Posted on 05/05/2010 7:01:27 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
It’s true; Stalin was caught flatfooted, and early on didn’t want any decisions about the conduct of the war to be made at lower levels. One thing that I credit Stalin is, unlike Hitler, after a few million lives were lost due to his own stupidity and paranoia, he stepped back and let those who knew what they were doing fight the war. His “Patriotic Armies” literally evaporated under the early Nazi assaults. Ten or so years ago an eyewitness account of the death (as a POW) of Stalin’s son in German captivity emerged, but hey, Stalin executed some other members of his own family, so...
WWII winters were especially cold, however, and despite the use of methadone to alleviate the pain of the extreme temps, the German offensive stalled in that first winter. That was in part because the machinery froze, but also because the Russian waves of attack continued, for example the area around Lake Ilmun, and some of those old German veterans (who survived) used to smile and say that the winter battles of 40 and 41 were some of the greatest times of their lives. Weirdos.
Stalin was putting constant pressure on regarding the extension of Lend-Lease to the USSR, and FDR got that passed with some difficulty. Molotov was sent east to meet in secret with Japanese diplomats, and returned with nothing in writing, but stated to Stalin that he believed the Czar-era treaty with Japan would hold. Stalin ordered all the Red Army assets moved to the western theater; the trains would literally roll back completely empty to pick up another load. Suddenly there were 70 fresh divisions chucked into the turmoil.
The various factories producing the necessities of war were mostly torn up and moved east of the Urals, to keep them out of the range of the Nazi air and ground attacks. I believe the Lend-Lease deliveries were mostly via the Arctic Ocean and via air, but some may have been moved to that big eastern port, I forget the name. It would have been a gamble, it seems to me, after December 1941, to go that way, so prior to that time, perhaps a good bit did arrive via that route. Others will no doubt know this.
When the Germans first arrived in the Ukraine, they were greeted as liberators, because of Stalin’s various purges and pogroms, and the nationalization of agriculture. That impression didn’t last, imagine that. There was at least one Ukrainian Waffen SS unit, and perhaps Byelorussian as well. Those who survived the war fled to the west. The 1st Ukrainian and 1st Byelorussion armies of the Red Army were given the coveted task of taking Berlin in 1945. The taking of Berlin cost 100s of 1000s of lives in the Red Army, it was very likely the most vicious urban battle of the war, though not the most costly in lives.
So, yeah, he ain’t lyin’! Zhukov kinda got the cold shoulder after the war, because he wasn’t a career politician. I believe he was on the panel that tried and condemned Beria, Stalin’s former go-to guy for gettin’ crap done and a mass-killer in his own right. For six months or so after Stalin’s kinda sudden demise (heh heh) Beria and Khruschev struggled for the succession. One of the blatant lies about Zhukov was that he never lost a battle; it all depends on whether one considers the entire area under his command to have been one years-long battle. :’) He had the right idea, which was based really on the German approach in both WW — massive superiority in firepower. The Battle of Kursk, which broke the Wehrmacht and started its constant retreat to annihilation, was Zhukov’s masterstroke, not least because Hitler’s personal involvement in its planning gave Z enough time to prepare.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks GeronL. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Great post. Long too.
Was that eastern port Vladivostok?
That sounds right. :’)
You are closer than you think to a deep insight: one study showed that ALL the heavy tanks used in the defense of Moscow were Brit, supplied by our ships, and 70% of all armor was Brit or American in that battle.
Yes. You are 100% correct. The entire point of the German invasion of Russia was raw materials, specifically food and oil. Had Hitler linked up with Japan, even for a time, we would have been in deep doo.
If Hitler didn’t have to go into the Balkans to rescue Mussolini, the Nazis may very well had won the war.
The Russians may have ultimately won, but Stalin may very well would have been deposed, and even the Communists could have lost power. When Stalin briefly opened up the Churches, it clearly showed the Orthodox in Russia were still very much around.
Hitler only declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, because he expected the Japs to help in Siberia in return.
Now, eventually we would have gone to war with Germany either way.
Since I wrote PHUSA, new studies have come out about the nature and timing of Lend-Lease and American aid, as well as Brit aid. It paints a picture, more than ever, that we saved Stalin’s @ss. Not only did we give the Russkis “stuff,” but it was specifically critical stuff at particularly critical times. One study showed that virtually ALL the heavy tanks used in the defense of Moscow were British via American supply ships; and that almost all tanks used by the Soviets in the winter of 1941 were either Brit or American. Almost all their radios and radio wire were supplied by us. MUCH of their intelligence was provided by the Brits, esp. after the Ultra project broke the Enigma machine. People hyperventilate about hordes of Russian infantry, the T-34 (based on an AMERICAN design), and Soviet artillery, but none of that would have mattered if not for the airplane engines we gave them for their fighters and the phenomenal resources our (Brit/American) bombing siphoned off in the bombing campaign-—1/3 of the entire German war effort went to stop the bombers. Try recalculating the battle of Kursk or Stalingrad with that in mind!
He didn’t have the “Amerika” bomber on the drawing board for nothing!
I’ve read that the Red Army almost lost to the White but some how they rallied back. If the White had won maybe 65 million lives would not have been exterminated.
Not only that, but think about all the effort he went through to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, and to still have the “unfinished business” of the Jews in the US? You think he wouldn’t have acted on that? That’s what the Pat Buchanans of the world don’t get.
Marshall Pilsudski could have won it for the Whites, but he hated them more than the Bolsheviks. True the Whites wanted to restore Russian domination of Poland, but I think I would have helped them defeat the Bolsheviks, and then in exchange for the help, gotten them to withdraw all claims to Polish soil, but then again, hindsight is 20/20.
No kidding. That’s why Einstein in 1939 (!!!) was badgering FDR to develop an atomic bomb, because he called Hitler’s bomb the ultimate “anti-Jewish weapon.”
Hitler (1) assumed that the UK would give up; (2) actually believed that the USSR would be defeated in only a few months; and, (3) thought that the USA could be no factor at all until ready to send millions of troops to Europe, by which time he hoped/expected to be finished.
He was successful in 1936-40 while judging the soft-headed weaknesses of most world leaders and populations, but he had no real “plan” for winning a multi-front war that would go beyond 1941. It was all predicated upon H’s belief that things would continue to go according to his own best-case expectations.
It was close for a time. What the Reds were able to do is take on 1 front at a time while holding everywhere else. That's what I meant by "defeating in detail". It made for a long, drawn-out civil war.
The western allies of WW1 together with Japan occupied port cities that were anchors for White forces. When those forces went home it greatly shifted the dynamics.
Thanks for the explanation!
Hitler was a poker player who stole 1 too many blinds. As long as Germany was fighting opponents sequentially Germany was OK. But as you say, his failure to eliminate Britain before attacking the Soviet Union was his greatest strategic failure. It left Britain as a springboard for the US buildup AND a tranship point for supplying Russia.
Once it became a true “World War” (Dec 1941) the game was over. Churchill was quoted on Dec 7th as saying, “So we have won after all!” Think about that. The man is in the middle of touch & go battles (Battle of Britain, Atlantic & North Africa) and he still recognizes that he’s won. OTOH, Hitler was in a hand he couldn’t hope to win in terms of resources, but he didn’t seem to see it. No. He declares war on the US instead!
One military study that I saw suggested that Germany was economically & militarily weaker in WW2 than Imperial Germany had been in WW1. Had Hitler paused to ‘digest’ his victories rather than double-down on the next adventure he may have had his Thousand Year Reich.
Of course this analysis neglects Stalin’s intentions. We now know that Stalin was planning in the ‘30’s to take Germany from behind while she fought France & Britain. France’s rapid collapse in May 1940 took everyone by surprise. By May 1945, Stalin dominated Eastern & Central Europe anyway. But the price to the Soviets was astronomically higher than anticipated (plus Stalin didn’t get to the Rhine River).
They won the war despite the idiotic Stalin. The only man Stalin ever trusted was Adolf Hitler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.