Tovarisch Engineer Kimov and I got a little off topic on our discussion of WW2 on his thread of the potential rise of the former USSR again. History is written from each countries' point of view. I have talked to WW2 vets of every flavor, and in fact my grandfather was a Major and landed at Omaha beach during the Normandy invasion, and was wounded in the battle of the Bulge. The debate on the other thread centered around Russias contribution to WW2, and he went so far as to suggest that Japan would not have been defeated without Russia, which I respectfully disagree with. It can be a very touchy subject for Russians, because in fact, they suffered even larger and more personal losses in some ways than ourselves. So let's please be respectful of the loss of brave warriors on both sides.

My question is this- who's history is correct? Russia defeating the Axis power and us just helping or the other way around? Please back up historical references with some artifacts that prove your point, as both sides I think sometimes exagerated thier claims!

I'll give Stalin a little credit for helping defeat the axis powers during WW2. He basically destroyed whatever the Germans sent to Russia and humilated them and crippled them, thus helping the other Allies to pounce the remaining Nazi forces in Europe

From a purely military point of view, Hitler defeated Germany. He made three crucial errors which cost him the war.

1. During the evacuation of British forces at Dunkirk (France) Hitler held back his army because the commander of the Luftwaffe (the name escapes me) had asked for the chance to destroy them as a display of their new airpower. Poor weather conditions crippled the air strikes allowing most of the British manpower and artillery to escape back to England.

2. The Invasion of Russia. This is the big one. The Russian troops may have been poorly armed and poorly trained for the defense of the Motherland, but the German troops were ill-prepared for the staunch resistance and awful winter. The second major front would prove costly.

3. Declaring war on the United States. Lets not forget that Hitler was under no obligation too; and the U.S. had until then committed no personnel to an invasion of Europe (although Roosevelt had begun preparations.)

I agree that the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe and played a larger role than the U.S. and the U.K. in Germany's defeat. The Soviets couldn't have done it alone however. The allies were weaker than Germany on a one-on-one basis. None of them would have defeated Nazi Germany alone in 1941 or 1942. Russia also had no impact at all on the defeat of Imperial Japan. The Soviets did not declare war on Japan until 8 days before major hostilities ceased. The Soviet role in Japan's defeat could in some ways be compared to Italy's role in France's defeat. By the time they intervene the issue was no longer in doubt, and their entry did not effect the outcome.

I seen this question bounced about before, and it never seems to be resolved.

Americans do not seem to like the idea that their war was only a fraction of the entire war, but I'm afraid that the facts speak for themselves.
The eastern front saw all the biggest battles, Kursk (250,000 dead in ten days!) makes D Day look like a school yard tussle. And Kursk was just one battle!


http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm

When I read figures like these, and compare them to the ordeal described by US troops in books like 'Band of Brothers', then it seems perfectly clear to me, that it was the Red Army (and not Stalin) that defeated the Wehrmacht.
Of course the Russians had immense support from America in order to enable them to win, but the casualty figures are clear;

Britannica figures.

Russia;
Military; 11,000,000
Civilian; 7,000,000

America;
Military; 292,131 (not incl. 115,187 non-battle)
Civilian; 6,000

Britain;
Military; 264,443 (incl. missing)
Civilian; 92,673 (incl. 30,248 merchant mariners and 60,595 killed by bombing)

Germany
Military; 3,500,000 (incl. 1M missing. Not incl.: 250,000 dead of natural causes, suicide and execution).
Civilian; 780,000.

Japan
Military; 1,300,000 (not incl. 300,000 deaths not related to battle)
Civilian; 672,000

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm


It does not really matter though. What really matters is that we today, look back on what that generation had to endure, and that we today do not idly go to war for scant reason.

And that we understand the immense debt of gratitude we owe those men and women of ALL the Allied forces.

I would have to say it was more of a combined effort then anything else.

had germany not been so focused on the eastern front and russia, they could hev commited more military power towards britain, and africa. had we not been fighting in africa, and britain been able to hold off the germans for so long, hitler could have focused his entire military machine on russia and likely overrun them eventually. and germany's defeat in russia seemed to be a combination of things: first: weather. the winter in that part of the globe is horrendous and a logistical nightmare. second: treating the people of eastern europe and russia (esp. slavs) as subhuman and killing them on sight likely turned many against germany that may not have liked russia. third: other fronts. because hitler was in a multi front war, he couldn't focus all his might in one place. had hitler only focused on russia, he may have been able to defeat them eventually.

CR, I think you're correct, both sides that won have embellished their roles. it was more of a team effort (imo) then anything.

Were it not for the eastern front, D-Day might well have been a failure. The main significance of D-Day in the end was not to cause the defeat of Nazi Germany, which would have happened anyway, but to participate in that defeat and thus prevent the Soviet Union from controlling even more of Europe. This is not in any way to belittle the efforts, skill or bravery of the people who fought on the western front; it's merely an observation that D-Day and subsequent western-front campaigns were not as decisive as is generally taught in American schools.

I should also add that the Soviet campaign in Manchuria, though it occurred very late, was probably very much on Japanese generals' minds as they made the decision to surrender. Knowing that they faced not one but two superior adversaries might have made the difference between surrender and a bloody finish, and surrender to the Americans might well have seemed preferable to any defeat involving the Soviets.

Platypus.

I don't doubt that you are correct. America in 1946 must have been the best nation on Earth to surrender to, and Russia, perhaps, the worst.

I find this debate fairly interesting. It surprises me how hard it is for Americans to understand the level of fighting that was involved on the eastern front during world war ii.

The United States and Great Britain were very important allies for defeating Stalin, and the DDay front was extremely important for the future of eurore. (Who would have liked to see an entire europe a that was 'liberated' by the Soviet Union???) But at all times that the United States was in the war, the Soviet Union faced at least 75% of the German forces (and their allies)

Germany invaded the Soviet Union along a 2,000 mile long front. The held them off in a horrific seige in Leningrad that lasted 900 days, they turned the Germans away for Moscow and the destroyed a key German army on the way to get Soviet oil fields in the Caucuses at the Battle of Stalingrad (I believe that is the bloodiest battle in human history) and the follow up victory at Kursk. Before 1944 (even though Stalin begged for a second front in Europe in 1942 and 1943) the Soviet Union had turned the tide and began pushing Germany back.

The US funnelled a good deal of money to the Soviets to make this possible. So when I teach this material I say that GErmany was defeated (aside from Hitler's leadership) by Soviet soldiers and American dollars)

The United States has always been cautious about war casualties (this I know is a good thing) But we waited in periphery campaigns in North Africa (to secure the British position in the Mediterranean) and Italy before embarking on a very very carefully planned D-Day invasion.

We had the liberty of careful planning because Hitler was being defeated by the Soviet army. And then we landed during the ongoing defeat of GErmany and took care of business on the western front.

The Soviet Union, did not however have a role to significant role to play in the defeat of Japan. Their occupation of Manchuria did play a significant role in the postwar Chinese communist revolution, but that is another story.

I am not a politician, I am military scientist. And things I am going to say may sound harsh or disrespectful. I ask you to forgive me, but I must say it.

Western historical science is profit-oriented, just like entire Western society. So it is not fully objective, and in reality represents a collection of well-paid myths (just like post-Soviet Russian capitalist historical science). The most important myphs ARE NOT EVEN DISCUSSED in OFFICIAL science. The example is Holocaust. No, I am NOT going to discuss Holocaust here, because it will get me banned, but the entire fear of discussing the "touching" or "emotional" points of history is sick from my personal view.

Soviet historical science was different. In fact, it had two branches: the history as it is, and the history as it should be. Soviets were good at creating myphs. Social realism style (reality-as-it-should-be) gave birth to many semi-documental pieces of art, like famous epic "Fall of Berlin". But Soviet historical science never mixed myph and reality. EVERY stage of Soviet society brought new wave of re-understanding and re-analyzing of events: Lenin - Stalin - Khrushev - Brezhnev - Andropov - Chernenko...

And here's the crux of the problem.

From point of "emotional" view, I must say that "World War 2" was united war of peace-loving nations against fascist enslavers, and victory would be impossible without contribution of all Allied powers.

But as military scientist, I must reject this viewpoint as total garbage.

And here's my point: THERE WAS "WORLD WAR 2" IN THE WAY IT IS UNDERSTANDED TODAY. THERE WAS "GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR" - A WAR OF SOVIET COMMUNISM AND GERMAN NAZISM, AND MINOR SKIRMISHES WHICH INFLICTED NO PRACTICAL CHANGES ON THIS CONFLICT.

To prove my point, I need to prove two assertions.

ASSERTION ONE: Axis would be defeated by USSR even without help from West.

ASSERTION TWO: West would be defeated by Axis without Soviet help.

Let's start.

First of all, war started 22th of June of 1941 (day of Nazi invasion of USSR), and not earlier. The fact: German economy was put on military rails ("mobilized") ONLY after Nazis were defeated at Moscow. Before that, Hitler used minimal forces, almost always using less amount of units then enemy (which was especially notable during conquest of France). The reason why small under-equipped force brought Europe to its knees is Hitler's genius and skill of his commanders. The fact: IN 1939, NAZIS HAD ONLY 711 (seven hundred eleven) FIGHTER PLANES! You call THIS a "World War"?! Compare this with tens of thousands planes, which were produced for conquest of USSR.

Second. Main forces of Nazi Germany were focused on Eastern Front. The fact: approximately 80% of Nazi forces were destroyed during battles against Red Army. You say this is only numbers? Heh, the truth is even more interesting. These 20% of forces, which were destroyed by Western Allies, consisted mostly of Hitler-Jugend and local militia. If you check the list of German casualities on Western front, you won't find any elite corps there. Africa operation is different, but in Africa Nazis used obsolete equipment, because had no abilities to reinforce them. Africa operation posed no effect on conflict. Even if it posed, Soviets could handle African corps, that is not even a question.

Third. Even though Western help saved many Russian lives, it was NOT necessary for victory of Soviet Union. The only argument against this point is assumption, that if either Moscow or Stalingrad was taken, the entire country will fall apart. That is lies. The fact: BY STALIN'S ORDER, MOST OF SOVIET INDUSTRY WAS RELOCATED TO EASTERN PARTS OF SOVIET UNION, OUT OF THE RANGE OF ANY NAZI ATTACKS (both air and ground). It was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Nazis to destroy Soviet military industry. To do this, they should rebuild industry on occupied Soviet territories, which required YEARS. The fact: Soviets did that in three years (having more progressive socioeconomical system, than Nazis!). Soviets didn't need Western help to win.

And yes, about winter. Russian winter affected nothing, because BOTH Soviet and Nazi forces suffered from it. And in most cases, Soviets suffered more. Remember Leningrad Blockade?

Also, you may wonder, why Red Army was so badly defeated at first stages of Great Patriotic War. The reason of failure - Stalin destroyed counter-revolutionary conspiracy in Red Army too late. Core of Soviet forces, formed by traitors like Tukhachevskiy, were large in numbers, but completely unable to fight modern (in terms of 1940ies) war. It consisted mostly of fast assault tanks without armor plating (almost all of them were destroyed in first months of war) and bombers (which were destroyed on ground). The fact is that during first months of Great Patriotic War, Hitler DESTROYED RED ARMY (thanks to traitors in Red Army, executed by Stalin not so long before war), but Stalin rebuilt it almost from scratch. That's why Nazi propaganda claimed that Hitler destroyed Soviet air force.

To illustrate this fact, here's funny German anecdote. End of the war. Father and son are walking near ruins of Nazi tank factory. "What happened to this factory?" - asks kid. Father answers: "Well, unexisting Soviet bombers flied here and dropped unexisting Soviet bombs, so, factory ceased to exist as well..."

Fourth. Without help of Soviets, Allies would never defeat Hitler. Well, we are entering "alternative history" part of problem, and we must be very accurate. Let's imagine, that Western forces faced not 20% of weakest Nazi forces, but also 80% of those from Eastern Front? The fact: one "King Tiger" tank can take out AT LEAST four "Shermans". Multiply it on defensive coefficient, which, according to Western strategies, equals 3 (three). Now, do the math yourself. But that is not all. That only shows defensive potential of Nazis. The REAL power of Nazi Germany was not in conventional forces, but in unconventional ones. First of all, it is jet aviation. Britain would be defeated swiftly, that is not even a question. But that is not enough to bring down America. The fact: even in situation of total deficit of resources, flight of first Nazi ICBM was scheduled on 1946 year; the target was New York - Nazi spies already placed radio beacons; warhead - atomic. If Soviets didn't slow down Nazi rocket and atomic projects (I am not even talking about chemical and biological weaponry), Hitler would have possessed weapons of fifth generation of warfare, because, objectively, Nazis were much closer to it than Americans. I think it is not necessarily to explain the outcome.

And, finally, about Japan. I understand, that Americans are so proud with their "defeating" semi-feudal society which flied on wooden planes, falling apart with first hit, but in reality, it was Soviets who defeated Japan. Decision of capitulation of Japan was done in 9 of August, 1945 year - that is IMMEDIATELY AFTER Soviets entered war and LONG BEFORE bombing of Nagasaki. Prime Minister of Japan, Admiral Sudzuki claimed that FACT THAT SOVIETS ENTERED WAR LEAVES JAPAN IN HOPELESS POSITION AND MAKES IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTINUE WAR. He was supported by many people, including Minister of Foreign Relations Togo. However, Primary Headquarters ordered to start military campaign againtst USSR. Guess what? Soviets smashed huge Quatun Army, AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT, NOT A SECOND EARLIER Japan Emperor capitulated.

Soviet Union: Soviet Strike Force
Commander: A.M.Vasilevskiy
Soldiers: 1500000 (1,5 million)
Artillery: 26000
Tanks: 5500
Aircrafts: 3800

Japan Empire: Quatun Army
Commander: General Otodzo Yamada
Soldiers: 2500000 (2,5 million)
Artillery: 8000
Tanks: 1200
Aircrafts: 2000

Without Soviets, Americans would NEVER defeat Japan, because it required transfer of AT LEAST five million soldiers (according to classic offensive strategies, used by America and Britain - more than ten million) to Japan islands, which was economically and military impossible for America.

Well, here's my view. Even though I pay respect to Western Allied forces, who saved many Russian lives, I cannot agree that they played important strategic role in World War 2.

Funny, I always thought the billions of dollars that the U.S. funnelled to the Soviet Union helped them survive the first few years of the war. So does every single war historian that I have ever heard of.

Operation Downfall and it's two sub components; Operations Coronet and Olympic called for 1.5 million combat soldiers, with as many as 3 million in supporting roles.

This statement confuses me, Nagasaki was bombed on 9 Aug 1945.
Interesting assertions that the western allies played virtually no role in defeating the axis powers. Not one I've heard much before, and certainly not from any prominent historians. From opening a second front with Operation Overlord, running the U-Boat gauntlet to bring supplies to Murmansk and Archangel, to island hopping for three years to Japan's doorstep......all of which insignificant compared to Mother Russia. hmmmm....

You misunderstood me. On the same day AND before. If you want I can search my archives and give you the time.



Just like I said, compare this to 10 million required to bring down Japan.

I think Kimov has cause and effect a bit confused Russia jumped into the war against Japan because Japan was defeated, Japan was not defeated because Russia jumped in. Yes, invading Japan would have cost many casualties, fortunately the US had another little weapon to utilize that made invasion unneccesary.

Comrade Kimov,

You run with some truth and couple it with totalitarianism communist propaganda and then call it military science. Science relies on all available evidence in search of the truth. The communist party never searched for truth they searched for control and totoalitarian power in large part through a monopoly on infirmation.

Great Patriotic War is a myth. It implies that the Soviet Union was the only country involved in the war and that they were the "good guys."



If your hint that the holocaust never existed you severely limited your credibility. This was right before you asserted that there should never be any emotional or sentimental connection to the study of science. And then you made a passioned list of reasons why your country was the real winner of the so-called Great Patriotic War.

That same semi-feudal japan destroyed russian forces in 1904-5. And implying that a country quit fighting because the Soviet army was coming without any consideration to the US systematic approach to the main islands and the sustained damage done by US aircraft is imagination.

Germany would have easily defeated Great Britain? They tried and failed.
The war didn't start until the Soviet Union entered it? Tell that to Austria, Czech, POland, France. Norway and the low countries.



Stalin went insane and killed or imprisoned 7 million so called counter-revolutionaries as he rewrote the history books to proclaim himself the anointed successor of Lenin. He purged anyone who he deemed a threat and this included almost anyone who commanded men with weapons. In doing so he destroyed the experienced leadership of his army. Then he ignored allied intelligence to the contrary and trusted his agreement with Hitler and allowed his armies to be surprised.

Comrade Kimov it is nice to encounter relics from the cold war, because our present environment almost makes me nostalgic for the cold war foreign policy. But don't call something science and trumpet a series of myths. If I want double speak I will listen to messages from the Bush administration.

Kimov.

Although I agree that the Soviet Union bore the heaviest burden in world war two, your account is so biased that it borders on the comical.

For example, you write;



Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Americans deployed atomic weapons in 1945.


And I'm not sure just how exactly you think the Soviets slowed down the nazi atomic project or even how the nazi's were going to have an atomic ICBM in 1946 since it is well documented that the German atomic project was simply unable to build an atomic bomb. Their best minds tried, and failed.

I find this especially amusing since it took the rest of the world until 1957 to build an actual nuclear ICBM weapon.

It seems to me that you are assuming that Werner von Braun and his companions would have been able to complete their A9/ A10 project, and perhaps they would have given enough time and money. But to assume this could have been done by 1946 is ridiculous.

By comparison, the Mercury-Atlas rocket, which was of roughly the same size as the A9/ A10 did not fly until the early 1960's.

to HUGO:

[quote]"Russia jumped into the war against Japan because Japan was defeated"[/quote]

Both of these statements are lies.

First. Japan was NOT defeated. Its main forces remained, and Quatun army was guarantee of Japan's success. This army could not be defeated with American atomic bombings, it required lots of them, and America has only few. It was Soviet Union which destroyed Quatun army and defeated Japan.

Second. Soviets were fighting Japaneese forces since 1935, long before Americans entered the conflict. 1945 was only official declaration of war.



to EEYORE:

[quote]"If your hint that the holocaust never existed you severely limited your credibility."[/quote]

Just like I expected. No, I do not claim that Holocaust never existed. I just think that it is widely overestimated. In Russia, the word "Holocaust" was only recently brought in by Zionist activists. In case you don't know, United Nations officially claimed that Zionism is form of racism. And in case you don't know, there is only one ethnic Russian oligarch in entire Russia. The rest oligarchs are Jews - Profanity Deleted FACT. So, if Hitler faced same situation in Germany, I quite understand why he persecuted Jews. Try to look on situation from different points of view.

[quote]"you made a passioned list of reasons"[/quote]

I used emotions in expressing the truth, not in finding it. That is different things.

[quote]"That same semi-feudal japan destroyed russian forces in 1904-5."[/quote]

EXACTLY! In 1904-1905 Russia ITSELF was feudal society, ruled by Czar, and most of Russian citizens (approximately 90%) lived not even in feudal system, but in some form of prehistoric collective system. Are you familiar with term "obschina"? Russian Empire was completely regressive society.

[quote]"And implying that a country quit fighting because the Soviet army was coming without any consideration to the US systematic approach to the main islands and the sustained damage done by US aircraft is imagination."[/quote]

Why? I admit that Americans inflicted much damage on Japan forces. But not enough to bring them down - EVEN THOUGH JAPANEESE WERE MORE THAN TWENTY TIMES LESS ECONOMICALLY POWERFULL (in terms of overall industrial production) THEN AMERICANS. All those terrorist bombings of peaceful cities of Japan and Germany didn't affected the war, they only make Germans and Japaneese fight harder. Same is applied to theoretical USA-vs-USSR conflict. That's why American plan of continuing "World War 2" by attacking Soviet Union with atomic weapons was never put in action - Soviets were not afraid of atomic bombings.

[quote]"Germany would have easily defeated Great Britain? They tried and failed."[/quote]

He did NOT tried! Air raids were acts of terror, they have nothing to do with real invasion: full-scale deployment of ground forces, supported by front-line planes, like it happened on Eastern Front. Calling "Battle for Britain" an invasion is not even funny.

[quote]"The war didn't start until the Soviet Union entered it? Tell that to Austria, Czech, POland, France. Norway"[/quote]

Let's see. Austrians and Czechs were taken in 1938, almost without resistance, even though they could resist succesfully - Germans in 1938 had not completed forming Wermacht. Especially it is applied to Czechs - the army simply stood back. The most interesting is that 30 years after, in 1968, during Soviet pacification of Czechoslovakia, they did it again! Frankly, I don't want to have allies that do not resist enemies.

Next. Norway. That's sort of anecdote. If Norway campaign plan is judged from point it is act of war, it can be called suicide. By middle of 1940 Britain fleet concentrated at Scapa Flow, the closest base to Norway. British have all abilities to sink German transports. Put together, British and French has 800 of war ships against 234 of German ships! If Allies attacked, entire Nazi fleet and 40 thousand of Nazis would be destroyed, and the war would never be started. Canaris secretly reported about future German invasion of Norway, but Allies do nothing! By 7th of April, 1940, London already knows about invasion! The same day air recon detects German transports. And British do nothing! 8th of April British submarine "Trident" sinks German transport "Rio de Janeiro", and captured Nazis say: we were ordered to invade Norway. And British do nothing! 9th of April Hitler invades Norway: one operation was enough to bring down entire country! "World War", you say?

Next. Belgium. That's the funniest part. Remember Eben-Amael fortress? Nazi forces - 75 men. Defenders - 1200 men in fortress, with heavy weaponry and machine guns. Calculating to "standart units" and using low defensive coefficient of 1.5 (one and a half), defenders have at least 6-to-1 superiority. Using Gauss statistical distribution, norming 50% of success for 3-to-1 superiority, considering bets are somewhere near one-to-million. A war? Or just special operation?

Same can be applied to France and Poland, especially to France, because it was vastly superior to Germany in numbers and equipment. So, my point - everything before 22th of June, 1941, was series of special operations, minor skirmishes, that have mostly psychological effect (to be fair, the beginning of Great Patriotic War was the same).



to MOIF:

[quote]"Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Americans deployed atomic weapons in 1945."[/quote]

Using German scientists and results, achieved by Germany before "World War 2".

[quote]"And I'm not sure just how exactly you think the Soviets slowed down the nazi atomic project"[/quote]

In case you don't know, after facing major defeats, Hitler ordered to cut funding of long-term scientific projects, focusing on standart equipment. And frankly, I don't think it was a mistake, because neither ICBM, nor atomic bombings would have affected Eastern Front.

[quote]"or even how the nazi's were going to have an atomic ICBM in 1946"[/quote]

We should ask Von Braun. But the fact is that prototype of trans-atlantic missile was launch at 8th of January, 1945. The missile failed to hit the target, but hell, they have a lot of time before 1946.

Another fact: there was total of 48 launches of A9/A10. In 1944, only 16 launches failed. So, the missile was WORKING.

[quote]"I find this especially amusing since it took the rest of the world until 1957 to build an actual nuclear ICBM weapon."[/quote]

Soviet R-7, launched in 1957, was not just ICBM. It was powerfull enough to send cosmonaut to orbit, and was powerfull enough to launch Luna exploration probes, long before Americans ever touched Luna, by the way, and was powerfull enough for one-way manned mission to Luna.

[quote]"It seems to me that you are assuming that Werner von Braun and his companions would have been able to complete their A9/ A10 project, and perhaps they would have given enough time and money. But to assume this could have been done by 1946 is ridiculous."[/quote]

I repeat the fact: there was total of 48 launches of A9/A10. In 1944, only 16 launches failed. So, the missile was WORKING.

[quote]"By comparison, the Mercury-Atlas rocket, which was of roughly the same size as the A9/ A10 did not fly until the early 1960's."[/quote]

Even though made by Nazi scientists, Mercury-Atlas was American project, not Nazi one. It is amusing that Americans actually completed this project.



Well, that is my point. Sorry if I offended somebody.

Your information is incorrect. The A9/ A10 was never built.

I'm assuming now that you have made the mistake of confusing the A9/ A10 with the A4b.
Bu the A4b was not an A9/ A10, but rather an A4 (V2) with wings. An image of which can be seen here



All info can be seen here;
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/v2.htm




Yes. I am aware of that. I only refered to Mercury Atlas, because it has a caparable size to the proposed A9/ A10.

editted to add



You also seem to be implying that economic pressure was the sole reason why Hitler never got his hands on an atomic weapon, and I disagree. I had to re read my history since its been a while since I read about Heisenberg, but I find my memory serves me correctly.
Heisenberg failed (perhaps intentionally) to build an atomic weapon.

There is no way that the Germans could have built an atomic bomb to hit America by 1946. Not even if they had had the money.



You can read the entire article here;

http://tms.physics.lsa.umich.edu/214/other...rmany-bomb.html


As for your claim that the Soviet Union did not care about nuclear strikes, I find it does not make sense. Neither with history or the history books. If The USSR was unafraid of American nuclear weapons, then why did those same nuclear weapons keep the USSR in check until its demise in the 1990's?

Also, my biography of SP Korolev makes it quite clear that the Soviet union, or rather the leaders of the Sovet Union did fear nuclear weapons. So much so that countering them was their greatest priority.

The point of all this is that although Russia/ The Soviet Union did pay by far the heaviest price for victory during the second world war, it did not do so alone, nor could it have done so within the time frame of events as they happened. Without the other allied powers, the Soviet forces would have faced the same logistical problems as the Germans did.

You point out that Stalin had moved Soviet manufacturing facilities out towards the east to escape German firepower, and that the Germans would have to build new factories to cross the deserted Russian terrain, but fail to take into account that had the Germans been pushed back by Russian forces who were not being clothed, fed and supplied equipment by the USA, then they would have faced the very same logistical nightmare themselves.

Yes, seems that I mixed up A9/A10 and A4b. Such things always happen when I am in hurry. Thanks for showing me my error, comrade.


edited to add:

"As for your claim that the Soviet Union did not care about nuclear strikes"

I did NOT claim this, I claimed Soviet Union did not FEAR nuclear strikes. If you check works on Soviet strategy, you will see that Soviets ACTUALLY INTENDED TO WIN GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR. Just look at "Satan", "Scalpel" and "Topol" missiles. They are perfect first-strike weapon.

It was the atomic bombings which caused Japan's surrender, not the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Even after the 2nd atomic bombing on Aug 9th, the Supreme War Council was deadlocked in its debate on whether to surrender. This was a victory for the Hawks as a deadlock meant the war would continue. It was only the unprecedented intervention by Hirohito and a bit of luck in staving off a coup which brought an end to the war, and Hirohito's motivation for intervening was the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In fact the hawks in a way, thought a Soviet invasion would aid their cause. Although they had been frantically negotiating with Stalin to keep the U.S.S.R. out, the build-up of Soviet troops was obvious. When the invasion came it was not a suprise. The hawks in the Supreme War Council were sure American casualties in the invasion of Japan, combined with any Soviet advances in Asia would force the Americans to drop the unconditional surrender demand. Like the Nazis they took hope in a rivalry between the Soviets and the Americans.



No, they weren't. The Japanese and Soviets engaged each other in border clashes during the Nomohan Incident in 1939. That was the extent of the fighting, a truce was signed between the two powers in September of 1939 and fighting would not resume until August 8th, 1945 when the Soviets invaded Manchuria.

By the time the Soviets crossed into Manchuria, Japan's defeat was no longer in doubt except to the most fanatic among the Japanese. Japan had been primarily a naval power, and the back of the Imperial Japanese Navy had been broken at Leyte Gulf, which was the largest naval battle in history. Japan's naval and army air forces had been decimated in nearly 4 years of war against the United States, and the flower of the Japanese Army had been wasted in battlefields throught China, the South Pacific and Burma. In the battle of Okinawa alone Japan lost almost 150,000 men defending the tiny island against the Americans. Since late 1942/early 1943 Japan had been continually losing ground to the Americans, and since 1944 to the Chinese and British Commonwealth troops in China and Burma. It's cities and industries had been reduced to rubble and American submarines roamed freely, preventing the reinforcement and resupply of Japanese troops in mainland Asia, including Manchuria. American naval superiority also prevented Japan from importing crucial raw materials such as Oil that were needed to feed its war machine. Japan had already lost over 1 million men before the Soviets crossed into Manchuria. To say that the Soviets played a decisive role in the defeat of Imperial Japan is a gross exaggeration of the facts.

IMO that is nothing but Cold War propaganda the Soviets put out to downplay the contributions of their rivals...mainly the U.S. and China, while drumming up a sense of Soviet military superiority. By trumping up the Soviet role against the Japanese, it also served a dual purpose of erasing the shame of Russia's humiliating defeat at the hand of the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War.

I don't believe in the idea that such human beings exist. If the Soviets really did not fear nuclear weapons, then what stopped them from attacking?

I think its fundamental to the human psyché that we all fear death, and we all fear defeat.

Communists are no different in this regard, in fact history shows us that the biggest problem with communists is not their lack of fear, but rather their lack of motivation.

Stalin might have had motivation, but he was insane.

to PALADIN:



Yeah? And what about Khalkin-Gol? What about battle for Khasan lake (130 km from Vladivostok)? What about Khanka lake? What was Turiy Rog? Blagoveschensk? Khabarovsk? Those were bloodbaths. 1935-1939 battles against Japaneese was FIRST time Red Army used large amounts of tanks and sturmoviks.

In total, 1936-1939 there were approximately 35 MAJOR battles between Soviets and Japaneese and 230 minor skirmishes. Many Soviet people died there. In 1939, these battles stopped, and pact was signed.

Japan surrendered politically, not because of bombings. Atomic bombings were not even close to power (measured in amount of people killed), unleashed during carpet bombings on Tokyo. Military WAS NOT impressed by atomic bombings, but was impressed with Soviet invasion. Emperor WAS NOT impressed by Soviet invasion, but was impressed by atomic bombings. BUT WITHOUT OBEDIENCE OF MILITARY, war would have never ended. That's why I stand on the point, that death blow was inflicted by Soviet Union. But it is only my point of view. The problem is that you and me have different understanding on what is criteria of "victory".



to MOIF:



IF THEY DO NOT EXIST, THEN WHO DEFENDED STALINGRAD? WHO TOOK BERLIN?

I understand, that you are Western, and therefore value your own life and success as most important thing in the world, but don't forget about other civilizations: Japan Kamikazis, Soviet Krasnoarmeytsi, Islam Shahids (remember 9-11?).



Their corrupt post-Stalin leaders. Only Lenin and Stalin were good leaders of Soviet Union.



I do not fear death or pain at all. I am ready to start nuclear war if I become president of Russia.



Yes, I fear defeat much. But there is no shame in defeat so long as the spirit is unconquered. More than I fear defeat, I fear psychological degradation - transformation into Western-type egoistic consumer. THAT is my worst nightmare.



Tell this to Stalingrad infantrymen, Westerner. I HAVE motivation. And I am much more motivated and dedicated than all those hired guns, stationed near borders of my country.



Paranoia is faith in hidden order behind visible - path of true scientist and leader.

Just to play devil's advocate, might that not still be significant? Changing the minds of the last few diehards seems like no small thing.

EK,
If Soviet soldiers were such motivated patriots for Mother Russia, why did each unit have political commissars assigned except for political indoctrination and ensuring the orders from the Kremlin were carried out?
What about the squads of soldiers stationed behind Soviet lines to catch and shoot deserters or shirkers? Why the need for Penal Battalions?

Never thought I'd actually know somebody who thought Stalin was a great guy, and wanted to start a nuclear war.

First, we never said anything about all Soviet soldiers. We were talking about COMMUNISTS.

Second, they were fighting not for "Mother Russia" but for USSR, Communism and Stalin. At least that's what they wrote to their letters to their comrades.



Did you understood the question you asked? It sounds like "why army needs officers?", you know. Not all soldiers can be relied on. Not all soldiers always understand the situation.



Capitalist propaganda. They were behind Penal Battalions, not behind regular troops.



To give traitors a second chance - a chance to survive and a chance to rehabilitate themselves. Quite humane.



In Russia, 53% of population think that Stalin is great guy. Check "Return of Soviet Empire" topic.

Kimov



Human beings.



You assume too much. You know nothing about me at all, and your assumptions regarding my attitude towards my own life is wrong. I am quite prepared to lay down my life to protect my nation and her allies.

A willingness to die does not prove a lack of fear. It only means that the person is more scared of something else (failure, dishonour or God) than of death.

It is also a very personal attitude, and one which can not be ascibed to an entire nation or political movement.




Why? What are you scared of that you feel the wish to destroy the entire world to prevent it?

What exactly is it about a transformation into a 'Western-type egoistic consumer' that so frightens you?

Practically every single invention and discovery of the modern world came into being due to that civilisation. What can you offer to make the world a better a place?




Were you at Stalingrad?




I didn't say he was paranoid, though he probably was. I said he was insane.

Here is researched evidence to prove it;



And with regards to Stalin's military capabilities;



Both of these quotes came from this site;

http://web.qx.net/jon/stalin.html

Our discussion on fear of death leads us to nothing. We just use different words to express the same things.



Fear of defeat and degradation of members of civilization I belong to.



Many things. Lack of purpose. Lack of ultimate goal. Lack of enemy.



That is lie. Chineese, Arabic, Russian and other civilizations contributed not less.

Most fields of modern mathematics, for example, was based on Arabic discoveries, which arrived to Europe after fall of Christian totalitarism.

Russians invented steam engine, airplane, radio and several other key discoveries long before they were discoveried on West.

I am not even talking about Soviet Union: lasers, space travel, atomic reactors, sattelites, thermonuclear fusion, plasma weapons and shields, polycappilari lens, network computing - every key invention of XX century was product of Soviet Union.



No, I born later.



JUST LOOK AT THE SOURCES THEY USED! This "researched evidence" is based on works of propagandist Robert Conquest, who is familiar by his outlandish and completely baseless claims. I've been to Russian archives and seen documents on GULAG system. It has nothing to do with what Conquest claims.

Well, let's see the "evidence" you listed:



That is total garbage. Soviets lost 27 million of citizens, MOST OF THEM were non-military casualities, and died not because of mythical Stalin's "mismanagement", but because of Nazi terror on occupied territories. So, the guy here claims that 27 million is "a quarter of the nation". 27 multiply be 4 equals 108. 108!!! It is smaller than HALF of REAL Soviet population! Even modern Russian population (which is only tiny part of Soviet Union's) is 140 million! Like you see, it is total garbage.

The Japanese lost 18,000 men in the Nomonhan Incident. That pales in comparison to the other 1.4 million or so that were killed fighting the Americans, Chinese and British Commonwealth troops. I don't mean to downplay the border incidents or the heroism of Soviet and Mongolian(and Japanese) soldiers who fought there. But in the big picture it was indecisive and did not have any impact on the defeat of Japan. It was also resolved by a truce between the two powers in 1939, when Japan was still advancing across China and throughout the Pacific.



Hirohito didn't have the complete loyalty of the military, at least as far as his decision to surrender. There was a coup attempt by the hawks on the Supreme War Council. The death blow to the Hawks was the failed coup attempt, the suicide of lead Hawk Army Minister General Anami , and the successful broadcast of Hirohito's surrender recording.



The hawks never really changed their minds. When Hirohito had his surrender address recorded, they launched a coup aimed at killing the "doves" on the Supreme War Council and capturing Hirohito. They would then use the Emperor as a puppet to continue the war. It was only by a twist of fate that the coup would be put down, at one point troops loyal to the conspiracy even had control of the Imperial Palace.

The term "dove" probably isn't the proper one I should use , as those who favored peace in August of 1945 enthusiastically cheered Japan's expanionist adventures in earlier years. Some were also war criminals. I just couldn't come up with a better term.

From Link:

That is one of many sources. Yes, quite humane.


Did you understand your answer? Every army needs leadership and officers. Only the Soviet Army it seems feared any independent thinking common sense.
From Link

In response to your last post, do you read ANY history that Stalin did not approve of???? The rest of the civilized world may disagree with some of your assertions.
Though I'm sure it could just be more capitalist propaganda.

Well, that is the end of this discussion for my part.

Thank you for your time, it has been very entertaining.

Radio was invented by Russian scientist Popov.

Aircraft was invented by Russian scientist Mozhaiskiy.

Steam engine was invented by Russian scientist Cherepanov.

First radar, RUS-1, was invented in Soviet Union, by scientist Oschepkov.

These are documented facts.

EK,

Sorry I don't believe you, can you provide any reputable link(s) to support your assertions?

Here's a quote from one of mine:



Link

Here's another:


(same site as above)

And another:


(from same site)

Tesla was Serbian-American, so I guess that's kind of close to Russian.

Take the inventions discussion to a new thread. Get back to debating:

No, Stalin may or may not have won WW2 - on that score, I think all of the people fighting tha Axis powers played their part - that's why it was called a world war - , but he didn't do it for the USA. He did it for his own reasons.

As for "Hitler didn't have to declare war on America" - well, technically, yes, he did. Having signed the Axis agreement that allied Germany to Japan, when America declared war on Japan, Germany had to declare war on America.

The principle was the same as the way Britain declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland - we had, by that time, set up a treaty with the Poles that committed us to doing so.

Speculation on what would have happened if circumstances were different is fun and interesting, but let's not get too bent out of shape about it.

Ultimately, everyone ought to be grateful to Britain. We're the ones who broke ourselves in half holding Hitler while both the USA and USSR stood by whistling Dixie and/or The Red Flag. Had we capitulated, or been conquered, where would the D-Day landings have gone from?

Germany's full might could then have been bent on Soviet Russia, with the Germans in complete control of the Eastern North Atlantic, so the USA couldn't have helped them even if they wanted to without a naval war against the Germans, requiring either a far large proportion of the global US fleet being committed to the Altantic, leaving the Pacific vulnerable to the Japanese, or just requiring a far larger fleet, full stop.

The general acceleration of the German advance could then have put America itself in mortal danger - imagine a full complement of V2 rockets or their successors being launched from the Western British Isles ('cos Hilter would have respected Irish neutrality - NOT!) to rain down on the Eastern USA. How would American morale have held up if large numbers of domestic civilians had faced death, injury or homelessness in the face of an onslaught to which you had, in (say) 1944, no defence? Was America willing to fight 'evil' no matter what the cost? (If so, how come you waited two years before joining in?)

But my real point is, we can speculate all we like, but it won't change what really happened.

I second that one!
The war would've never been won without the tenacity of the Brits. I believe that 100 percent. You were extremely humane to your POWs also, in spite of the fact that the Axis were bombing your cities and citizens directly. My grandfather was a POW in England for a couple of years, and his lifestyle was better than the family at home in Italy. Grazie mille (belated)

Is THAT how you history is taught in Western schools?

WHAT ABOUT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF GERMAN REFUGEES, WHO DIED IN BARBARIC TERRORIST BRITISH/AMERICAN BOMBINGS OF FATHERLAND??? HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF WHAT HAPPENED IN "REFUGEE CITY" DRESDEN??? BRITISH AND AMERICAN COMMAND IGNORED THE _ONLY_ LEGITIMATE TARGET IN THE CITY (RAILWAY STATION OF DRESDEN), FOCUSING INSTEAD ON KILLING MASS OF GERMAN REFUGEES!!! BARBARIANS!!!

Kimov - don't "yell" at anyone here. Please debate in a civil fashion.

Wow. Interesting. Which part was I supposed to have read in the history books? That my grandfather was a war prisoner in England, or that the Brits were experiencing bombing raids on their cities?

My grandfather was, in fact, very well treated by the British and had fond feelings towards them until he died of old age... Something I wouldn't say the Germans had towards the Soviets, who sometimes skinned their prisoners alive for interrogation purposes.

From my mother's first hand recollections of the second world war, the worst offenders were the Yugoslavs. The italian children would yell, "Tito is coming!" and run into ditches in the middle of the night, fleeing their farmhouses because the airplanes strafed everything indiscriminately. Perhaps she was misinformed.

I never said British treated POWs badly or British never suffered bombings.

I just wanted to say that British raids on German cities were as cruel as German raids on British cities. That's war, anyway.

to JAIME: Sorry. I will stop overusing capital letters and "!" signs.

After WW1 the Americans felt betrayed at the Treaty of Versailles, therefore adopting a policy of isolationism. (you take care of you, and I'll take care of me) The population was in in no rush to join in another world war due to the fact that WW1 vets did not see their own kids go off to another war. Especially in the midst of a depression, when we used our mony to build our public utilities and other projects to create jobs. I'm not sure about the Russians, but the US was supporting the allied efforts with aide. Since the WW1 vets were of voting age the president has his hands tied until Pearl Harbor.
And as far as the statistics on the first page, that only showed the losses of each side. You don't decide winners of wars by the numbers lost but but what is gained. According to the quote if all the Germans killed were by Russia then it would have been a 10:1 ratio for the Germans, most likely it around 20:1 (guesstimate) if you include the damage the American & British inflicted. After the war started for the US you also need to take into account that we were also fighting on three front. North Africa, Europe, and Pacific. This doesn't mention the rebuilding of Europe after the war either.

I can only imagine how Stalinist historians describe the treatment of the German pows from Stalingrad. Those troops would have been better off following Hitler's orders to fight to the death. What was it about 250,000 pows and 5,000 still alive at the end of the war?

Kimov I think you will not find the weak minded people you want to find here. This will be my last response to your misinformation in the name of science.

Like many extremists (KKK, Nazis, Stalinists) you chose only the grains of truth that fit your agenda and then spin more and more fantastic assertions.

In terms of the degree of atrocities committed by US vs. USSR troops you have a lot of nerve. But your previous anti-semitic post justifying Hitler's repression of Jews is further proof of your lack of credibility.

The Soviet Union played an integral role in the fighting of World War II. There methods were every bit as brutal as the Japanese or the Germans. The United States and Great Britain also played the role as vital allies in the fight against the Axis powers and it was the US that took out Italy (w/ Great Britain) and Japan.

I expect you will spin more disinformation to refute my post. You will be wrong and I will be silent.

"What was it about 250,000 pows and 5,000 still alive at the end of the war?"

OK, we "killed" 245.000 of Nazi POWs. But Nazis killed MILLIONS of Soviet POWs. Comparing Nazi brutality with Soviet is pure disinformation.

The most interesting thing in this discussion, is complete trust of Westerns in their own information. While Soviets are constantly revising and checking information, working with document archives and other evidence, you, Westerns, just point on some propaganda "historican" (Western or Russian - no matter), who was properly paid by Western elite (like Conquest or Solzhenitser).

Have you EVER worked with document archives? Or do you blindly believe the things your find in Internet or book shop?

Of course, there are fake documents, so real historican must analyze ALL possible sources. For example, many American disinformation about Stalinism was based on fake "NKVD archive", doctored by CIA.

Another interesting thing in this discussion is "Jewish question". You have nothing against Jews, because West and, especially, America is based on Judeo-Christianic traditions. But they are completely alien both to Russia and to Soviet Union! If only you could read Russian, I would recommend you visiting Jewish sites in Russian, like JEWISH.RU and SEM40.RU. They are SO alien and SO hostile to all what we (Soviets, Russians, Russian Muslims) believe in, that hating them is pretty natural.

You probably heard of Russian Oligarchy - small group of rich capitalists, who control everything in Russia (from oil shafts and factories - to TV channels and cultural programs) and are responsible for downfall of Russia. But you do not know the fact which all Russians know. ALMOST ALL OF OLIGARCHS ARE JEWS. I can list the most influent (including former ones, exiled from Russia): Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Chubais, Koh, Abramovich, Voloshin, Aven, Shvydkoi, Hodorkovsky, Guelman, Smolensky, Fridman... ALL OF THEM ARE JEWS. All of them carry alien, hostile culture. This culture must be driven out of Russia. Whether driving this culture off means driving off Jews themselves or not, is irrelevant.

I recommend you to close the topic, comrade. This topic will lead us to flame war. Let's not fight, OK?

Please, close the topic.

WW2 has been my topic of interest for quite a while. After recollecting everything I have read and seen on the subject I can come to the following conclusion. Yes Russia probaly would have won without the help of the U.S. and allies of course the human toll would have been greater. U.S. can be fully credited with the defeat of Japan since Japans strenght was primarily in it's navy and by and large U.S. defeated it. Also I realized that at that time the russian government consisted of people who shared the views similar to those expressed by "Engeneer Kimov"
and the atomic bomb was en effective way to 1)end the war(if you doubt that this was the reason why japan copitulated read a little about Hiroshima and Nagasaki you obviously dont understand what nuclear bomb is)2)save american lives since the invasion would have cost a great amount of casualties (the government may be far from perfect but I know it does not consist of outright rapist and murders something you can't say about the "great" rulers of russia through out its history with the exception of the few bright spots )3)To scare the communist leaders (people never had any real power in that country so to say to scare communists would sound comical).
Also people like you were not under stalingrad there is a difference between fanaticism and bravery. If not for Hitlers fanaticism Paulus could have broken out of the ring and retreat when he had the chance and if Hitler Listened to Guderian and formed a defensive tank perimeter around Germany the war would have been even longer and bloodier for russia.(Hitler often proceeded to take credit if one of his generals plans succeeded despite the fact that he had nothing to do with the actual conception of the plan you might find a lot of similarities between facism and communism) Also the extermination of the jews would have been prolonged.
Also as far as I know the predominant religion in russia is Christian Orthodox not Islam.

Also I read russian and I visited those sites. They are nothing more than sites that
show local and world news and display some news as to whats happening in the jewish world some comical some serious.

Also they are against antisemitic and nazi websites, perhaps thats why you hate them so...

You can bamboozle weakminded and give them your loads of crap but dont try to bamboozle me.

Weak minded? I trust you are not refering to those of us who do not read Russian?

As a Russian I feeld deeply ashamed and isulted by this display of anti semitism by this engineer-meister, but I have to admit that this is not uncommon between so called "military historians", also known as national bolsheviks, which I deeply suspect he is.
And as Clara Tsetkin once said "Ya po polovomu priznaku ne ob'edinyayus'" - "I do not unite by gender". PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED. So here, I only registered to post the above.

Anyway Soviet Manchurian campaign was beautiful, and probably the only one during WWII where soldiers were not used as a canon fodder. The most outstanding victory casualty rate-wise and territory cover-wise of the allied powers during the whole WWII.

-Read the rules - personal attacks on other members are not allowed. -Jaime

Limonov is a founder of National Bolsheviks party, their symbolics include hammer and sickle, and I have read the rules.