Comments on: So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich?

By: Brian DeFrancesco

Brian DeFrancesco — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:57:13 +0000

Some pertinent points:
1. Stalin, himself, admitted privately (not for public consumption) after the war that the Soviets could not have defeated Hitler on their own. Their logistical ability to attack (fuel, food, trucks, planes) very much leaned on American aid.
2. The Soviets basically had their asses handed to them through the first half of the Eastern campaign by a country and military one third their size. Just imagine what the Wermacht would have done had it not had to worry about its western flank.
3. Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler and watched from the sidelines as Hitler terrorized the West for two years.
4. Those wonderfully munificent Soviets would have rolled to the Atlantic if not for the Americans, in an occupation much more like Nazism than different. The Soviets did not save Europe. They sought to enslave it.

By: AFIK

AFIK — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:46:22 +0000

I think lots of factors should be considered. As to say USSR defeated the Germans alone is a bit exaggeration. However having saying that I also blame the Americans for not playing an active role stopping the Germans in their tracks in 1938/1939. Where were they when Hitler was bullying the smaller nations? The fact is USSR was willing to take part in any plans to stop the Hitler, but the Americans and its allies ignored it all. The Western allies should have devised bold plans to stop Hitler all they do was to pacify him. USSR’s unfortunate issue was that their leader was ruthless and more like Hitler himself. It is very possible that USSR could have defeated the Germans alone had they have a leader who was not shrwed and ruthless as Stalin. Stalin himself retreated to his home when the Gemrans were destroying the Red army. USSR was capable of destroying the Germans alone but their leadership failed them. The number of the dead can not be taken as a proof as to who defeated the NAZIS. Tactics applied were different. Western Allies were more concerned of causing more civilian losses. The NAZIs didn’t care even to kill their own. Stalin also went after his own men. Russia played a very big part, I can say 65% of the effort was from Russia to defeat the NAZIs. Had the Western allies decided to be nuetral and not participate in the war, Russia could have still won. The western allies themselves could still have defeated Hitler by themselves. People do not see much of the effort the Russian took to defeat the NAZIs because of the sheer number of Russian losses. They were victorious but the losses are staggering and even today people do really understand them.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:17:38 +0000

Great article. The Soviet Union was also the only major power on either side of the conflict concerned with fighting a one front war. Britain had her empire to keep after around the world and the United States bore the brunt of the campaign against Japan. The Japanese military had no intention of attacking Russia due to her resources being tied up in the Pacific. Victory at the battle of Moscow can be attributed to Siberian units sent west; units that would not have been sent if Russia had two fronts to take care of.
It is clear that the Soviet Union suffered greatly in the defeat of Nazism. Russias role in victory was large, but by no way was she the soul benefactor.

By: igorfazlyev

igorfazlyev — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:37:40 +0000

imho the truth is that neither the western allies nor the Soviet union would have been able to defeat Germany so decisively on their own. If either the western allies or the SU would have had to fight Germany on their own the war would have most likely been longer and ended in some kind of a negotiated peace. If the SU would have had to fight Germany on its own, Germany would have been able to maintain high levels of military production for longer because the USSR didn’t have good long range aircraft to harass Germany’s military industry. Probably, having been driven back into Poland, today’s Czech republic and Romania by mid 1945 the Germans might have by that time built an atomic bomb and threatened the USSR into a peace settlement, plus that time some elements inside Germany might have been more successful at toppling Hitler from within and that would probably have changed things.

On the other hand, if Hitler had not committed imperial suicide by going to war against the USSR and instead concentrated on deploying a full fledged naval blockade against Britain by building more advanced U-boats and in greater numbers, for example, after a couple of years of privations Churchill would have been voted out of office and his replacement would have sued for peace with Germany (which, if Speer is to be believed was always Hitler’s preferred option for England) the US would then have had no base of operations in Europe and would have been in no position to threaten the Nazi European Union in any meaningful way.

Again in this latter scenario with England out of the equation, if Hitler had still chosen to go to war against the USSR, it would once again have been the best option for the USSR and the US to join forces against Germany. It would have been a very different war, a much longer one and possibly one ending in some kind of a negotiated peace but once again the US and the USSR would have found themselves fighting on the same side against the EU. It would probably have ended with Hitler getting deposed in a coup and the EU suing for peace and reforming.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:33:20 +0000

USSR lost almost 10 million soldiers on the eastern front. 4 million of which killed as POW’s in German captivity.
Germany lost on the eastern front almost 4 million soldiers and Russians held about 3 million Fascist POWs of which about 350 000 died in camps or during transportation. Over a 1 million Germans willingly stayed and help rebuild. 1 million was transferred by US to USSR for the slave labor.

By: ghj

ghj — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 22:05:16 +0000

u wrong saying such things about russia

By: David

David — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:09:27 +0000

Having lived in Russia and spent part of my life there, I have seen firsthand the effects of WWII on them even to this day. In European Russia one would be very hard pressed to find a single family that didn’t have a fatality in that war. It really is offending how Americans seem to so often neglect the exponentially larger role the Soviet Union played in destroying Nazism and put so much emphasis on their own role. All the glory in movies and media and even just popular belief among the uneducated is that the world was doomed until America rolled in and kicked ass and single-handedly saved the world. Wrong! Even compared to the immensely small amount the western front did the Americans sucked. In North Africa the British didn’t even want the americans to fight because they just got in the way. Statistically Soviets killed over 80% of Germans, not only because the fighting there was actually heavy and frankly savage, but also because the Germans sent much more to the Eastern front. Germany sent several times more troops to the Eastern front because really the Western front was just a minor nuisance.

By: Pete

Pete — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:31:09 +0000

A very interesting article and well written. My only point of concern is that the fact that the lend lease assistance provided by the USA is presented as an act of kindness by the US when in fact, the USA profited massively for many years from the provision of supplies and munitions during the second world war – I cannot imagine any reason why a government would contemplate providing wespons for free… With regard to the ‘debtor’s guilt’ of the nations that received lend lease assistance, the UK, being the only nation that has paid in full for the assistance has no debt and hence no recourse to such guilt. Also, when considering war dead, by dint of geography, the only Americans seriously endangered by enemy action were serving military personnel. Hence, the USA may have assisted in the defeat of the Axis but the USA lost a tiny proportion of her population (less than Australia lost) and clearly profited from her involvement in a way that no other protagonistic Allied nation did. In fact, NO other protagonist nation ended the second world war having profited from it’s involvement, just the USA. Nobody of any intelligence doubts that the USA helped to bring the war to an earlier end (despite the best efforts of Gen. Mark Clark in Rome), however, the promotion by Hollywood of the “American Version” of WWII has an uncanny ability to irritate the living shit out of anybody with a grasp of history; particularly when ninety nine percent of Americans who comment on the Internet actually believe the tripe they see in the movies. It is as disingenuous to suggest that America won the war for Europe single handedly as it is to suggest that the Soviet Union did the same. One thing is for sure, no nation suffered and lost as many as the USSR and none lost as little and profited as much as the USA. I’ll keep my “debtor’s guilt” if I find an educated American willing to accept his “profiteer’s guilt”.

By: Hakan

Hakan — Mon, 28 May 2012 14:29:22 +0000

Without the western front and allied bombings which devastated the German war industry ,it would have come to a stalemate between Wehrmacht and USSR in 1946-47. The USSR would have lost additional 3 million soldiers and arrived East Prussia..Thats it …

By: fred

fred — Wed, 23 May 2012 19:44:45 +0000

the soviet union was a powerful nation and they lost a lot of people fighting that war but honestly I feel the usa gave the allies that extra push to win the war