Yes but they did win though didnt they.
The Soviet Union could absorb such losses on account of them having a large population and a big country with which they could retreat into.
The Soviets would have beat Germany regardless of lend lease.
Nazi and Soviet invasion of Poland. Why didn't the Allies declare war on the Soviet Union?
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
Yes but they did win though didnt they.
The Soviet Union could absorb such losses on account of them having a large population and a big country with which they could retreat into.
The Soviets would have beat Germany regardless of lend lease.
What was important was the point at which it came. Not the quantity.
And as for the 80% statement you could easily counter it with what was the percentage of soviet military casualties on the same front?
And considering how long the war dragged on, that again rules out the aforementioned 'smashing'.
Look at overall available Soviet vs German men, tanks and aircraft, then look at the comparative losses suffered by each side. The Germans inflicted much more damage than they took.
That's true, but look at the respective casualty rates. And would you deem it to be a complete victory? Considering the Finns only ceded a relatively small amount of their territory and retained their sovereign leadership?
My original point still stands, the soviets didn't 'smash' anyone. They won through attrition.
Nope The Russian Steam Roller definitely ground to a Halt.
You could say they got a Bloody nose.
Too bad that Zhukov was busy at Khalkhin Gol.
Nope The Russian Steam Roller definitely ground to a Halt.
You could say they got a Bloody nose.
Too bad that Zhukov was busy at Khalkhin Gol.
Definitely got a bloody nose! Also showed the amazing (but deadly) ability of Simo Häyhä.
You're including non-combatants, that figure by some accounts would be deemed exaggerated and it also includes the civilian victims of genocide. Taking wiki numbers of eastern front deaths:
Axis: ~5.2mil
USSR: ~10.6mil
As for winter war, it was an experiment by Stalin to see what happens, the force that was sent there was underequipped undertrained and was not motivated to invade Finland. Certainly not the full force of the Soviet war machine like you imply. Edit: To expand on that point, winter war exposed a lot of flaws which lead to some reforms of the soviet millitary.
As for peace treaty, Stalin wanted to reinforce defenses for Leningrad, Stalin didn't need to take over Finland and in the peace treaty got what he wanted, saying Finland gave up "a little bit" of land is misleading too as you miss of how much economic productivity was given away with that land.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
well i suggest you review your knowledge on the facts, youre comparing total civilian and military losses against military losses of the axis, the soviets lost almost twice the number of soldiers (10 mil vs 5 mil)
So what? they won. And not only they won, they became a superpower the next day. Thats what matters at the end of the war, and no i dont accept that the win was because of the lend lease, it takes courage and guts to win the enemy, who was ruthless and barbaric and had supreme weapons. Trucks and bullets need men to drive them and shoot them...
I am indeed comparing those figures because they resulted from the German occupation of the eastern front! You were talking about Russia as a whole, well so am I!
And I wasn't disputing the fact that they won, I was disputing your comment that they "smashed" the German army. I can see however that as you state you don't accept it (with no evidence) this is a pointless discussion.
You should also look at Soviet treatment of their own men, yes it takes guts to win, but what would you do when you had the choice between possible death at the hands of the enemy or certain death at the hands of your leaders?
And I wasn't disputing the fact that they won, I was disputing your comment that they "smashed" the German army. I can see however that as you state you don't accept it (with no evidence) this is a pointless discussion.
You should also look at Soviet treatment of their own men, yes it takes guts to win, but what would you do when you had the choice between possible death at the hands of the enemy or certain death at the hands of your leaders?
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
What evidence do you want, the russkies killed 90% of the german army during ww2, they conquered Berlin, sent germany down the drain.
I cant give you more solid evidence than this.
And what has the treatment of their own has to do with our discussion, if you were a german POW you die in a gulag if you are a russian POW you burn in a furnace. Are you trying to find logic in the eastern front?
I cant give you more solid evidence than this.
And what has the treatment of their own has to do with our discussion, if you were a german POW you die in a gulag if you are a russian POW you burn in a furnace. Are you trying to find logic in the eastern front?
So we should judge military power of a nation by how many civilians they killed?
Are you seriously suggesting that soviet military force is worse because they chose not to kill as many prisoners of war compared to germans who were rutheless towards soviet pow?
Are you talking about movies now? Where are you getting this information? Soviet soldiers faced almost certain death if captured by nazi.
For the same reason that made UK and US leave central and eastern Europe, Poland included, to Stalin during Yalta conference and sentence half of Europe to be raped, pillaged and screwed by communism for 50 years. Fear. Everyone feared Russia. Everyone still does.
In truth, everyone underestimated Hitler's Germany in thirties. And, purely on political level, both France and Britain, screwed up pretty bad and practically let the whole thing happen.
France was warned multiple times about Germany being in state of unrest and preparation prior to WWII. In 1933 The First Marshall of Poland discussed with France plans to organise preventive military action against Germany right after Hitler rose to power. France decided it was highly unlikely Germany would be of any threat to Europe and refused any help. Even after Germany violated Locarno treaty in Rhine region, which effectively forfeited Belgium's position as French ally, Poland offered (in accordance with existing agreements) full military support should France decide to stop the new forming Reich from gaining any further territories. But France once again declined and decided it was easier to fortify the border along the Maginote Line and let Germany know that way it was all serious business and all that.
Britain on the other hand, screwed up big time. In 1937 Edward Halifax, representing House Of Lords, met with Hitler and unofficially opened discussions about German demands of control over their old colonies, Austria, Sudetenland and passage/corridor to Danzig in Poland (effectively leaving Baltic to Germans). This was understood by Germany as permission from Britain to regain power in Central Europe and led to the "Anschluss" of Austria, loss of territories by Czechoslovakia and eventually the war as we know it. Not that the war wouldn't happen without the British "appeasement", but it definitely sped the process up.
Three days after attack on Poland Britain and France declared war on Reich in accordance with treaties signed almost at the last moment, in summer of 1939. Britain was more or less hoping that the whole thing would just blow over and Germany wouldn't dare to proceed any further in fear of allied military action. You can kind of see how when the major military forces in Europe threaten relatively poor economically country like Germany, they would expected it to have an immediate effect. For both France and Britain it was also logical that Russia at some point would join the forces with "the majority" against Germany once declaration of war was issued. But Germany did not care. And Russia had its own plans for Europe.
Despite popular belief, Poland was actually relatively well prepared for the war. Just not that kind of war. They based their entire defences on WWI experience, with infantry geared for close combat and plenty of horse units equipped with short weapons against infantry. However, Blitzkrieg brought completely different technology to the table and the masses of single shot rifle and bayonet equipped infantry, heavy and medium horse cavalery, horse mounted rifles and chevau-légers (lancers) practically got decimated in matter of days by German units arriving with heavy, medium and light machine guns, armoured vehicles, tanks and both sea and land based artillery barrages executed with high precision and extending for days. Nobody was prepared for that type of war. Not Poland, not France, not even Britain, if they were to face that enemy on land in 1939. This was no ordinary gentleman's war led by old Prussian Generals. There would be no sitting in foxholes for months. No more capture the flag games. No 5 o'clock tea breaks. It was fast, mechanised, high tech and absolutely ruthless.
Without Russian support and with Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg remaining neutral, Britain and France screwed up once more. 12 days after attack on Poland Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier and Maurice Gamelin met in Abbeville and decided (despite the terms of treaty with Poland) not to action any military offensive against Germany, but to "prepare, wait and see" what happens instead. The entire strategic defence of Poland in September 1939 was based on assurance that by day 15 the allies would come to rescue. The help never came. Defences were decimated and run out of ammo. Russia did the rest on day 17. The rest, as they say, is history.
Last edited:
Such alliance already existed - it was signed one week prior to war and divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence".
Hitler messed up, he could have had Britain and Co as allies against the Russian Communist regime. Another mistake was the treatment of the Slavic people. Many thousands were murdered by the Nazis, when these people actually saw Germany as freeing them from communism.
Germany could have had the Polish etc on his side but instead the SS were left to burn there way across Europe.
Germany could have had the Polish etc on his side but instead the SS were left to burn there way across Europe.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
What was really bad IMO was when after the war in the Victory Parades, we didn't let the Polish forces join in despite the fact that they had fought for us, because it might have offended the Soviet Union 
.
.Something I didnt know about until recently was Holodomor which happened before WWII kicked off.
This is a prime example of how Stalin and Hitler were cut of the same cloth
Also, when the Russians pulled back from their borders when the Germans begin to advance into Russian territory, the Soviet Army gave the civilians a choice to leave with them.
A lot of the population abandoned their homes and fled 'in land' (for want of a better term) to out run the German Army. Those who stayed were branded traitors to the Mother Land. The Soviets then burned and destroyed towns and villages so not to provide the on coming Army with any 'comfort'
The Ukraine suffered horribly from the early 1930's right through to the end of WWII, from Holodomor, the Nazi persecution that followed, then after the end of the war, those who stayed - and survived - were then punished by returning Soviet forces...
I got most of this from a book called: The Secret Holocaust Diaries
This is a prime example of how Stalin and Hitler were cut of the same cloth
Also, when the Russians pulled back from their borders when the Germans begin to advance into Russian territory, the Soviet Army gave the civilians a choice to leave with them.
A lot of the population abandoned their homes and fled 'in land' (for want of a better term) to out run the German Army. Those who stayed were branded traitors to the Mother Land. The Soviets then burned and destroyed towns and villages so not to provide the on coming Army with any 'comfort'
The Ukraine suffered horribly from the early 1930's right through to the end of WWII, from Holodomor, the Nazi persecution that followed, then after the end of the war, those who stayed - and survived - were then punished by returning Soviet forces...
I got most of this from a book called: The Secret Holocaust Diaries
That's the common misconception. In 1939 Allied Forces/coalition consisted of France, Poland and the United Kingdom (plus Commonwealth in winter 1939). Ribbentop-Molotov pact was served to media as a non-aggression agreement but it included deal in which Russia agreed to join Germany in military action across Central and Eastern Europe. Russia would attack through Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland and after Blitzkrieg both forces would meet and divide Poland along Vistula river.
After German army entered territory of Poland on September 1, 1939, Russia was as usual late as they were still tied up in trying to formally end war with Japan. In the evening of September 16 - General Schulenburg, then German ambassador in Moscow - stormed into Molotov's offices and demanded for Soviets to stop ****** about, honour the pact and immediately attack Poland as previously agreed. Molotov apologised, explained the difficulties and set the time of attack to 6 o'clock next day, in the same time asking Schulenburg to withdraw any German airforces from eastern border as Russians had no plans to take any hostages but wanted to start carpet bombing their point of entry instead.
On September 17 in the morning, with small, usual technical delay 650,000 Russian soldiers and 5000 Soviet tanks entered east borders of Poland and attacked coalition forces as per their agreement with Third Reich Germany.
Last edited:
