Somewhat simplistic question for World War II historians...

[nyhuskyfan]

How much credit should the Russians get for Hitler's demise?

I was an eavesdropper in an argument where a Bush supporter was equating Hitler to Saddam and said that we had to go take him out now, because nobody else would, and we'd just have to go defeat him later when he was stronger -- the same way we had to go defeat Hitler. Someone countered that the Russians deserve most of the credit for defeating Hitler (which really set the other guy off).

As much as I love someone getting under a Republican's skin, I was curious how valid that point was. I admit I have a limited memory of WWII history, but the vague memories I do have of high school history classes were from a more American-centric point of view (no surprise). I'm sure this is a pretty simplistic question to those who have studied WWII thoroughly, but I thought I'd ask an educated crowd.

[chelsea0011]

1. Not most the credit but the Germans stymied on the Front

[Braden]

2. about equal with the Allies

Russia defended the germans for several years sapping strength and eating up capacity. But the US bombed the crap out of Germany and France ultimately making the D-DAY invasion possible. Once the US and UK were in France it was only a matter of time before Germany was the battleground. Once the war reached the German borders it was over. Except for some heavy fighting resistance was pretty much futile. The russians deserve equal billing for defeating Hitler.

[lapfog_1]

5. No, I would give them a bit more credit

Remember it was the Russian defense of Stalingrad, the first
significant defeat for the Germans, that was the beginning of
the end for the Germans. Plus, the Russians manufactured
more tanks (and better tanks) than any other single country
in the war. Later, after the US ramped up production of
war material including heavy bombers, the US started having
an impact on the German war machine. But it was the massive
tank/infantry battles of the eastern front that really sapped
the strength of the Germans. I'd rate it about 60/40 Russians
and US/GB.

[Xipe Totec]

3. The German Army Was Destroyed By the Soviets

At the Battle of Stalingrad (now Volgograd). They never recovered, and lost their last chance to take over the oil fields of Iran and Iraq. Starved for oil they had no choice but to retreat with the Soviets hounding them every step of the way. The Allied Army had to race to Berlin to keep the Soviets from single handedly taking the city and dictating the terms of surrender unilaterally.

(edited for spelling)

[Maple]

4. Yes, the Soviets took out the Germans

The rest was mop-up.

The Soviets broke, and accepted the surrender of the German 6th army.

[Endangered Specie]

17. Hell, they would have been happy to take all of Germany probably.

[Blue Wally]

20. Brits and US stopped at the Elbe

Soviets had already taken Berlin. US focused effort in southern Germany based on rumors of the Nazis retreating to a "national redoubt" in the Alps.

[amerikat]

6. The Russians were attacked by Germany in June 1941

The allies landed in France in June 1943. The Russians held off the Nazis alone for three years. The US helped supply Russia during that time period but It was the Russians that died by the millions.

[AnnInLa]

10. yes, their loss of lives was exhorbitant

and have heard it said the Hitler made a fatal mistake too by attacking Russia, dividing his European army, his supply lines back to western Europe were just too long, had not counted on the harsh realities of the Russian winter.....a major "miscalculation"

[Blue Wally]

22. D-Day was 6 June 1944.

[amerikat]

28. typo.....but thanks for the correction

[K-W]

7. Id say definately the most credit of any single country.

I think the main arguments have already been voiced on thier thread, but that is my judgement.

[necso]

8. I have seen various estimates

for the percentage of German (combat related) casualties on the Russian Front, ranging up to 90%. (80% is a more common figure.) In any event it was well over half.

The Russians faced and defeated German Armies in their prime. Other allied successes were against typically weakened German Armies. In the case of North Africa, supply difficulties were at least as much the cause of Allied success as military action.

Strategic bombing was a complete failure, and German production of war materials increased during the war, particularly when Speer took over.

Probably the most important causes of the German failure were Hitler's incompetent interference in military planning and the savage Nazi repression of native peoples, who otherwise might have rallied against Soviet oppression.

[indepat]

9. Russia (the Soviets) lost some 25 million dead in WWII at the hands of the

Nazis whereas the US lost some 400,000 dead in all of WWII. The Soviets chewed up several Nazi armies on their drive from Stalingrad and Leningrad to Berlin, also destroying their armor, big guns, and planes, this all at a horrible loss of Soviet lives. The Allies would surely have defeated the Germans without the Soviets, but likely at a cost of more than a million additional casualties, including hundred of thousands of deaths IMHO. So hate the Red menace/Commie tyranny, but realize the sacrifice/contribution of the Soviets to the Allied war effort in the east meant the lives of countless American GIs were spared.

[reprehensor]

11. Plenty of credit, not all.

Saddam made his 'Hitler' move back in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. And had his ass kicked for it. But he only invaded Kuwait after getting what some people consider tacit approval to invade Kuwait:

"One of those messages, delivered in late July by U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to Saddam in a private meeting, said that the United States did not take a position ''on Arab-Arab'' disputes. Saddam understood that to mean that the United States would not react to his invasion of Kuwait."

link (There are more legitimate sources out there if you seek them.)

Saddam wasn't even a threat to Iran anymore, never mind the US. The UN sanctions beat the shit out of his war machine. That should be painfully obvious by now. The global community never stood by in 1990 and they wouldn't have stood by if Saddam tried something stupid again. The people who believe that W did the right thing will concoct every fantasy that they can to legitimize the invasion. The reality is that intelligence was cooked, the order to cook it came from the top, the rest is bullshit.

-------------------------------------

Russia played a huge part in turning the tide on Germany, but mostly, Hitler defeated himself by invading Russia and fighting a winter campaign, the same way Napoleon got his ass kicked by the Russians. Hitler also would have been wiser if he had encouraged Japan to restrain itself from bombing Pearl harbor, and focused on defating the Russian army in a logical manner, and keeping the bombs dropping on England.

But Hitler wasn't very logical once the two-front war got started, and Italy turned out to be a paper tiger.

[Wilber_Stool]

12. I've argued the point that

if the assassination attempts on Hitler had been successful, the Germans might have won the war.
If you really want to get into a good discussion on WW II, I think Pravda has a message board with this as a running topic.

[Endangered Specie]

13. dupe on me

[tom_paine]

14. A lot. It was a "team effort" of course

We helped with Lend Lease.

But the sacrifices in human lives the Russians gave were truly huge. PLUS they essentially stood alone, from a ground forces perspective, for 2+ years.

EVERYONE deserves credit for beating Hitler, and of course, lose any one piece of the puzzle and the Allies may lose.

But I would say 65-35 the Russians get the credit.

[Endangered Specie]

15. 80% of German Military Casulties were on the Eastern front.

Without the Russians, Winning WWII would have been ALOT harder, ALOT bloodier, and ALOT longer... it may not have even been won.

The Russians deserve equal if not more credit for winning WWII-Europe when compared to the U.S.

[stavka]

16. I'd say about 85% of the credit...

The war in Europe up until Torch was pretty much one colorful French/English Defeat after another.

The German/Italian forces deployed against the Western allies were 10% of German might on the ground at any given time.

The ratio of Tanks at one point was something like 100 to 1 in terms of Armor against the West/East.

What the West did contribute to the defeat of Germany ?

Weapons - The Soviets themselves have said nothing helped them more than US trucks, we/Canada armed Britain, Free France, the exiles

Strategic Power - By air or sea - the west in the end ruled

Destruction of Industry/Infra Structure - Bridges, Factories, Trains
Hope that Germany should surrender - Germany would have fought on to the last man, if all the faced were Soviets

A second and a half front - Western Europe and Africa/Italy did tie down German troops and cost them (and the US) lives. If the German attack on the Rhein was executed against the Russians war in Europe would have lasted a bit longer.

----

Germany lost WWII once and for all in Europe at Kursk, if not earlier, maybe as early as Moscow. Russia fought for three years on the ground before Normandy landings - and had conquered half of Poland at that time.

Russia paid in Blood
The US paid in Dollars and Machines
Britain paid in a mix of both, and Empire
France paid with its reputation

NOW THE PACIFIC WAR IS A WHOLE OTHER STORY

[tabasco]

27. The Brits had pretty much beaten the Afrika Korps ...

before Torch, IIRC. There is no doubt the Russians did most of the fighting to beat the Germans. Of course we fought the Japanese too. The Russkis didn't help us out much there, but the Nazis were more dangerous in the grand scheme of things.

[stavka]

29. I can't disagree to a point....

The British in NA were spent manpower-wise and Australia/New Zealand/India weren't going to kick in many more with Japan on their back door.

On the other hand - Germany wasn't pumping much reinforcement into what was only 2.5 divisions to begin with....

I'd say North Africa was a side show, and the real winner in it would be the Mediterranean Sea if you had to pick a power player.

[Ready4Change]

18. Russia was vital

Had Russia not been there to pester Germany in the east, Britain would have fallen. Then we wouldn't have had a nearby island from which to stage D-Day, forcing us to move up from Africa against Germany's full might. That would have been a bloody mess.

[H2O Man]

19. A lot.....

in large part because their country was so huge. Though Germany may have felt it was winning most of their conflicts, it sapped resources. Plus it was just so big. Think about the difference between trying to occupy Iraq vs Iran: Iran is far bigger, far more difficult due to size alone.

[LanternWaste]

21. I've dealt with this question before... here's a source and some figures

How much credit? I'd say most of it. Bear in mind a few things-- the Soviet Union was already beginning effective counter-attacks prior to the the U.S. entry into the war. And, since I have the source handy, check out a few of these figures...

Aircraft Production in 1941/42:
USSR: 15,735 / 25,436
Germany: 11,776 / 15,409

Armament Production (in Billions of Dollar) in 1941 / 1942
USSR: 8.5 / 13.9
Germany: 6.0 / 12.5

The disparity in these figures gets greater as the war continues. Additionally, the German's were stretching their forces all over Europe, from Africa to the Norway and from France to the Balkans. Contrast this with only one active front the Russians dealt with (although they did keep a strategic reserve in the Far East).

At this point, your friend may argue that the American Lend Lease convoys were the reason. They were not. At it's height, the Lend Lease supported..

"0.03% of all armored fighting vehicles on the Russian Front, 0.05% of aircraft, and 2% of munitions". The Lend Lease *was* effective at getting trucks, food and clothing to the Russians, but as Gen. Odarky said in 1946, "the victory in war was bought with American Spam and paid for with Russian blood"

Also...

"In the first few months of campaigning, the German's claimed to have killed, wounded or captured well over 3 million Russians. Yet at that particular momentum when Stalin and STAVKA were planning the counteroffensives around Moscow, the Red Amery still had over 4.2 million men in it's field armies and was numerically superior in both aircraft and armor"

All in all, the Russian's were already beginning a series of counter-offensives against the German's prior to US entry and were outproducing them. All other things being equal, the Russian's would have destroyed the German's for no other reason than what Winston Churchill called, "The proper application of overwhelming force"


Source: Paul Kennedy-- Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

[nyhuskyfan]

23. Thanks All

That's one reason why I like this board so much -- you can count on educated responses on a wide range of subjects. I can only imagine what certain other boards might have looked like if I asked the same question. The expressions "F*** those Commies" and "P**** French" would have probably showed up in the first four or five posts.

Something tells me the person in that argument I witnessed must have been rolling his eyes back and wishing he could discuss the issue with someone a little more educated on the topic.

[pinto]

24. Russian sacrifice - it can only be called that - kept the oil supplies in

Georgia out of the Nazis' tanks. The Russian stand on the Eastern front, alone, but supported by our lend lease equipment support, trapped Hitler in a two front war that was unwinnable after D Day and the simultaneous advance of the Soviet Army from the East.

Politics aside, the Russians were as key to the defeat of the Nazis as were the Western European/US allies.

[greatauntoftriplets]

25. The Siege of Leningrad lasted 900 days.

The Russians fought valiantly and kept the Nazis tied up in Eastern Europe. The more Nazis trying to take Leningrad (now St. Petersburg again), the fewer there were to invade England.

We owe the Russians a huge debt of gratitude for that. 25 million of them died in the war.

http://www.cityvision2000.com/history/900days.htm

[leftofthedial]

26. Russians carried the brunt of the war

The USSR suffered about 20 million casualties.

They inflicted about 90% of Germany's 4 million casualties.

They fought major operations continually for four years, while the other Allies fought on smaller fronts in North Africa and Italy and waged the air war.

The Russians had far more to do with defeating Hitler than did the British and Americans.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Read The Unknown War by Harrison Salisbury

It was published some time in the 1970s, and it was the first mass market book to tell the full story of World War II in the East.