Great Patriotic War (USSR in World War II)

Results of the pool, on question which country contributed the most to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Militarov wrote:

Results of the pool, on question which country contributed the most to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Defeat in France? Defeat in Western Front would be more precise and I would give brits some more credit there too.

Regular wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Results of the pool, on question which country contributed the most to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Defeat in France? Defeat in Western Front would be more precise and I would give brits some more credit there too.

Well Brits basically just managed to defend themself with very sizeable help from the US and colonies. Other than that their affect on war overall was fairly minor, not bigger than one by Canada/Australia or China for that matter.

Militarov wrote:

Regular wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Results of the pool, on question which country contributed the most to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Defeat in France? Defeat in Western Front would be more precise and I would give brits some more credit there too.

Well Brits basically just managed to defend themself with very sizeable help from the US and colonies. Other than that their affect on war overall was fairly minor, not bigger than one by Canada/Australia or China for that matter.

Well their convoys were pretty helpful as far as I can say. They were great at hurting luftwaffe too.

Just shows the level of brain washing in a country that ended up in the US sphere...

It is not that the countries efforts have changed... just the perception of their efforts...

I am sure in a few years time Polish children will believe they were liberated from the Nazis by the US... in 1991.... you know... the real end of WWII.

The convoys were useful but by the time they were actually large enough to have any real effect the Germans had already been stopped at the gates of Moscow and pushed back... the chance for the Germans to get a quick victory had gone... of course the real issue was the german treatment of the Soviet people... they could never win because they gave the natives no choice... capturing Moscow didn't help Napoleon, why would anyone believe it would be different for Hitler?

Few days before parade :

I am looking for a detailed map of German troop dislocation on the eve of Barbarossa, down to division level.

Well if you think that we polish people were liberated by Stalin, ehh thanks for such liberation and dozens of years of cruel system. Just look at the history of Warsaw uprising? What Stalin did? Stalin was intelligent, smart, the best player of WWII. However, he was evil as Lucipher. He was not a good uncle and CCCP was a cruel system that made a lot of harm to their own people. Just look at the statistics how many russian people died in a working camps. I would rather be in a western sphere like German Federal Republic. Compare it to eastern now. To much propaganda in your brain. Just seek for the equilibrium. Slava!

GarryB wrote:
capturing Moscow didn't help Napoleon, why would anyone believe it would be different for Hitler?

Circumstances had changed. The USSR was an industrialized state in an age where modern weapons and communications were essential for survival. Soon after the start of Barbarossa, German generals pressed for the capture of Moscow. It was an important armaments production center, and, perhaps most importantly, the hub of the Soviet rail and communications system. "Take it, and the Soviets would not only be deprived of an essential source of arms but would be unable to move troops and supplies to the more distant fronts, which would thereafter weaken, wither and collapse." In fact, before Barbarossa German wargamers concluded that "should Moscow not be attained, the result would be a long-drawn-out war beyond the capacity of the German armed forces to wage."
There are two things I can't understand. Considering the importance of Moscow, Stalin should've ordered Zhukov to bring his forces back west right after Barbarossa started, instead of waiting for Sorge's intelligence that Japan would not attack. Even if Japan had planned to attack it was better to lose all of Siberia than Moscow. They could survive the loss of the former better than the latter.
Another mystery: In view of the wargamers's conclusion, why didn't the Germans attempt to negotiate an end to the eastern war after they failed to take Moscow? If said failure meant ultimate defeat had the war gone on, they should've tried to negotiate.

starman wrote:

GarryB wrote:
capturing Moscow didn't help Napoleon, why would anyone believe it would be different for Hitler?

Circumstances had changed. The USSR was an industrialized state in an age where modern weapons and communications were essential for survival. Soon after the start of Barbarossa, German generals pressed for the capture of Moscow. It was an important armaments production center, and, perhaps most importantly, the hub of the Soviet rail and communications system. "Take it, and the Soviets would not only be deprived of an essential source of arms but would be unable to move troops and supplies to the more distant fronts, which would thereafter weaken, wither and collapse." In fact, before Barbarossa German wargamers concluded that "should Moscow not be attained, the result would be a long-drawn-out war beyond the capacity of the German armed forces to wage."
There are two things I can't understand. Considering the importance of Moscow, Stalin should've ordered Zhukov to bring his forces back west right after Barbarossa started, instead of waiting for Sorge's intelligence that Japan would not attack. Even if Japan had planned to attack it was better to lose all of Siberia than Moscow. They could survive the loss of the former better than the latter.
Another mystery: In view of the wargamers's conclusion, why didn't the Germans attempt to negotiate an end to the eastern war after they failed to take Moscow? If said failure meant ultimate defeat had the war gone on, they should've tried to negotiate.

I have an answer only for your last question: because at the core of nazi ideology is racism. And Hitler was convinced up to the end that the Russians are barbarian, inferior Asians, who would never be able to defeat a modern, civilized, Western power. He could conceive the idea of negotiating with the West (US, UK), but never with the Soviet Union.

Svyatoslavich wrote:
I have an answer only for your last question: because at the core of nazi ideology is racism. And Hitler was convinced up to the end that the Russians are barbarian, inferior Asians, who would never be able to defeat a modern, civilized, Western power. He could conceive the idea of negotiating with the West (US, UK), but never with the Soviet Union.

But there were claims of secret Nazi-Soviet negotiations around the spring of 1943. They may be interpreted as just a Soviet ploy to pressure the West into launching the second front soon. But one author indicated the negotiations were serious, but failed because of the German demand for a border on the Dneiper whereas Stalin wanted all his turf back.

Considering the importance of Moscow, Stalin should've ordered Zhukov to bring his forces back west right after Barbarossa started, instead of waiting for Sorge's intelligence that Japan would not attack. Even if Japan had planned to attack it was better to lose all of Siberia than Moscow.

Hahaha... rubbish.

If the Soviets had withdrawn their forces from the east to defend against Germany then Japan could simply have not bothered attacking Pearl Harbour and most of Asia as the oil they wanted would be there for them in Siberia...

The Pacific War would not have happened and the US may never have entered the war.

The British Empire would not have lifted a finger to help China or the Soviet Union except in the European front.

The Soviet Union in the 1940s was much less urban than most of Europe and so the loss of Moscow would have had little effect on the Soviet war effort... the factories of the west were not moved to Moscow... they went further east and once they were in full production... the taking of Moscow was never going to happen.

GarryB wrote:
If the Soviets had withdrawn their forces from the east to defend against Germany then Japan could simply have not bothered attacking Pearl Harbour and most of Asia as the oil they wanted would be there for them in Siberia...

I always thought Soviet oil production was in the Caucasus. Besides, after Khalkin Gol the Japanese had little stomach for fighting Russia. They couldn't be sure Zhukov wouldn't come back to get them again.

The Pacific War would not have happened and the US may never have entered the war.

The Japanese wanted the oil of Borneo and had to get it.

The Soviet Union in the 1940s was much less urban than most of Europe and so the loss of Moscow would have had little effect on the Soviet war effort... the factories of the west were not moved to Moscow... they went further east and once they were in full production... the taking of Moscow was never going to happen.

The German generals certainly wanted to take Moscow and thought it could be done. Moscow was the center of the Soviet transportation and communications system. "Take it and the Soviets would...be unable to move troops and supplies to the distant fronts which would weaken, wither and collapse." In fact, prior to barbarossa German wargamers concluded that if Moscow were not attained, "the result would be long drawn out war beyond the capacity of the German armed forces to wage."