thrown in there to work until they died.

    I have no respect of the gulags of the Stalin era or today, but please - continue to justify them by all means.

    ("I assume that not all of them was guilty and so on" It's much, much more than what you're attempting to portray)

  8. #48
    The Insane Bakis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    16,224
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    The things that turned the tide in Russia were slightly more complicated than that. It was materials (especially tanks) that the Russian Factories built after the factories were literally picked up and moved from eastern Europe (using US-"donated" supply trucks and freight cars), the lack of german supplies (ammunition and cold weather gear, and Oil for their tanks) after moving towards Moscow, and the Brits never either surrendering or agreeing to a cease-fire with the Germans.

    If any of those things changed, well, once Moscow fell the USSR was essentially beaten, and those Oil Fields to the south would have allowed the superior german tanks to assert land dominance, and even if the rest of the allies did attempt a European landing, it would have been different if the panzer divisions were allowed free reign.
    Myabe I was unclear, I meant that before the tide turned the things I wrote kept the boat afloat. Ie. the initial german campaigns, long before the industrial might of Russie were able to kick in etc.

  9. #49
    Warchief Fullmetal89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Between the Spiral and Anti-Spiral dimensions.
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by jotabe View Post
    It's doubtful. Hitler was really needing those oilfields, after all.

    The biggest problem was that Soviet industrial production was ramping up and by 1943 was overproducing Germany. Even if Germany had managed to take Moscow on 1941 or 1942 and force a Soviet surrender where the Soviets would have to retreat below the Urals, the industrial production of Siberia would have overtaken Germany earlier than 1950s, when the Soviets more than likely would have restarted the war.

    Germany's biggest problem wasn't General Winter, wasn't a 2-front war, etc. Germany was doomed to lose that war because they didn't have enough heavy industry, because their industrial doctrine was shit (disposable slaves aren't the best skilled workforce) and because it hadn't secured enough oil to keep their industry/army running for a long war. It would have taken longer or not, but Germany was doomed from the beginning.
    That's true they could never rival the industrial might of the U.S. but I think had they taken over Russia during 43 and had the Japanese continued their campaign of domination in the pacific. They might have had a victory. The Americans where actually doing very poorly when they entered the pacific theater at the start. The Japanese had excellent ships and even better aircraft they just didn't have the industrial capabilities and resources that the U.S.

    You are probably right though, guess will never know. Guess will leave it up to fiction, the books Fatherland and The Man in the High Castle have a really interesting take on the what if axis had won scenario. If your interested in that sort of thing, they are great read.
    Last edited by Fullmetal89; 2013-05-17 at 07:29 AM.
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."
    -
    Issac Asimov, Foundation.

    Pokémon Safari: Rock Type (Magcargo/Barbaracle/Dwebble).
    FC: 0447-5673-4977
    MAL PROFILE

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Bakis View Post
    Myabe I was unclear, I meant that before the tide turned the things I wrote kept the boat afloat. Ie. the initial german campaigns, long before the industrial might of Russie were able to kick in etc.
    The Battle for Moscow really was the turning point, and by that time the Russian Factories had already started producing equipment after the move and it was arriving at the front lines in enough mass to be effective. But yes, the scotched earth policies and the fanaticism of the Russian soldier did slow and stall the German advance.

    I maintain if Stalin hadn't been as paranoid as he was and left some at least competent military leaders in place there never would have been a battle for Moscow, but w/e.

    Edit -> I say 'Russian soldier' but a huge majority of Russian soldiers were conscripts, with little training and little equipment. You could blame that on Stalin too, but it was more a lack of modernization in Russia as a whole.
    Last edited by obdigore; 2013-05-17 at 07:31 AM.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackhisis View Post
    But no amount of Goebbels' lies can hide their russophobic nature.
    I am going to assume you mean me and reply. This girl's father was executed as a "japanese spy" and her mother died in a mysterious car crash. I have seen an interview where she told her story and how documents quoted Stalin's exact words which showed the state of paranoia he was in.

    The Russian casualties were largely his fault. It wasn't just his incompetent leadership of the army, but also his slow modernization of the military and lack of a concept how to stop Germany. He sacrificed large parts of his army defending lost causes instead of relocating them in the east of the country and preparing a counter attack.

    Russia would have won without him as a leader.

  12. #52
    Warchief Kivimetsan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A fascistic nightmare...
    Posts
    2,197
    Would rather Hitler and Fascism than Stalin and Communism.

  13. #53
    Let's put it this way. Two people are being a dick to you. One day the two of them get into a fight and one beats the other's ass. Does that make him any less of a dick?

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Fullmetal89 View Post
    That's true they could never rival the industrial might of the U.S. but I think had they taken over Russia during 43 and had the Japanese continued their campaign of domination in the pacific. They might have had a victory. The Americans where actually doing very poorly when they entered the pacific theater at the start. The Japanese had excellent ships and even better aircraft they just didn't have the industrial capabilities and resources that the U.S.

    You are probably right though, guess will never know. Guess will leave it up to fiction, the books Fatherland and The Man in the High Castle have a really interesting take on the what if axis had won scenario. If your interested in that sort of thing, they are great read.
    Hehe in fact one of my favourite internet hangouts is alternatehistory.com, you learn a lot of stuff there. In order to make a plausible alternate timeline, you need to know how things were IRL, so people who write them do extensive research (more than novelists that dabble in uchrony).

    The problems with the Japanese were:
    -they had almost no oil nor steel left, and their biggest trade partner, the US, had embargoed them.
    -they had terrible shipping capabilities
    -their industrial production was poor, too
    They had only 2 ways to solve this:
    -Sign peace with China, which was completely against the ideology of the military, plus would force them to give back a lot of Chinese territory.
    -Take over the regions in SE Asia with those resources they needed. This is what they did. The problem is that the American public opinion was growing angered by Japanese imperialism in the region (because it affected the strategical position of the US), and were siding with a war declaration. Shortly before Pearl Harbor, polls showed that people would support a militar intervention against Japan even if Japan wouldn't attack first.
    And as soon as Japan would enter at war with the US, all was lost, even more surely than in the case of Germany vs USSR.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Bakis View Post
    I can only think of two things that the russians themselves contributed with. Sheer number and the extreme bravery and will to die in battle in the defense of their motherland by the grunts.
    If that is all you can think of than you have a very limited knowledge of history, since they contributed with a lot more. They moved their production deep in to the east of the country and started churning our the the best tanks at the time. They defended their oil fields which crippled the German war machine.

    Also they didn't chose to die in battle. Their officers would have shot them in the back if they had tried to run.

  16. #56
    Stalin didn't have that much to do with Hitler's defeat, Hitler did it to himself, he was given ample opportunities by Rommel and I think Raeder to see that he could neutralize the USSR by going through Egypt and then Turkey into the Caucasus where he would have pretty much had them by the balls due to most of the oil for the USSR coming from there.
    Assuming it even had to go that far, Hitler started the war with the USSR, not the other way around, so really I don't see what Stalin had to do with it, either personally or as the leadership of Soviet Russia.

    Also, splitting his army between 3 objectives of Moscow, Stalingrad and the Caucasus and then listening to Goering who promised he could fly in enough supplies during the winter to the army at Stalingrad was very self-defeating.

    He turned on Zhukov, who did most the leading of the army after the end of the war as well.

    Monster that "saves" the world is still a monster.
    Last edited by Stonewall; 2013-05-17 at 07:55 AM.

  17. #57
    And don't forget famine in Ukraine from 1932-1933, all murders and mass deportations in Baltic states. I see Stalin as worst out of all western dicatators but at same time I don't think If Hitler would have won WW2 we could have much better result.

    Those who say if Hitler would have defeated Stalin and Soviet Union then US could just kick there ass have to remember that, if that would happen then you would have Nazi in Pasific theater at same time with Japan at that time. Do you think it would be easier for you to kick Japanese with Hitlers forces supporting them? While in Europe, then he could send much more troops back to western Europe to keep his positions and fight US and Brittish forces. Then he would have All resources from Russia, Oil, Iron, Coil, Gas. Sorry but if Hitler would have defeated Soviets I don't think US and Brits could defeat them without someone supporting you from other side.

    P.S Sorry about terrible English

  18. #58
    Over 9000! Snowraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    9,336
    No, Stalin was evil. Also, what you might not remember is that USSR originally made a non-agression pact with Nazi Germany. In fact, hours before Hitler gave the order to attack USSR, the USSR trains with iron were still crossing the border into Nazi Germany. Stalin only helped the war because he was attacked... not much of a choice there. He wouldn't have helped if he wasn't, and according to some memoirs, he was hoping the Axis and the Allies would destroy eachother then he can come and take on 2 very weakened forces.

    ---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 11:21 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey View Post
    Stalin had nothing to do with Germans not being able to overcome Russians, winter did it, even partisans played a bigger part than the actual army.
    The only thing Russian army had going for them was sheer numbers, and even that wasn't enough to compensate for how inadequate it was. Take a look at WWII Finland vs. Russia for example. It's not just that the Finnish were beastly (which they were), the Russians just couldn't keep their shit together in the field.
    To add to this, there were several situations when the russians were just sent on the field with 1 rifle for 2 men. 1 man got the rifle, the other just got a reloading magazine, if the first fell, the second could take the rifle. They were supposed to move forward, or the officers shot them in the back.
    In the meantime, the russians had machine guns. So this sending russians ahead was actually sending them to their deaths hoping the germans might need to reload at some point and then someone might get a shot... which is a horrible tactic!

    There are 3 things where the russians did well. They had better winter clothing, they had some really good snipers(but few) and a lot of partisans in the occupied areas.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by breadisfunny View Post
    60,000,000 people died in world war II. a war which HITLER started. so yes it already exceeds his count almost 3 TIMES OVER.
    Fun fact WW2 was being fought in Asia by various Chinese factions fighting a Civil War and trying to hold off Japanese Aggressors. Long before the Polish were trying to stop a German,Soviet Invasion. The war started and ended in the Pacific.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Kotutha View Post
    Fun fact WW2 was being fought in Asia by various Chinese factions fighting a Civil War and trying to hold off Japanese Aggressors. Long before the Polish were trying to stop a German,Soviet Invasion. The war started and ended in the Pacific.
    Russia and Japan still haven't signed a peace treaty to end World War Two.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •