Sharpe
2876
There’s still a question as to how that economic angle translates to victory and to control on the ground. I mean, it’s hard to argue with 3 million armed Soviets storming into Germany or whatever the number was.
I can see a strong argument for the US doing the biggest share of defeating the Axis combined, but in my view it was probably a plurality not a majority. The Soviets were probably the #2 contributor, and the #1 contributor against Germany specifically (much less so against the Japanese and other Fascist regimes.) Bottom line, IMO, the Soviets were major contributors, especially against Germany.
They absolutely would have. All the ‘undesirables’, but they would have ‘rehabilitated’ some of the ones they considered more culturally/ ethnically acceptable. They would have continued to engage in mass murder, and it would have accelerated if anything. There is ample documentation from the nazis themselves to leave no doubt.
Jaws_au
2878
Yeah, I’m just not seeing how if - for example - the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact actually stayed in place - that the war didn’t go on for MUCH longer (or at least, until German cities started getting nuked). I mean, the Axis put close to four million troops into the invasion of the Soviet Union. If those troops were instead available to fight in North Africa and garrison the rest of Europe (or attack India or whatever)…
Houngan
2879
I guess there’s a logical argument for what Timex is saying, if you’re Germany in WWII and the Russians knock it off on the eastern front, then it would be smart to not press and refocus on the rest of the war. That said, once they won that and came back for RU shit would have been just as nasty as before.
Dejin
2880
Well if we’re handing out credits, if the UK had negotiated for peace after France fell, as Hitler had expected, then Hitler would have had a permanent hold over (non-Vichy) France, and had free reign to turn all his forces on Russia. So the UK (with support from Dominions/Colonies) has to get major props for that.
Sharpe
2881
Yeah I would put the UK as the #3 contributor to the overall war effort, and #1 up through most of 1941. Their willingness to stay in the war and resist the Nazis created the key opportunities to defeat the Nazis later.
I mean, it was an ALLIED victory in all senses of the word, although the Allies were fracturing deeply by the end.
Still, let’s not let the justified disgust at Stalin’s atrocities blind us to the real contributions of the Soviets. I give much more credit to the Soviet people than to Stalin’s leadership but the Soviet contributions overall were major.
CraigM
2882
Remember, this is Hitlers regime. Pure cost benefit analysis based strategic action was not their calling card. The ethno-nationalist fervor demanded they take certain actions, even if those were ultimately self defeating.
Houngan
2883
True, by midgame they were being led from the rear by an ideologue, and are we kinda on board with Hitler probably having some inherent stuff going on, like syphilis?
Aceris
2884
Oh please. It was a joint effort, with key targetting decisions driven by Ultra. And it’s true effectiveness has been long debated. I lean to the “it was impactful” side, because in addition to the damage it diverted a great deal of resources and severely impacted synthetic oil production, which obviously had knock on effects in the wider war.
The Soviets did basically nothing in the air campaign, nothing in the sea campaign, had minimal intelligence contributions, did nothing in the far east (GB contributions in the far east were considerable), and sat out the first two years of the war.
I don’t think it’s possible to realistically evaluate all that against how much they did in the land campaign from 41 onwards. You just end up coming to whatever conclusion fits your ideological priors, and it easily feeds into Russia stronk memes.
Better to say the Russians made a massive and vital contribution to the victory over the axis, and lost more and suffered more than any of the other major nations (even the French).
JonRowe
2885
This is why I said “led” as it was a joint effort.
My opinion is that the destruction of Germany’s oil industry was one of the biggest keys to winning the war.
Aceris
2886
If you believe that then surely the operation was British led? :) Ultra was the source of the intel that that was highly impactful.
JonRowe
2887
Uhh, for sure British code-breakers were essential in the information gathering department, but the might, equipment, and manpower that America brought to Europe led the way.
Aceris
2888
On the ground, yes, absolutely. In the air there was not such a large difference.
In one sense the nation most responsible for defeating Germany was…Germany.
The air power argument has merit, though scholars have gone back and forth over the years about the CBO and its impact. My feeling is, though, that eventually you need to put armies into the field and occupy Germany to defeat it, and if it wasn’t for the USSR absorbing so many Nazi soldiers the US and UK would have faced a hellish prospect (more so than it was, even).
Trying to pick out who or what was exactly the main factor in defeating Germany strikes me as not particularly useful, other than as an exercise in figuring out the different dynamics of that long and complex conflict. Neither the Soviet Great Patriotic War propaganda (we did it all, the US and UK just let us do the dying) malarky or the Bomber Mafia “we hardly needed ground troops and would have needed even fewer if they’d only have given us more bombers” schtick is particularly helpful. Somewhere in there though lies some useful analysis.
Yeah, I mean this makes me think the Soviets had something to do with the outcome.
Stealth Bomber 2.0 getting rolled out today
RichVR
2892
We won’t see anything. Trump explained it. They’re invisible.
rowe33
2893
Yay, how many trillions did we spend on this plane that will probably be technologically outdated next week?
