PDA

View Full Version : could russia have fought germany alone?



thefruitbat
06-13-2005, 05:22 PM
I suppose this is related in some ways to my post a few weeks ago about the BoB, and why i said then that i thought it was pivotal, mainly because i assumed rightly or wrongly that sealion would of been successfull. That it seems is a moot point, although i am still uncertain that if the germans had decided to make the capture of britain there number one priority, that they wouldnt of succeded.

Anyway, that is not what i am asking. I am curious to know if people think that without the aid that the US sent the USSR, they would of been able to slowly turn the tide against the germans. I've just tried to google up the details, but to no avail. From what i can remember it consisted of food, trucks, planes and tanks, and i presume ammunition as well, but i have know idea of numbers. From a few articles i've read recently it seems that the trucks were deeemed most usefull as they mobalised a largely unmobile army. From the game it seems that the planes were a very valuble asset as well, although i am sure i have read that they didnt think much on the tanks they received. I have also read stuff suggesting that early in the war Stalin himself said that it was vital, but as the war progressed down played it more and more, but the source is not 100% ie interweb.

As you can see, i dont have much data on this question, but i am pretty sure that this will be rectified by others.

If the general concensuss is that they couldnt off succeded without american aid, it does throw up the possibility that it was germnays failure to make selion a success that was actually the most pivotal moment in the ETO.

Any thoughts welcome.

blakduk
06-13-2005, 05:57 PM
thefruitbat- you are correct that Stalin initially gave much praise to the allies for the supplies the USSR received however he later went very quiet on that gratitude. Not surprising really given the the tight grip he maintained on the propoganda machinery (and really its hard to take a guy seriously who renames himself 'man of steel').
During the initial phases of the war between the Reich and the USSR the USSR was just about beaten. They were woefully underprepared and more concerned with raping their half of Poland and Finland while still purging the officer core of the Red Army. Their major industrial areas were either overrun or dismantled and transported away from the Germans- it took a number of months for that industrial capacity to return. As you stated the most vital elements they received were trucks- the planes and other equipment helped but the trucks were vital to getting their industry functioning as well as the direct logistical support for the army.
The Russians were never entirely happy with the tanks- they found them unreliable, prone to breakdown, too lightly armoured and armed, and received too few to make effective units. As the French had learned, tanks needed tactics and strategy and couldnt just go toe-to-toe with the Panzers.
As for the bigger question of could they have done it alone- very difficult to say. Without that critical support at that time to reinforce Stalingrad and Moscow the Germans might have broken them, captured the oil fields in the south, then continued on the next summer.
We'll never know...

LEXX_Luthor
06-13-2005, 06:13 PM
I would have to agree, the Red Army was severely dependent on the USA trucks for mobility when on the offensive after Stalingrad. The ground transport (and fuel) was the most important Lend Leace equipment. Without Lend Leace, the Soviets would not have been near Berlin in 1945, and possibly not have been on the offensive.

But that is half the story. Unlike the Luftwaffe, the German Army was undefeated and always marching forward to new ground until they stopped outside Moscow in December 1941. Neither the Allied victories in The Meds nor later in D~Day, as we know them (*), would have been possible against a fully manned and fully equipped German Army if it had not been bled white on the Eastern Front land battles. The Red Army bore the brunt of defeating the German Army on the ground.

(*) footnote... Its very instructive that by 1944, USA was already vastly increasing the training time of new pilots, because they simply knew they would never need as many as they could make, and same with the planes. By 1945 USA had not even begun to fight, and had only just begun to gear up for war, so infinitely vast was the war fighting potential never seen before in world history.

Jaws2002
06-13-2005, 06:24 PM
germany could have never win against russia. USSR was just too big for german army to control.
Once the industry was moved east and it started to produce it was all over.
just my 2 cents.

jensenpark
06-13-2005, 07:29 PM
Ahh, my favourite 'what if' scenario.

Big point is how 'alone' is the USSR in this scenario?

Alone in fighting? Alone without the allied support of fuel, planes, trucks, etc?

Alone against the whole might of Germany if it only went East - and France and Britain didn't declare war September 3 in support of Poland?

Course we will never know for sure, but my guess (emphasize 'guess') is that without support of the allies and the lend lease - USSR would have lost. Now the allied support doesn't take away the huge sacrifice made by the soviets - but without it and a one front war for Germany...well game over.

Seeing much of the west's view on communism, I'm sure the west would have happily sold or supplied lend lease to Germany - again, if Germany had strictly gone east.

As always with this scenario, I welcome other thoughts.

hobnail
06-13-2005, 07:39 PM
Really this boils down to the political strength of the Soviet State rather than it's ability to make it's own tanks, trucks and petrol. Hitler's gamble was that with the decapitation of the Soviet state (by siezing Moscow and Leningrad) the whole "rotten edifice" would tumble down and he could carve out a Slavic state in the West. I don't believe he ever had thoughts of the Third Reich having a Pacific coast.

Would a USSR, confined east of the Urals and deprived of Moscow, seek peace with Nazi Germany or continue to fight or would it dissolve/morph into something else?

LEXX_Luthor
06-13-2005, 07:39 PM
Hobnail, ya that was Hitler's plan but the evacuation of Moscow and the political organs to the East, in case the Germans took Moscow, make me think USSR would have continued to at least try to defend itself much farther east. Hitler's Directive 21 calls for strategic bombing of surviving Soviet industry in the Ural mountains once the tactical use of bombing in support of the German Army was over. Hitler planned to stop at the northern Volga River, some hundreds of kilometers east of Moscow, but no further.

I think WW2 took both Ussia and Russia working together, contributing in different ways like posted above.

My fave possiblity is Germany attacking East after the fall of France, say mid~late 1940, and wisely giving up the fantasy of actually doing a seaborne invasion of England no matter what the Luftwaffe could do.

Before the Battle of Britain, the Bf~110 was considered the Elite fighter of the Luftwaffe, and without a Battle of Britain, would have remained the Elite fighter at the 1940 invasion of Soviet Union. This would make interesting sim possibilities, as the Bf~110 would not face Spifires or Hurricanes, but only I~153s and I~16s (ie...No Yaks, No LaGGS, No MiGs). Bf~110 performance during the Battle of France could give a clue here, although I have read that the Bf~110 began to show its first hints of vulnerability to Hurricanes in the spring of 1940 over France.

Bf~110 as long range escort fighters may have succeeded against I~153 and I~16 interception.

Atomic_Marten
06-13-2005, 08:08 PM
could germany have fought russia alone?

This isn't "what if" scenario. That happened and we can read in the books about the result.(minor correction: Germany had her allies, Soviets had land-lease..)

LEXX_Luthor
06-13-2005, 08:14 PM
Well, the 8th AirForce and others tied up half the Luftwaffe, and then slaughtered it, as well as prevented most of the 88mm guns from protecting the German Army in the East.

By the same token, Visualize the repelled invasion of France in 1944 if all those panzers and armour crews were not wasted and lost forever at Kursk a year before.

mole_boy
06-13-2005, 08:17 PM
no way, with the extra troops and aircraft on the channel coast the germans could have one the battle of moscow which would have put russia out of the war because most of USSR's transport was based in or around moscow so even if the factories continued to produce war material it couldn't get them to the front line.

The other way Germans could have beatten russia was to get the japanese to attack , becasue many of the russian troops in the battle of moscow were supposed to be defending against. However thanks to Zhukov beating the japanese in 1938 the Japanese didn't want to attack

WarWolfe_1
06-13-2005, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Well, the 8th AirForce and others tied up half the Luftwaffe, and then slaughtered it, as well as prevented most of the 88mm guns from protecting the German Army in the East.

By the same token, Visualize the repelled invasion of France in 1944 if all those panzers and armour crews were not wasted and lost forever at Kursk a year before.

they were there. Hitler was asleep and no movment orders could be givein without him!


but no i think the usa supplies was a must have.

that being said. Who Knows? We will never know for sure.

victor51
06-14-2005, 12:17 AM
More important than the lend-lease, imagine if Germany was allowed to get unlimited raw materials from Mid-East, Africa, and S.America. So... Nope, with-out Germany's other hand tied up, mother Russia would have been toast.

MS_Siwarrior
06-14-2005, 12:32 AM
Hell Yes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

alert_1
06-14-2005, 01:21 AM
Don't forget that Soviet Union got not only "visible" help in form of truck, aircraft, tanks but mainly huge amount of machinery tools (for ex. high speed machining tools), raw material, high quality AV gas and so on.Many famous T34 was for ex. made by using US machinery&tools...

Kernow
06-14-2005, 04:23 AM
Barbarossa aimed at destroying the Soviet Union in one campaign. It failed to do so. The aims of the 42 German summer offensive were no longer so grand. The Soviet Union had already saved itself. And by 43 German aims were merely the elimination of a salient at Kursk.

Although some British aid (eg Hurricanes - which must have been welcome if you'd been flying I-153s) arrived from 31 Aug 41, it could not have been enough to be decisive in the Battle for Moscow. The mech-infantry contingent of Soviet armoured formations were largely made mobile by US trucks and half-tracks, but that was from 43 onwards.

The Soviets saved themselves, but the lend-lease supplies certainly helped to clothe, feed and move the Red Army for their big offensives from Kursk onwards. However, they could still have fought without it and the Germans recognized that Moscow was beyond them following winter 41, before any real supplies had come from the West.

dadada1
06-14-2005, 04:44 AM
Hitler also under estimated the Russian army. Even though the Wermacht had made massive initial gains he clearly had not considered a campaign of any length, this is clearly indicated by his failure to provide his troops with winter equipment and clothing.

I also remember accounts (I think from the series "The World at War") Of German soldiers suffering from a kind of depression caused by the vast expanses of seemingly endless identical Steppe. Surely the length of the campaign, the Russian winters and the fact that German troops were so far from home was a factor in eventually wearing down the resolve of the invading army.

SpartanHoplite
06-14-2005, 06:10 AM
Well said.

SH


Originally posted by Kernow:
Barbarossa aimed at destroying the Soviet Union in one campaign. It failed to do so. The aims of the 42 German summer offensive were no longer so grand. The Soviet Union had already saved itself. And by 43 German aims were merely the elimination of a salient at Kursk.

Although some British aid (eg Hurricanes - which must have been welcome if you'd been flying I-153s) arrived from 31 Aug 41, it could not have been enough to be decisive in the Battle for Moscow. The mech-infantry contingent of Soviet armoured formations were largely made mobile by US trucks and half-tracks, but that was from 43 onwards.

The Soviets saved themselves, but the lend-lease supplies certainly helped to clothe, feed and move the Red Army for their big offensives from Kursk onwards. However, they could still have fought without it and the Germans recognized that Moscow was beyond them following winter 41, before any real supplies had come from the West.

HoldSteady641
06-14-2005, 06:32 AM
I agree, they did it themselves, probably. We will never know, since they did get help, though I read some books on the supply convoys that sailed from britain to Russia. Talking about sacrifices... picture yourself sailing through the artic sea on a floating death trap of steel, which itself accustomes to the surrounding temperature, dodging u-boats..

But indeed the russians broke the back of the germans, were britain and US broke legs and arms. Most interesting thing in this is that 80 percent of soldier deads in WWII was inflicted by artillery!! It's fair to say that the largest part of these probably died on the eastern front, since it was the largest (ground) front in all aspects.

What comes to mind also is that the russian tanks, though actually quite good in mechanics (better than panzers) and armor (in some instances also better than german), were much worse in things like aiming instrumentation. The russian T-34 mostly aimed by firing the coaxial machine gun in stead of using optical vizer (is that good english? we say 'vizier' in Holland to crosshairs).

So actually, the Russians used the same tactics as the US: Quantity beats 'em. In fact, Russians mostly were at a loss of how to kill a Tiger tank using normal gunnery. They never came close enough, withouth using massive numbers, for the Tiger could kill everything armored from more than a mile!
So the story goes that most tigers on the eastern fornt were actually destroyed by artillery (exempting the massive shoot-out at Kursk during operation blau)! They used massive numbers of atrillery to rumble and shake a Tiger when they stumbled upon them. After cooking the Tiger for a while from a distance, they moved on.

So, since the Russians used artillery to kill the largest part of enemy infantry AND even for tanks (probably most russians were also killed by german arty, if we want to reach this stunning 80 percent), the question might well be: where did they get the artillery from? autonomous or foreign built? their own or other parts? US machinery to build them?
I'm pretty sure they built the katousja's themselves but how about the howitzers? I think autonomously.

Kernow
06-14-2005, 06:44 AM
At least since Napoleon's time most casualties have been caused by artillery. Russians were always very keen on their artillery - pretty much all their own work, HoldSteady.

And yes, the majority of German troops were always in the east, even after D-day. Just as most of the Imperial Japanese Army was always deployed in China, not the Pacific, nor Burma etc.

Atomic_Marten
06-14-2005, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by victor51:
More important than the lend-lease, imagine if Germany was allowed to get unlimited raw materials from Mid-East, Africa, and S.America. So... Nope, with-out Germany's other hand tied up, mother Russia would have been toast.

My Grandpa used to say "If the dog didn't sh"it, he would catch the rabbit".(Grandpa was a hunter in his younger days, and he is full of such colourful folk proverbs/anectodes).http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/Smileys/runningdog.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-14-2005, 07:08 AM
WarWolf::
they were there. Hitler was asleep and no movment orders could be givein without him!
Ya, I was thinking a wee bit later inside France. Still, if all the Eastern armour and experienced troops wasted in 1943 could have been stationed on the coast of France, the deployments might could have been better with Hitler sleeping away or not.

JG6_Oddball
06-14-2005, 07:59 AM
This is an interesting scenerio to say the least. I think had the germans continued to bomb the english airfields and gain air superiority over the english would have greatly reduced the threat in the west allowing more materials and soldiers tobe sent to the east, no bombing from the americans or english and the luftwaffe and wermacht can concentrate on russia, my guess is that russia would have surrenderd by late 43.

thats my 2 cents


S!

Kernow
06-14-2005, 10:41 AM
But the threat in the west could only be contained by maintaining strong forces in the west - unless you hazard a crossing of the Channel to settle the matter completely. The moment you send all your forces east you'll end up getting bombed from the west. A recurring lesson in the history of air warfare is that you need to keep going back and hitting targets over and over again, because the other guy will get things working quicker than you thought. Germany couldn't concentrate everything in the east so long as Britain remained undefeated.

A year spent bombing Britain - even if very successful - would only have bought a few months of quiet once the bombers moved east. And in the meantime the Russians are replacing obsolete tanks with a year's worth of T-34 production and I-153s by Il-2s.

Lucius_Esox
06-14-2005, 11:31 AM
Ahh, we are off again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My two pennies worth.

This argument seems to stem a lot from material support supplied to the Russians.

Against the advice of his Generals Hitler put into plan actions which delayed the attack on Moscow by six whole weeks.

If this had happened in October then Moscow might have indeed fallen, although if one considers Stalingrad this is by no means a foregone conclusion.

Moscow was the centre of the rail network and the "spiritual" focal point of the communist regime. It was where the head of government and command was located.

If Moscow had fallen then a lot of "resources" that enabled Russia to carry on the prosecution of the war would have disappeared.

It could have happened, and Germany could have subjugated the Russians, as they had that other great military power, France.

That this scenario never arose was due to inept German strategic thinking imo, i.e. Hitler intervening.

That was their best shot and they blew it, just as they did Dunkirk.

It has been argued that Hitler never really grasped the doctrine of "Blitkreig" and his actions in the above two examples would back this up.

In the light of the above I say that Russia could have fought Germany alone, if the Germans made the same mistakes again.

Conversely if the German army did not then it wouldn't have mattered who was on the Russians side in 1941, maybe!

Hmmm, comfy armchair this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Think I will try the Abbott this time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ICDP
06-14-2005, 11:31 AM
Remember that the USA, the main lend-lease supplier to USSR did not enter the war until December 1941 and it took until Jan 43 until the first USAAF air raid over Germany. By that time the Russian's had stopped the German advance on Moscow (with help from the weather). In January 1942 the USSR launched some fairly successful counerattacks that pushed the Germans very hard. Had Stalin not insisted that the his armies conduct the attacks all along the front they would have been more successful. It wasn't until mid 1942 that lend-lease equipment had started to come through in major quantities (mainly trucks fuels etc). In late 1942 early 1943 the Russians had secured their survival by destoying the 6th army at Stalingrad, they had been gauranteed against defeat after Kursk in mid 1943. My point is that the Russians had proved they were no push overs and had already started to turn the tide against Germany. This was before the Western air war took its toll on German Industry and before lend-lease could make a major impact.

I am not saying that the USSR could have beat the Germans without the west, I honestly don't know. I only deal in the facts and the fact is that lend-lease and the western air war hadn't made a major impact until AFTER the Russians had secured their survival.

new-fherathras
06-14-2005, 01:17 PM
I think Russia could have made it alone

LEXX_Luthor
06-14-2005, 02:28 PM
Lusius::
If Moscow had fallen then a lot of "resources" that enabled Russia to carry on the prosecution of the war would have disappeared.
Napolean thought the same way. He occupied Moscow and waited for the Russian surrender. He waited too long. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hitler made many of the same mistakes as Napolean. One of these errors was copying Napolean's brilliant idea that capturing Moscow would help win the war.

OD_79
06-14-2005, 04:31 PM
I think a more important question is asked in Monty Python and the Holy Grail about swallows and coconuts.
All these what if posts are really pointless, this is a flight sim forum not a history forum, you all just argue, usually over small pointless points, like a fuel mixture and it drags on for pages. These things just never seem to go anywhere, people rarely agree and you all quote different sources.
Then in the end everyone just says that their nation won the war. It was a team effort guys, there are far too many variables is war to say one way or another..what if Hitler had died in 1941, what if what if. I think we should open a whole section for "What Ifs" for all these posts!
Set up a new forum for your pointless what if history debates...like what if two sparrows had carried the coconut between them with a bit of string tied around the husk? Or whether they were European or African swallows!

OD.

Atomic_Marten
06-14-2005, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by OD_79:
I think a more important question is asked in Monty Python and the Holy Grail about swallows and coconuts.
All these what if posts are really pointless, this is a flight sim forum not a history forum, you all just argue, usually over small pointless points, like a fuel mixture and it drags on for pages.
Set up a new forum for your pointless what if history debates...like what if two sparrows had carried the coconut between them with a bit of string tied around the husk? Or whether they were European or African swallows!

OD.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/images/smiles/clap.gif

triggerhappyfin
06-15-2005, 01:45 AM
could russia have fought germany alone?

Hard question to answer. It´s a fact that Russians did the hardest work of beating the Germans. Hardest battles were in fact fought in the east. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
Initially before the breakout of the war German intelligence service succeeded with a coup against red army. They managed to plant evidence on a planned military coup against Stalin. This made Stalin to wipe out most of red army top leadership and scared the rest of the officers from making any decisions of their owne, without approwal by party leaders. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
This prior to German attack on Russia. This has to be seen as the main reason why my poor and hard fighting native coutry, Finland, was´nt wiped out. Despite of all this the Russians overcame the initial defeats and unbelievable losses of units/materials and managed to recover and in the end beat the core of Wermacht units. Much have been said about lend-lease and American aid to Russia but in my opinion the acchievement Russia made to rise from its defeat in early war is worth to be honourd and remembered as one of the greatest acchievements in human history! US beeing held as the great saviour during WW2 fought its war with its homefront intact and its economy and production capability unharmed by the war. While Europeans and Russians had to fight the wast difficulties in producing weapons during the fight with bombs and destruction all over its cities and industrial areas. In fact Russians had to move all of its production capability in mid fightings out of harms way and still beeing able to develop the best of tanks, artillery and aircraft of its time!
This while much of German development of arms came to as close as total stand still in regards of conventional armament and aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

So my 0,02$ would be...they propably could have beaten Germany on their owne, at least it would have been a close call! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Lucius_Esox
06-15-2005, 06:01 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote


Hitler made many of the same mistakes as Napolean. One of these errors was copying Napolean's brilliant idea that capturing Moscow would help win the war.


Capturing Moscow in Napoloeonic times would not have had the same effect as capturing it during WW2.

One thing alone would have had a tremendous effect that just wasn't present in 1812,,, rail network.

The massive logistical process of cross re-inforcing fronts North to South just would not have been possible in the same way without the important rail hub which was Moscow in 1941.

I'm not arguing that this would have resulted in a defeat for the Soviets, just that it might well have done! In which case aid from outside Russia would have not made any difference.

It's all waffle really, what if Adam hadn't bit the Apple, what if certain elements hadn't been present in the right sequence at the start of the big bang, what if, what if!!

What if I hadn't bought IL2 in Oct 2001, actually it's all what if's.

So in answer to OD_79 what if we all stopped having fun in engaging in a bit of harmless debate,,,, oh I know we would have a bit of fun engaging in harmless debate about something else!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-15-2005, 06:47 AM
It's all waffle really, what if Adam hadn't bit the Apple, what if certain elements hadn't been present in the right sequence at the start of the big bang, what if, what if!!

What if I hadn't bought IL2 in Oct 2001, actually it's all what if's.
That is the first sign of Surrender. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif So, Ya I can see how you would think the Soviets would surrender if they just lost Moscow. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I can see the importance of the Moscow rail hub, but loss of railroads from bombing did not force Germany into submission for example, although it certainly hurt its ability to resist and helped enable the ultimate surrender.

Hitler's Directive 21 orders the German Army to the northern Volga far beyond Moscow, and orders the Luftwaffe to bomb Soviet industry in the Urals. Amazing that Hitler was thinking so far ahead and somehow lost it.

Never forget, there was no rail line into China after Japan cut the Burma Road. Really weird things can happen, although we can't well compare the scale of transport needed to combat the Japanese war effort in China with that needed against the German effort in the Soviet Union, but then at least Lend Leace did not have to Deal with the Himalayan mountain range.

Discussion like this is brutally realistic since the Real Life war leaders and Military talked about these very same subjects just like we are doing...the difference is they were very scared about having to face what could happen, as they did not know at the time what was going to happen, unlike teh computer gamer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

OD_79
06-15-2005, 07:37 AM
Well my point is you are all just speculating no one is right because you can't prove it. It is a pointless discussion because what happened happened and what you are talking about didn't. If Russia had been fighting alone then that would have meant that the whole of Western Europe had been conquered and there would not have been as many troops or forces in the West so the entire situation would have been different so none of what you are talking about would have happened, except for the fact that Nazi Germany wold have attacked Soviet Russia.
How is this relevant to IL2 General discussions though? All these what ifs just get repetitive, and break down into pointless arguments, one of you really should set up a whole new forum called WHAT IF...?

OD.

p1ngu666
06-15-2005, 08:39 AM
main reason allies sent the convoys to russia was to keep russia in the war. stalin did consider cutting a deal with hitler http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

hitlers desicion to capture the ukraine or wherever was a great victory, but took away the chance of winning the war..

jensenpark
06-15-2005, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by OD_79:
Well my point is you are all just speculating no one is right because you can't prove it. It is a pointless discussion because what happened happened and what you are talking about didn't. If Russia had been fighting alone then that would have meant that the whole of Western Europe had been conquered and there would not have been as many troops or forces in the West so the entire situation would have been different so none of what you are talking about would have happened, except for the fact that Nazi Germany wold have attacked Soviet Russia.
How is this relevant to IL2 General discussions though? All these what ifs just get repetitive, and break down into pointless arguments, one of you really should set up a whole new forum called WHAT IF...?

OD.

"What if" you went away and let us have our fun little discussion here. If you don't like it, move on and read another thread. Geez...

fordfan25
06-15-2005, 08:50 AM
i think if the USSR was the only target that germany had in her sites and the USSR was geting no out side help then germany woulda rolled over them like so many bottles of vodka.

chaikanut
06-16-2005, 09:09 AM
I think this topic has been discussed several times.

Russia fought and won its own battles but what kept its fully mobilized industry going were american resourses. The russians received thousands of trucks and dozens of locomotives and many rails. This allowed them to survive logistically and to divert almost all of their industrial production to their military. In the case of primary resources, in some instances, like in aluminum and high octane gasoline supply they received amounts comparable or many times over their own production.

As it is the Russians barely managed to hold on in the early years. Without this economic assistance something analogous to what was happening in germany in the end of the war would happen here.