some interesting comments on the interactions between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.
Last edited:
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Movie Theater "The Soviet Role in World War II - Antony Beevor"
- Thread starter steve podleski
- Start date
some interesting comments on the interactions between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.
There is an excellent series on YouTube called "Soviet Storm." It is a Russian-produced documentary on WW2 and is truly well-done. I think the BBC handled some of the production and translations.
There are some definite 'stilts' as far as having the Soviets standing a lot more 'alone' than some historical sources acknowledge. Not much mention at all of Lend Lease or Convoys at ArcAngel... As if the Soviets did it all by themselves. But this is part of what makes the series interesting.
I have no doubt in my mind that this series was "Putin-Approved" to discount how much the West did to help the USSR.
That said... their role in WW2 was massive. They lost more people than all other nations combined. And took tremendous damage and human losses amounting to genocide. So one can forgive their views somewhat.
It is also important to remember that for the duration of the Cold War, the mantra of "Never Forget... Never again..." was on their minds. They were less focused on global conquest than they were on not letting an enemy kill 20 - 30 million of their comrades... depending on which figures you believe.
Cool link! Thanks! Try out Soviet Storm when you have 16 - 24 hours or so. It's a long series.
Sirhr
There are some definite 'stilts' as far as having the Soviets standing a lot more 'alone' than some historical sources acknowledge. Not much mention at all of Lend Lease or Convoys at ArcAngel... As if the Soviets did it all by themselves. But this is part of what makes the series interesting.
I have no doubt in my mind that this series was "Putin-Approved" to discount how much the West did to help the USSR.
That said... their role in WW2 was massive. They lost more people than all other nations combined. And took tremendous damage and human losses amounting to genocide. So one can forgive their views somewhat.
It is also important to remember that for the duration of the Cold War, the mantra of "Never Forget... Never again..." was on their minds. They were less focused on global conquest than they were on not letting an enemy kill 20 - 30 million of their comrades... depending on which figures you believe.
Cool link! Thanks! Try out Soviet Storm when you have 16 - 24 hours or so. It's a long series.
Sirhr
Lenin and Stalin killed more Russians then hitler did…….
Makes you wonder about why Patton wanted to go in to the USSR because FDR got us in bed with snakes and then he was "offed"?
What leads you to believe the car accident that injured and ultimately killed Patton was a “hit”? Patton himself refused to have the driver Robert Tompson, of the truck that hit him punished, on moral grounds, same team. I have heard this claim before, curious what makes you believe it?
One of smartest guys I have worked with was one of the first out of Russia after the fall and is a US Citizen; but he too is adamant Lend-Lease and all that did nothing. In particular he was critical of the tanks we sent, saying they were death traps - which, actually is mostly true when compared to the Tiger. No doubt they were critical in defeating Germany.
I wonder if he was complaining about the the Sherman which did burn easily before the mods were made. The Sherman was clearly inferior to the T34. I wonder if your friend was aware of all the trucks and food shipped to the USSR and did not make the headlines. The P39 Aircobra were appreciated by the Russians as many aces flew that plane
Yes, it was the Sherman. I'm sure he realized that; but they've been brainwashed that it was Mother Russia who provided. I think it's the whole "you wouldn't have made it if it were not for us (that they've heard for years and years)" that really gets the Ruskies bent.
With greatest respect to Bill O'Reilly and his Killing Patton fantasy... he was not assasinated.
However, there were definitely very questionable things done after his accident and during his medical treatment that may have led to him dying sooner than he might have. You have to read Carlo D'Este's book about Patton to really get the details. But attempting to move him... and some of the treatment was, in hindsight, not very helpful.
Some have construed that as a conspiracy by the military or government to 'off' Patton. Fact was... he was never going to recover. And he was so out of his league in the post-war army that there was no way he'd have been involved in Downfall or anything post-war. Heck, he was beyond retirement age in 1939... if they didn't need him so much.
Patton himself thought he should die on the last day of the war... He sort of got his wish.
But conspiracy? Not a chance. A bad day for a flawed man who had survived, probably, far longer than he should have, given what he did for a living.
Sirhr
PS. I don't dislike Bill O'Reilly's books. They are well-researched and easy reading. "Killing Lincoln" I thought was excellent. And they were best-selling history books that made history accessible-to and interesting-to non-academics. If people don't love history... History programs won't get funded. Museums won't get built. Historians won't get trained. Academic historians get all pissy about 'pop' history books by Bill O'Reilly or Newt Gingrich or Stephen Ambrose (a serious historian) that become bestsellers. Mostly, because they are closeted in dusty University corners trying to figure out how to pay off Student Loans and get a couple more tenure points... when Stephen Ambrose gets invited to Buckingham Palace and drives and Aston Martin. Pure and simple envy. An historians' number one job isn't just to find the truth(s) of person, place, thing or time.... it is to communicate those truths in a way that makes them interesting, relevant and, yes, even fun. Because it does no good in a dusty journal or on a shelf somewhere where noone can appreciate it. O'Reilly made history fun!
Yea the Russian strategic bombing was very critical in stopping/slowing German war production…. Oh wait… nvm.
So my grandpa was recovering from a bullet wound and Patton was coming through talking and asked my grandpa how he was doing…. Grandpa told him to go to hell. He hated that man
^^^ A lot did.
Old "Blood and Guts" was translated to "Our blood, his guts."
He treated the famous cartoonist Bill Mauldin with absolute contempt. He was a stickler for petty regulations. And spent life profligately.
But he could do things on a battlefield (and more importantly in the planning stages) that no other general could. He could, indeed, sense the way to run a battle.
If he had got the gas instead of Montgomery's idiotic Market Garden lark, the war could probably have been over in 1944... The over-cautious said that Patton's army risked over-extending, being encircled and trapped. Run a wide front was Eisenhower's conservative (and good) plan. But in fall 1944, Germany was reeling. Patton could have hammered the door shut on the Reich if he had been allowed. I believe he'd have done it.
But that's the problem with alternative histories... we'll never know.
To your point, though, he was not liked by a lot of GI's. (then again, he was adored by lots, too...) Like anyone. Go figger!
Sirhr
Old "Blood and Guts" was translated to "Our blood, his guts."
He treated the famous cartoonist Bill Mauldin with absolute contempt. He was a stickler for petty regulations. And spent life profligately.
But he could do things on a battlefield (and more importantly in the planning stages) that no other general could. He could, indeed, sense the way to run a battle.
If he had got the gas instead of Montgomery's idiotic Market Garden lark, the war could probably have been over in 1944... The over-cautious said that Patton's army risked over-extending, being encircled and trapped. Run a wide front was Eisenhower's conservative (and good) plan. But in fall 1944, Germany was reeling. Patton could have hammered the door shut on the Reich if he had been allowed. I believe he'd have done it.
But that's the problem with alternative histories... we'll never know.
To your point, though, he was not liked by a lot of GI's. (then again, he was adored by lots, too...) Like anyone. Go figger!
Sirhr
I can see his point of view since the Germans suffered 75% of their casualties on the Russian front and if those divisions were in Normandy, I don't think that the Allies would have been in Germany so quickly (and then there is the possibility that a German city would have been the target of a A bomb).
I would not want to be in command of the unit that encircled Patton and his men……
I don’t believe we would have ever considered using the bomb on Europe, too much history and too many American relatives…….
Dresden, much?
The only reason it wasn't used in Europe was it wasn't ready in time.
They would have dropped it in a heartbeat...
It was not "The Bomb." It was just another weapon. It was a bigger bomb. The whole idea that Truman agonized over the decision or had angst is made-up by '80's revisionist "Ban the Bomb" quasi-historians... And while they were at it, the Native Americans led idyllic lives in teepees eating buffalo sirloin and had dental care... and white men are bad.
If Truman had not dropped the bomb, he would have been impeached when the nation found out that they had a super-weapon that was the second-most-expensive program in the War... and failed to use it while their boys died outside Berlin?
Read Richard B. Franks' Downfall and he goes into it in incredible depth.
In addition, the scientists were 100 percent for dropping it on Nazi Germany. They blamed Hitler for the whole affair. It was after Hitler was defeated... there was no possibility of a Japanese atomic program... that the scientists wrote their famous letter asking for a demonstration or a warning. Which resulted in Trumans' "Rain from the Air" warning. The ONLY qualms that scientific team (many of them expats from Europe) had was dropping it on Japan, who they viewed as simply defeated and just awaiting the end.
Which... would not have come. Japan (as shown on Okinawa) would have fought to the last sharpened bamboo spear. And taken a million Americans with them.
No, there was no lost sleep or fretting or second thoughts about the Bomb. Truman signed 'possession' of it over to Leslie Groves and LeMay... and after that, they were getting dropped.
Cheers,
Sirhr
PS... One other point is that the US military AND scientists had NO idea what the effects would be. In retrospect and after John Hersey's book (which was a 'shock piece' for Saturday Evening Post or Atlantic or similar...) views started to change. But Hersey painted lots of Japanese as happy, innocent, folks going about their business when bad Tibbits microwaved them. Bullshit. They were part of an imperial war machine, dedicated to total war and a warped sense of Bushido. In the 4 months before Hiroshima LeMay and his low-level Napalm attackes had gutted 67 Japanese cities... nothing was left bigger than Toledo. And he was bouncing rubble for the fun of it. And they didn't surrender.
Last... there was 'probably' something to the 'impress Stalin' side of the argument. Though I think this was discussed by hawks in the State Department a lot more than it was considered by the armed services or the WH. Patton was not the only one who wanted to keep going East.
Remember what Oppenheimer said “ I am become death the destroyer of worlds” they had a very good idea what would happen when it detonated.
At the time it was not a nuclear warhead.
It was a bigger bomb.
That's all.
Just a bigger bomb.
Heck, the Generals were advocating dropping 'lines of them across the beaches' in Japan and having the troops march through it.
The human effects were not understood. Not really. It was a bigger bomb.
Today we know it's 'not' just a bigger bomb. But back then they did not.
Oh and Tokyo killed far more than Hiroshima. Firebombing in Japan was grisly. And pursued without remorse.
It was total war. It was just a bigger bomb. Only later did people start revising the history. Gee, revisionist history.... who'd have thunk!
Sirhr
Japans firebombing was aided by the fact the homes were made out of paper and wood. Temples were made out of bamboo and paper etc.
what I found interesting was when the Americans went thru those city’s they found a lot of private homes with drill presses and lathes and other machinery in them, the people were hard at work with the war effort, as well as the corporation’s.
what I found interesting was when the Americans went thru those city’s they found a lot of private homes with drill presses and lathes and other machinery in them, the people were hard at work with the war effort, as well as the corporation’s.
The end result is similar, death destruction. The big differences being it doesn’t take a bunch of planes personal, etc. 1 plane one bomb. The Japanese saw the B-29’s approaching when the nukes were dropped, they did not even send out a fighter to intercept as they thought it was recon, and didn’t see it as a direct threat. Hell they were in denial Hiroshima was just one bomb, until Nagasaki.
Speaking of the Nukes and Russians, the same morning Nagasaki was bombed, Russia invaded Manchuria with over 1,000,000 men. With out this invasion its debated if japan would have surrendered even when faced with that type of weapon.
Another thought, had the nukes not been deployed and the war raged on Russia would have pushed further into the orient before the US got a foot hold over Japanese held territory. Would Korea and Vietnam been taken? With out the nukes where would Russia stopped?
Exactly.
Right up until the Soviets pushed into Manchuria, also, the Japanese had been thinking that the Russians could broker a peace deal with the rest of the allies that would allow 'conditional' surrender. There were some in the US State department (doves) even advocating that the cost of Olympic and Coronet would be too high (based on Okinawa casualties) and we should allow conditional surrender and let Japan keep 'some' gains. Which Truman ruled out completely. It was unconditional surrender or nothing. That was a political decision if Truman wanted to keep his job.
So the Japanese Imperial staff was living in a fantasy land that they could get conditions right up until Manchuria. Then Nagasaki. And that was enough for the Emperor who finally over-ruled the War Cabinet.
That MacArthur had the foresight to keep the Emperor in place, albeit no longer as a God... was pretty genius. But it also was very skillful maneuvering by the Emperor and his staff, particularly, IIRC, the Privy Counsel who took a lot of the blame and insulated the Emperor from direct involvement. MacArthur got credit for the 'moves' but in a lot of ways he was played.
But keeping the Emperor may also have prevented Japan from going Communist after the war. A real possibility in the shattered moonscape that was Japan.
Cheers,
Sirhr
The Soviet Union contributed more to the defeat of the Nazis than either the US or Great Britain. The Battle of Kursk was the deciding point and the first time the Germans had to retreat. 6000 tanks were engaged as best the numbers can be calculated. Soviet Soldiers killed more German soldiers than their Western counterparts, accounting for 76 percent of Germany's military dead.
Agree to disagree…….
I think the lend lease act helped a wee bit….. if America hadn’t got in the war hitler would have been able to throw a considerably larger amount of men and equipment at the Russian front.
And the 14,000 aircraft, 400,000 jeeps, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, 13,000 battle tanks provided to them in 1941 signed lead lease act didn't help them?
How a bout the 2,000 locomotives and many boxcar cars so they could move factories further east away from Germany advance. Their fuel(40% of Russias aviation fuel came from the usa), 50% of their Aluminum, 80% of their copper, studabakers turned into MLRS, food, clothing etc. Not to mention 1/4 of hitlers forces were tied up on the eastern front.
What about bombing that began in Germany years before a Russian solider stepped foot into Germany. The 8th army aircore started Bombing Germany a few months before the battle of Kurks.
Naval blockades keeping and raw materials out of Germany and manpower building U boats, etc.
Remember too, the US and British Empire were also fighting the Japs and chasing romel around Africa. Keeping Germany out of Irans recently discovered oil.
I personally don't over look Russia’s contribution, they most definitely deserve recognition for their sacrifice but Germanys defeat was a group effort
No question but the Allies could hardly hold on in the Battle of the Bulge. I imagine a different outcome if the Russians had not removed the teeth of the Germans at Kursk. Remember they caused more than 75% of the German casualties.
The numbers simply don't add up. I detect a little xenophobia here, i.e. rah rah the Allies! Hard to admit the Ruskies were the deciding force in WWII. I suggest you read Stephen Ambrose and others. The Kursk battle was the greatest tank battle of all time.
In either Mission with LeMay or Iron Eagle, the authors discuss the reconnaissance photos that came out of Nagoya and Kobe and Tokyo and other cities after the fires swept through the 'poor' neighborhoods. Said there were so many machine tools sticking out of burned out dwellings that it looked like a forest.
Japan's industry was massively dispersed. If you were a family (generally women and kids) you might have a drill press in your house. You spent all days drilling holes in widgets. At the end of the day, someone picked up the widgets with holes in them and gave you some undrilled widgets. The drilled widgets went to the next house... maybe for threading? Or Chamfering. Or whatever. It was like the VC jungle bomb factories. Distributed and impossible to take out except at the assembly plants. Which were well-defended and hard to get to.
The real lesson is that Total War sucks. So don't start one.
Sirhr
You can agree to disagree, but it is an undeniable fact of history that the nuclear weapons developed by the Manhattan Peoject were destined for Germany. And, the only thing that saved Germany from the eventual fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the unconditional surrender that preceded the completion of the weapons. I cannot believe this is even a point of discussion. There are some that are carrying this discussion from a place of ignorance.
Speaking of Soviet Aces, many Flew US provided p-39’s. Of which we gave to Soviets nearly 5,000.
My Grandparents neighbor was a WW2 pilot, his wife was one of the women who flew planes from factories in the US to a Alaska, to be used by the Soviets.
ru.usembassy.gov
I dont overlook what the Soviets did. But I personally dont think they would have survived with out that help.
My Grandparents neighbor was a WW2 pilot, his wife was one of the women who flew planes from factories in the US to a Alaska, to be used by the Soviets.
World War II Allies: U.S. Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945
Even before the United States entered World War II in December 1941, America sent arms and equipment to the Soviet Union to help it defeat the Nazi
ru.usembassy.gov
I dont overlook what the Soviets did. But I personally dont think they would have survived with out that help.
Attachments
And not forget the Molotov-Ribbentrop or German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, which divided eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence, i.e., Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia invaded by Stalin. Stalin would not believe his friend Hitler would invade Russia. And many Soviet casualties were caused by their own combat incompetance, tactical strategy, and initially having imprisoned the Russian military hierarchy. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.
Hey dumbass
I said I don’t “believe” they would, that’s an opinion, because I’ve never seen any evidence that the bomb was destined for Germany, give me some proof you must have given your statement of fact “ it is an undeniable fact” so pony up the proof or shut the fuck up.
Where is the mic drop emoji? You can fuck right off, dumb ass…
German Atomic Bomb Project - Nuclear Museum
“I don't believe a word of the whole thing,” declared Werner Heisenberg, the scientific head of the German nuclear program, after hearing the news that the United States had dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.Germany began its secret program, called Uranverein, or “uranium club,” in April 1939...
www.atomicheritage.org
Historical Legacy
Although it is now clear that the German nuclear program never came close to producing a bomb, there is no doubt that it provided an impetus for the Manhattan Project. Often forgotten in the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the Manhattan Project was originally conceived for the war in Europe, but the bomb was not ready for operational use in time.
At a tactical level yes. The Soviet juggernaut was absolutely irresistible especially when industry moved east of the Urals got fired up.
But at a strategic and production level the Americans totally outstripped both the British and the Soviets. And it was in the end a technological war.
And England standing standing alone as an island basically an unsinkable carrier next to Europe… Not yielding was absolutely critical to victory. If England had fallen negotiated piece would have been likely. And in many ways the Brits were responsible for back-room engineering the Alliance that became the allied forces.
For their part,The Soviets were utterly bled white By German assault and atrocity. The Soviet suffered something like 20 million dead. But once they started moving they were unstoppable. And their contribution to victory was immeasurable. Not to mention that if there had been no Soviet juggernaut the allies would’ve faced a massive German army in the west and the casualties would have been appalling. The Soviets and the BRITs and Americans in the face were ultimately unstoppable. You cannot underestimate the value Soviet Russia played. Even if it wasn’t necessarily a technological or a production role there profligate spending of lives saved American and British lives by the thousands
And the last Americans (And in that I must include Canadians and Australians who were producing massive or material) Together could bring technologically crushing blows as well also supplying the war effort to the entire world. Without industrial production far away from the battlefield there was no way the war was going to end as quickly as it did.
Fact is everybody did their part. It was called the grand alliance for a reason.
For an excellent read on the economics and similar factors historian Richard Ovary’s book “why the allies won” is an absolutely incredible read. It delves intoVarious factors and slices of the war effort. On both sides. And Overy was first an economist not a pure military historian. His work is superb.
It is one of the great analysis of World War II without getting into tactics and personalities.
Cheers
Last edited:
That’s easy. Read Richard Rhodes Pulitzer Prize winning book “the making of the atomic bomb”. It is an absolutely amazing read going back to the discovery of atomic radiation. He delves into all the decision making. And while it’s a very technical book at times it also reads like a Tom Clancy thriller.
Easy to find used on abebooks.com. You won’t pay more than 20 bucks for a copy. And it is a amazing journey down the road to not just the atomic bomb but to Teller and his quest for the hydrogen bomb. And if you want to meet a zealot when it came to atomic weapons it was teller. He lived in Eastern Europe at the rise of Nazism. He became a fanatic when it came to atomic weapons..
Sirhr
With greatest respect I will disagree that the battle of the bulge was hardly holding on. It was a brilliantly engineered surprise attack. By fresh German troops marshaled specifically for the purpose. And it was launched against the quiet sector, against green and recuperating units who expected to be in winter quarters.
Fact is the allies did hold on and Pattons Wheel and turn north movement, which he had pre-planned, Absolutely cut the Germans to pieces. If you think about what the Germans threw at the bulge and what the allies had defending it, was a remarkable defense. Hitler threw the dice. But in the end the skies cleared in a few days and allied AirPower was overwhelming. And Pattons tanks showed up faster than anyone, including Eisenhower, could’ve imagined. So it’s not a really fair comparison to say that the Americans were outmatched at the bulge.
You are 100% right about the Russian contributions pulling huge troop concentrations away from the Western front to the eastern. And the Soviets definitely cut the Germans to pieces. Without the Soviet sacrifices and ultimate brilliant
generaling toward the end of the war, Germany probably would have still fallen. But it would’ve been a really really bloody affair.
But I would also argue that the Russian victory didn’t start at Kursk, It started with the defense of Moscow the Seige Of Leningrad and the victory at Stalingrad. Kursk was The Soviet army landing their first body blow. But they defeated the Germans at the gates of Moscow in December of 41.
After that it was just a matter of time for Germany. The Soviets recovered. The allied effort started to coalesce after Pearl Harbor. Stalin started trusting his generals…
Kursk was the beginning of the end for Germany. To paraphrase Churchill, the battle of Moscow, which never happened, was the end of the beginning.
Cheers
Sirhr
PS. One thing no one has mentioned as a Soviet contribution was the absolute mastery of artillery. The Soviets put a lot into long range guns and rocket systems. Their ability to put steel on target was unlike any force in World War II. In that respect Soviet doctrine and equipment and tactics were utterly at the leadIng edge of military science.
Last edited:
From my interpretation of history I believe this to be correct, once they were moving the allies moved through France faster than the Germans did at the start of the war. So much faster than they had planned for that fuel was a major issue, also they only had a decent port at Antwerp later on as all suitable french ports were too badly damaged or still in German hands. (hopefully this is correct I'm a bit rusty on details.)
Had Patton been given what little fuel there was and set loose the war would have been quite different, though if something went wrong no one would have been able to help them so I can understand the reservations.
There were also Russians saying "why stop at Germany?" which is a fascinating alternative history in which I suspect the Russians lose because at the end of the war in Europe they seemed to be very close to running out of supplies.
"In order to really assess the significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet victory, you only have to imagine how the Soviet Union would have had to fight if there had been no Lend-Lease aid," Sokolov wrote. "Without Lend-Lease, the Red Army would not have had about one-third of its ammunition, half of its aircraft, or half of its tanks. In addition, there would have been constant shortages of transportation and fuel. The railroads would have periodically come to a halt. And Soviet forces would have been much more poorly coordinated with a constant lack of radio equipment. And they would have been perpetually hungry without American canned meat and fats."
https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend...viet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html
Seems to be a good source of info, lots of quotes from important Russians like Stalin about lend-lease.
Also
War is a matter not so much of arms as of money.
Thucydides
USA war time production was crazy, they produced almost ten times the amount of large ships as the Japanese and from wiki.
"America's yearly production exceeded Japan's production building more planes in 1944 than Japan built in all the war years combined. As a result, half of the world's war production came from America."
In hindsight I don't see how japan ever hoped to win.
We got into a lot of this discussion about the Soviets from the Soviets storm videos on YouTube.
There’s another series called war factories. I think it was BBC produced. And it’s got it’s errors. But it is an absolutely great series about how World War II was won in the factories.
again free on YouTube. The episode on General Motors is quite fascinating. The amount that one company produced is staggering.
There were some great quotes about how they re-engineered the M 1919 machine gun and over delivered on their contract by a staggering number of weapons well also cutting the price by something like 75%. Once the machine gun production got out of the hands of colt and into the hands of general motors transmission division engineers (Saginaw??) the Game changed overnight.
This is one of about 13 episodes. Forward to 7:40 for the M1919 story. Just one of thousands!
Cheers
There’s another series called war factories. I think it was BBC produced. And it’s got it’s errors. But it is an absolutely great series about how World War II was won in the factories.
again free on YouTube. The episode on General Motors is quite fascinating. The amount that one company produced is staggering.
There were some great quotes about how they re-engineered the M 1919 machine gun and over delivered on their contract by a staggering number of weapons well also cutting the price by something like 75%. Once the machine gun production got out of the hands of colt and into the hands of general motors transmission division engineers (Saginaw??) the Game changed overnight.
This is one of about 13 episodes. Forward to 7:40 for the M1919 story. Just one of thousands!
Cheers
Last edited:
Tanks were incidental. P-39's, hurricanes and tomahawks were important. However, the West gave Stalin and his pack of Bolsheviks over 420,000 4x4 trucks. Without them, the Soviet doctrine of deep penetration never could have been achieved. The Soviets defeated the Germans on the operational level, not the tactical level. They were able to confound the Germans by moving men quickly to critical points of attack, and then steamrolling the Germans with an unstoppable flood at the breakthrough points, which then outpaced the Germans who could not move their limited reserves as quickly as the soviets could execute their attack. We made that possible. Without that motorization, the soviet army would have been footslogging into one repeat of the Rzhev Meat Grinder after another, year after year, and they might have reached Poland by the time the Western allies reached Berlin.
(and the fact that we provided them with communication networks so they could actually speak to each other and organize their attacks as they developed was pretty important too, although secondary to the motorization)
Last edited:
Not sure how accurate, but this film depicts Russians shooting thier own if they retreated.
NKVD blocking detachments were used to push soviet units into attacks "like wolves herding sheep." throughout the war, the average soviet soldier was more afraid of Stalin and the gulag than he was of the nazis.Not sure how accurate, but this film depicts Russians shooting thier own if they retreated.
here's an article:
Military History Matters: Soviet Blocking Detachments
Similar threads
