The role of the USSR in the WW2

H

Heisenberg

New Member
Hello!
I've been reading this forum for a long time, but registered only now to ask you about the issue i've always wondered about. Which country do you think played the main role in defeating Nazi Germany in the WWII? The Russians strongly believe that it was the Soviet Union, which is proved by the statistis I want to show you. What do you guys think about it?


image.jpg
 
For the most part I would agree, two thirds of the German armed forces were deployed against the Soviet Union and almost all of their better divisions however I am not sure that is the whole story as had the Germans been able to deploy its entire strength against Russia the war may have gone differently.

The bomber offensive against Germany tied up a sizable number of troops, aircraft, guns and resources, allied operations in North Africa, Italy and France tied down large numbers of troops and material that could have made a difference in 1942-1943.

In the end I do not expect anyone will argue that the bulk of the war was fought in the East it was still very much a group effort.
 
Whilst other Allied nations tied down German resources as Monty has briefly mentioned, there can be no doubt that the main role in defeating Nazi Germany was carried out by the Soviet Union. It's so obvious as to be beyond debate, which I'm sure you know and agree with.
 
Doppleganger said:
Whilst other Allied nations tied down German resources as Monty has briefly mentioned, there can be no doubt that the main role in defeating Nazi Germany was carried out by the Soviet Union. It's so obvious as to be beyond debate, which I'm sure you know and agree with.
Click to expand...

I will not argue that that scale of the war in the east was on a far greater scale than that of the west and the decisive land campaign of the war.

I think it is wrong to dismiss the input of the west as simply "tying up resources" when you consider that one third of the combat strength was facing the west, the bulk of the Luftwaffe was tied down defending the Reich from Allied bombers and a huge amount of men and material was tied up in air defense of the Reich a segment of the war the Soviet Union took little part in.

So despite the scale of combat in the east I think it is fair to say that without the Soviet Union the west could not have won but probably would not have lost due to the lack of German naval superiority but without the west the Soviet Union could easily have lost, in other words the scale of combat in the east is not the whole story.
 
MontyB said:
I think it is wrong to dismiss the input of the west as simply "tying up resources"..
Click to expand...
I'm not dismissing the input of the west at all Monty. For example, I happen to think that Lend-Lease in particular was a very big asset to the Soviet Union. Some argue that LL kept the Soviet railroad system in operation, for example. The point to make is that the Red Army and VVS bled the Wehrmacht white on the Ostfront - what the western allies did, whilst not inconsequential by any means, was by comparison, relatively minor. It's all about scale and the scale on the Ostfront was bigger to the power of 10. You know this already Monty so I'm not gonna say any more on the matter.
 
As I have said I do not disagree with the idea that the physical European aspect of WW2 was won and lost in Russia but I do believe the conditions that lead to that result were formulated in the west.

Had it not been for Britain staying in the war, providing the launchpad for the round the clock bombing of Germany thus tying up vast amounts of resources and manpower the war in the east could have gone very differently.

How much rail and roading could have been built east enabling better resupply of German forces had they not had to build the Atlantic wall, how many more tanks, anti-tank guns and artillery pieces would have been assigned to Ost divisions had they not been required to man and build anti-aircraft guns to protect cities, what difference would a few hundred extra fighters have made over Kursk or Stalingrad as opposed to Berlin?

Yes there is no doubt that the physical fighting in the east was what determined the outcome of the war but that result was influenced heavily by the war in the west, just looking at the numbers is not an accurate method for determining the input and value of nation.

It is somewhat akin to claiming that WW2 was won by the US and Royal Navy as the USN won the Pacific war and the RN won the largest and longest battle of WW2 in the Atlantic while the Russians were nonexistent, it may be true it is not an accurate picture of the whole war.

So given the question that he asked "Which country do you think played the main role in defeating Nazi Germany in the WWII?" I am going to say Britain just for physically staying in the war and the Soviet Union for actually fighting it.
 
Last edited:
This is a :cens: question which always is finishing with someone from Moscow saying :we had 25 million dead and the US only 300000,and someone from Chicago saying :you were (and are) that primitive that you had no shoes :we gave you 15 million boots,and you never paid them back .

The usual H CH discussion .


The question is also wrong :

the West would have won,even if the SU had remained neutral


and

the SU would have won even if the West had remained neutral.
 
Last edited:
Heisenberg said:
Hello!
The Russians strongly believe that it was the Soviet Union, which is proved by the statistis I want to show you.

Not necessarily : the number of German casualties on the Eastern Front and a dominant role of the SU are 2 different things .
Click to expand...
 
MontyB said:
Yes there is no doubt that the physical fighting in the east was what determined the outcome of the war but that result was influenced heavily by the war in the west, just looking at the numbers is not an accurate method for determining the input and value of nation.

So given the question that he asked "Which country do you think played the main role in defeating Nazi Germany in the WWII?" I am going to say Britain just for physically staying in the war and the Soviet Union for actually fighting it.
Click to expand...
Looking at the numbers doesn't give the whole story, but it can certainly give a quick high-level picture. Whatever anyone likes to say, it can't be objectively disputed that the SU destroyed the bulk of German military power in WW2. Thus, given that stark fact, one cannot reach any other conclusion other than the SU was responsible for the main role in defeating Nazi Germany. Not the only role, but the main role. Take the SU out of the picture and do you believe then that Britain would have been able to defeat Germany all by itself, if you say it achieved the main role just because by virtue of a narrow channel it avoided invasion by a vastly superior army? Do you think D-Day would have been possible had the full strength of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe been available to the Germans? Do you think the Americans would even have tried?

The fact that Germany attacked the SU had very little to do with Britain still being there. As has happened throughout history, the country I come from was saved by virtue of being an island, nothing more, nothing less. We got lucky because Adolf had bigger fish to fry. Take away the SU and Britain would likely have come to terms with Germany. Someone like Lord Halifax would have ousted Churchill and the UK would have been a satellite state of the German Reich.

Lucky for us that the SU was there if you ask me.
 
Doppleganger said:
Looking at the numbers doesn't give the whole story, but it can certainly give a quick high-level picture. Whatever anyone likes to say, it can't be objectively disputed that the SU destroyed the bulk of German military power in WW2.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Thus, given that stark fact, one cannot reach any other conclusion other than the SU was responsible for the main role in defeating Nazi Germany. Not the only role, but the main role.
Click to expand...

For the sake of avoiding being pedantic I will not disagree.

Take the SU out of the picture and do you believe then that Britain would have been able to defeat Germany all by itself, if you say it achieved the main role just because by virtue of a narrow channel it avoided invasion by a vastly superior army? Do you think D-Day would have been possible had the full strength of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe been available to the Germans? Do you think the Americans would even have tried?
Click to expand...

No I do not think the western allies could have taken on a full strength Germany but by the same token Britain was never in any danger from Germany as the Royal Navy and Air Force ensured that Germany could never have crossed the chanel in any force.

The fact that Germany attacked the SU had very little to do with Britain still being there. As has happened throughout history, the country I come from was saved by virtue of being an island, nothing more, nothing less. We got lucky because Adolf had bigger fish to fry. Take away the SU and Britain would likely have come to terms with Germany. Someone like Lord Halifax would have ousted Churchill and the UK would have been a satellite state of the German Reich.

Lucky for us that the SU was there if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I think that is a little harsh, you are correct Britain was saved by virtue of being an island but then had Germany had a half way decent strategic plan that should not have been an issue and using your argument it could be said that Russia was saved by virtue of being too big to conquer.

I have a bit of a problem with this question as no matter what approach you take (Russia won the war or the west won the war) you end up belittling the sacrifice of the other side to what you choose, in the end I will perhaps fall back to the position that Germany lost the war because it bit off more than it could chew.
 
I would take these figures with a pinch of salt, North Africa and Italy are listed as under 200.000. They lost some 200.000 men in North Africa, let alone all those that were killed in Italy. Over all when Africa Corps was defeated in North Africa some 600.000 men German and Italians surrendered and only 700 men escaped capture
 
It depends on what you mean by the "main role."

There is no question that if you mean "who killed the most Germans," the answer is "the Soviet Union." The previous posts are absolutely correct about this.

On the other hand, if you mean "what was the indispensable nation in the winning coalition," I think that the clear answer is the US. Without US involvement, I doubt that the British-Soviet alliance could have defeated the German-Italian Axis. On the other hand, even if the Soviets had collapsed, I think that the US-British alliance could have defeated Germany, Italy and Japan (though with far greater casualties and cost).

A quick economic calculation (based on 1941-1943 GDP figures) shows that the US and Britain had a GDP preponderance of more than 2:1 over the combination of Germany, Italy and Japan. Population was roughly equal (about 180 million in the US and Britain; 195 million in Germany-Italy-Japan). I submit that US-British economic domination would have carried the day even without Soviet involvement.

Further, meaning no disrespect to our British friends, I think that the combination of the US and the USSR would clearly have won over the Axis powers. The economic preponderance of a US-Soviet alliance was also about 2:1, but this combination would also have a population advantage of about 2:1.
 
I disagree : Germany would lose in all possible constellations :

A)Germany against Britain and the US,the SU remaining neutral/being occupied

B) Germany against Britain and the SU,the US remaining neutral

C)Germany against Britain,the SU remaining neutral/Being occupied,the US remaining temporarily neutral

D)Germany against the SU,Britain being neutral/occupied,the US remaining neutral


E)Germany being victorious: Britain and the SU being occupied,the US remaining neutral : the result would be an implosion of the Third Reich before 1953.

BTW: C +D are very unlikely to happen,and are only mentioned pro forma .
 
Heisenberg said:
Hello!
I've been reading this forum for a long time, but registered only now to ask you about the issue i've always wondered about. Which country do you think played the main role in defeating Nazi Germany in the WWII? The Russians strongly believe that it was the Soviet Union, which is proved by the statistis I want to show you. What do you guys think about it?


image.jpg
Click to expand...

These figures are very low try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties although some sources for USSR are even higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top