OT Russia in WWII

Riverslim

Member
Pretty much quit going to the coffee shop so I hope you guys don't mind if I post this question here. I remember someone said when Russia reached Berlin they were driving Studebaker trucks. In hindsight, should we have just let Germany and Russia grind against each other, without our help? Both would have been much weaker due to this massive effort. Invading Germany might have been easier for us. Here's the far out scenario: B29 bombers finish up in Japan and then start dropping the A bombs in Russia. We would be dominant in the world.
 
Could have been done but we have a bunch of wosssey people who say oh we cant do that. Rome had the same idea but it is very hard to control a concurred people. As recent history has shown us there are some countries that Should be bombed back to the stone age, but that is what they want. The better solution is make them a glow in the dark parking lot.
 
Patton would have been fine with it. But Truman was glad that the Russians were invading Manchuria, which actually helped bring about the Japanese surrender.
 
(quoted from post at 07:36:14 04/18/18) Pretty much quit going to the coffee shop so I hope you guys don't mind if I post this question here. I remember someone said when Russia reached Berlin they were driving Studebaker trucks. In hindsight, should we have just let Germany and Russia grind against each other, without our help? Both would have been much weaker due to this massive effort. Invading Germany might have been easier for us. Here's the far out scenario: B29 bombers finish up in Japan and then start dropping the A bombs in Russia. We would be dominant in the world.
Don't forget that russia had ramped up military production to an extreme and had a limitless supply of soldiers. Also the US only had 2 atomic bombs.
 
We had three bombs - one was dropped in the desert. And two were dropped on Japan. So right out the gate it couldn’t be done.

More importantly, what is it with people wistfully wishing we had dropped more nukes around the world? Don’t you understand how much they affect the entire globe, not just where they’re dropped?
 
Sorry, that is historically and logically incorrect. We needed Russia to help defeat
Germany in Europe. The US entry into WW2 was delayed a long time because of the strong
German immigrant population through the middle of the USA. By the time we entered the
war, Germany had control of almost all of Europe and Britain was struggling.

Hitler reneged on the nonaggression pact with Russia, which had been concocted to keep
"greater" Germany's eastern border calm while the rest of Europe was defeated. Bringing
Russia into the war as a western ally made Germany fight on two fronts, once the USA
invaded occupied France.

The atomic bomb wasn't ready at that time. Germany had concluded it couldn't be done
quickly enough to help them and abandoned their effort.
 
I have heard that they just loved the Studebaker trucks, and they used the word Studebaker like we used to use the word Doozie, referring to something special, a Duesenberg. My wife thinks Doozie means something less than special!
 
That assumes England could have held out indefinitely. If the British Isles had fallen, the Allies would have lost their European base of operations. U-boats would have decimated shipping to the Soviet Union, and without US-supplied aircraft, tanks and trucks the Soviets would have had a difficult time against Germany.
 
So your ok with killing millions of innocent people because of the actions of a few?Who's the real fanatic here?
Paul
 
It still amazes me every time I think of WW2 the amount of hardware the US was able to produce in a short amount of time. Ships, tanks, jeeps, guns, aircraft... It just goes on. I seriously doubt we could fight that war today.
 
I have seen that also. The real shame is that after being allies against Germany a trust or relationship could not have been developed in cooperation instead of a nuclear competition and cold war.
 
So, what's your point Slim? If my history teacher 56 years ago wasn't telling me lies, Russia at the time was an ally. Why would any country flatten an ally with bombs? Oh, maybe because years later after the war was finished up they locked horns with one another? My head is still spinning ...... here ya go (from a Google search) ......

"World War 2 was fought between two groups of countries. On one side were the Axis Powers, including Germany, Italy and Japan. On the other side were the Allies. They included Britain, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, the Soviet Union, China and the United States of America".
 
(quoted from post at 08:08:51 04/18/18) a 'limitless supply of soldiers" ?? how do you figger that ????
Russia was able to bring in many thousands of soldiers from the east of russia. Perhaps not limitless but enough to overwhelm the german army.
 
I suspect we actually did let the Germans and Russians slug it out for as long as we possibly could. The Russians had been demanding the Western Allies invade continental Europe years before we did in June 1944. In the summer of 1943 the Russians stopped the last German expansion at Kursk. By 1944 the writing on the wall was that the Russians would likely take Berlin in 1945 with us or without us. I suspect the June 1944 D-day invasion was to protect Western Europe from Russian occupation. The January 1944 Yalta conference divided up how Europe would be occupied after the war (Asia and the Middle East too?).
 
Really? We still don't understand the full effects of nuclear radiation and you wish we would have used more of them?

Yes, the Russians bore the greatest effort in the fighting against Germany. And at the start of the German attack Russia would have had a hard time surviving had it not been for Hitler's blunders and the limited amounts of good that got through.

Between Stalin's purges and WWII Russia lost nearly 50 million people by conservative figures. The only reason the US was stronger than the Soviets at wars end was because of the A-bomb. We had it and they didn't.

Think about this: Had it not been for the allies, especially the US's ability to produce goods Germany might well have been able to defeat the Soviets. The Russians didn't do too bad producing tanks and aircraft either.

We strangled Japan. Last year or so of the war they could get very little in the way of raw materials to the home islands to make into war fighting materials. US Navy subs and carrier operations cut off Japans ability to supply itself. Just what Hitler had tried to do to England. But the Uboats were defeated. No, not by numbers sunk but when US production ramped up and we were building freighters, tanker and troop ships faster than Germany could sink them. Without that ability to build ships and to produce the goods to fill them we could never have supplied either England or Russia.

WWII was won on the factory floor. Ours, Canada's, England's and Russia's. Yes the soldiers on all sides fought hard and endured hardships seldom known to man. But without the tools to fight with all those armies were was a mob.

Thing is at the end of WWII to defeat the Soviets would have taken an all out effort. Most likely using the A-bomb as they became available. Not too sure that would have been a good idea.

Rick
 
That brings up a boy good 'ol "Blood and Guts". Perhaps known to most as General George S. Patton. Back in the West point academy days of Patton and Ike, they would take tanks out on the weekend and play war. At the end of WWII, Patton desired to continue through Russia, China and where ever else and put an end to the communist threat. Truman said he couldn't do it and that was the end of the game for Patton. So if you wonder why there are problem in the world, The moderate nnalert Truman didn't desire to end it.
Problems with Russia, China, Middle East, Africa. . . .Pakistan. . . .
 
We may have been dominate for a short while but you can never be dominate against anything unless you constantly reinforce your dominance.

You are also suggesting we fight with our allies (we were both fighting on the same side) and then turn on our allies once they help us defeat the enemy. Why stop with Russia; Britain is a super power.

We may think the USA is a super power but the only countries we have beaten in war are in Europe. We have beaten such countries as British French; Spanish and Germans. All countries in Europe. I can not think of any war where China or Russia was on the other side that we actually won. It has always been a draw.
 
Yes, we shipped thousands of Studebaker trucks, which they loved, to the Russians as well as enormous amounts of other war material and food stuffs.

From a historical perspective, the Russians were going to win WWII in Europe (with our economic help), whether England survived or otherwise, but the final outcome may well have been different. Germany could not win a war of attrition against the Russians. The Panzers would have been ground up against overwhelming numbers of men and material produced in areas that the Nazis could not reach. Indeed, this happened.

That said, the map of Europe could well have been different post WWII if England had fallen and/or we had not propped up the Russians during their hour(s) of need. Had England fallen, invasion of Germany from Italy would have been more difficult and time consuming. Stalin could well have been content with pushing the Germans out of Russia (given), probably Poland and other disputed areas on the Eastern front.

FDR was committed to winning WWII but he died in 1944. History has demonstrated that Truman's commitment to winning wars is questionable at best. Had England fallen it would have taken longer for us to win the battle of the Atlantic but we would have won it, nonetheless. Accordingly, we could have continued to supply the Russians with war materials and supplied invasion efforts through either England, France or Italy.

Given sufficient resolve in the US, the Russians would have "won" WWII with our help. In retrospect, the final outcome might have been better.

Meanwhile, given sufficient resolve, Truman being the caveat, the US was going to win WWII in the Pacific. There is no possibility that the Japanese could have won a war of attrition against the US (ask the Japanese, they knew). As a minimum, Japan would have been pushed back to borders prior to Dec. 1941. Indeed, one might argue that, had England fallen, doing so might have taken less time than it actually did, because resources committed to the primary European campaign might have been diverted to the Pacific campaign for some time.

Correspondingly, it is conceivable, that WWII could have ended with the map of Europe similar to what it is now and the map of the Pacific not dissimilar to what is now, though such eventuality would likely have taken several years longer. I have my opinions but will leave it to you to decide if this would have been a better long-term outcome than the eventual outcome.

Dean
 
This forum is the best one that I have found. Much better than the coffee shop where discussions end up in name calling or a fist fight. They don't allow name calling here. It does seem like too many topics on tractor talk should be posted in the tales section. Talk of the wars actually includes trucks, tanks, ships, and arms, so that should be allowed in tractor talk. Just my opinion.
 
Russia was never an ally in the sense we think of an ally today. It was a partnership formed out of a necessity to defeat a common enemy and it had no chance of surviving after the war, especially with Stalin running the USSR. Same deal in China - the communists had stopped fighting the nationalists for the sake of defeating a common enemy. That relationship didn't last long after the war either.
 
While the allied bombing effort did not destroy Germany's production facilities in WW2 production was hindered as factories had to rebuilt, moved, or turned to cottage industry. Without that the constant bombing of the German homeland and the diversion of forces (the Africa Corps was huge diversion of men and material - its loss was even larger than the loss of 6th army at Stalingrad).

Over 90% of the fuel used to power airplanes in the Soviet Union came from the US, over 60% of their railroad rolling stack (engines and cars) came from the US, more than half their gas transport trucks came from the US. The idea that the Soviet Union would win against Nazi Germany without England and/or the US's help is a very iffy proposition.

Had England sought out a separate peace in June 1940 there is a very good chance the US would never have entered the European war - the battle of the Atlantic is over and there is no invasion through Italy.
 
This has been hashed and rehashed countless times RLP, people might just ignore your take on where things should be posted, none of us really know. Meanwhile, your one comment below will get a lot of laughs from many of us .....

"They don't allow name calling here"
 
Very true, as well as the harsh Russian Winter that set in that first year. German troops could not be properly supplied and the Luftwaffe was literally shut clear down.
 
Old Tanker, you say not by numbers sunk, but it was by numbers sunk. In a few short months the number of merchant ships verses the number of submarines sunk reversed. This was due to successfully mounting millimeter wavelength radar on B-24s. The radar could spot a German snorkel, which meant the subs no longer had anywhere to hide. We hunted them mercilessly.
 
The USSR was our ally in WWII? Glad you told me. My sisters father in law was a waist gunner on a B-17. When it went down over Russian occupied territory he spent 8 months in a Russian POW camp. There were several thousand US POWs in Russian camps, and many never made it home. Some ally.
 
In a way it was as simple as fighting a war of attrition against Japan but the question had been raised whether the US would have stayed in it long enough. If the Battle of Midway had turned out different with most of the Japanese fleet carriers surviving Japan could have kept the Americans further away from the Western Pacific. It might have gotten to the point where the Americans would have tired of it or the expense that went with it.
 
We were fortunate in that Hitler was way too ambitious and way too incompetent in planning his objectives. Obviously, Hitler was undesirable as a human being but had a leader come into power in Germany that lacked genocidal qualities and was willing to keep their hands off England and France the US probably would have left the Russians to whither. The downside of that would have been the post-war period where you most likely would have had two nuclear powers on the continent unhappy with the status quo.
 
(quoted from post at 10:35:19 04/18/18) History has demonstrated that Truman's commitment to winning wars is questionable at best ...

Meanwhile, given sufficient resolve, Truman being the caveat, the US was going to win WWII in the Pacific.
Why so hard on Harry? Are you kidding? America could have done alot worse for a Vice President -- who had to step in and fill 3-term FDR's shoes at probably one of the most critical points in US History. Let's see ... he only had to: lead the ending of the war in the Pacific, deal with Stalin, deal with the reconstruction of Japan, handle the aftermath of WW2 at home and around the world, engage North Korea, fire McArthur, handle the beginning of the Cold War and all of the intelligence nightmares that went with it, etc. I have to count him as one of the greatest US Presidents.

Plus he could play the piano and handle Lauren Becall at the same time.

15089.jpg
 
Bingo, NY 986, hence "given sufficient resolve" and Truman.

This is exactly what the Japanese planned for and hoped would happen.

Yes, the Japanese were "unlucky" at Midway, but luck had much to do with our deciphering of the IJN Naval code.

Dean
 
"Had England sought out a separate peace in June 1940 there is a very good chance the US would never have entered the European war - the battle of the Atlantic is over and there is no invasion through Italy."

I disagree, but for the sake of argument, I argue that the US would have won the Battle of the Atlantic in any event and would have been able to supply invasion forces in North Africa and/or Italy. Of course, it would have taken more time. Again: given sufficient resolve here, and possibly without, the Nazis were not going to defeat the Russians.

Nazi Germany did not have the resources to win a war of attrition against Russia. Stalin would have continued to pull back to areas wherein Germany could not attack.

Hence, the map or Europe could have been different than it was at the end of WWII, but quite possibly not so much different than it is now.

Dean
 
Shirer's book details the stalling tactics that delayed the start of Hitler's Russian campaign.

Remember that Ultra was working pretty well by that time - though it hadn't been officially admitted when he wrote the book. The stalling gets a mention in "A man called intrepid"
 
It has always mystified me as to why Hitler invaded Russia, or at least at that particular time. I am sure Hitler was not a brilliant tactician but the lesson of Napolean should have stood out. After signing a non aggression pact with Stalin, which apparently Stalin believed in, Germany had no danger from Russian invasion. And to sacrifice an army at Stalingrad was futile. There is also a school of thought that says America could have waited for the Russians to finish the Japanese rather than drop the bombs.
 
Actually, there was an element of luck (or bad luck) depending on who's perspective you are looking at it from. US Naval Aviator Wade McClusky made the fateful decision to press his fuel reserve to the limit in searching for the Japanese carriers. Specifically, he chose to trail another Japanese vessel unsure of where it might take him. The big prize was Nagumo's carrier task force but that Japanese vessel just as easily could have lead to Yamamoto's shore bombardment unit or Kondo's invasion task force which carried troops to land at Midway. Only stopping Nagumo would have prevented a major Japanese victory at Midway.
 
who was USSR allies with before the Germans invaded them they were partners way back in 1922 i believe before the ink was hardly dry on the Versailles documents give you a hint look up rapollo aggreement.
 
For the person who suggested that we let Russia finish off Japan, he needs to be reminded that Russia did not declare war against Japan until after we dropped the first A-bomb on Japan.
 
"...America could have waited for the Russians to finish the Japanese rather than drop the bombs." Extending that logic, dropping the bombs might not have been necessary had the Japanese sensed that Russia was moving in for the kill. I have read that fear of being taken over by the Russians had more to do with the Japanese surrender than did the two A-bombs.
 
Churchill & Roosevelt weren't fond of Russia but they envisioned the Germans beating Russia & gaining the vast resources of materials & manpower that would let Germany rule the world.
 
My brother worked for a company (1980s through 2016) that was owned by the Finns. They hated and still hate the Russians. Finland was an ally of Germany only because they were against the hated Russians. Here is a link to a story I had never heard of before about the Russian invasion of Finland. It is a long read, but very interesting. Molotov cocktail? Burning your own barns and homes? all in the story.

http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow
 
There are writings in which Hitler states that he both, started the war and invaded the USSR because of his advancing age. Fifty-five at the start. He wanted to fight and win the war while he still had time to glory in the victory afterwards. Remember back then most men, on average, didn't live to be 70 years old.
 
(quoted from post at 11:46:37 04/18/18) While the allied bombing effort did not destroy Germany's production facilities in WW2 production was hindered as factories had to rebuilt, moved, or turned to cottage industry. Without that the constant bombing of the German homeland and the diversion of forces (the Africa Corps was huge diversion of men and material - its loss was even larger than the loss of 6th army at Stalingrad).

Over 90% of the fuel used to power airplanes in the Soviet Union came from the US, over 60% of their railroad rolling stack (engines and cars) came from the US, more than half their gas transport trucks came from the US. The idea that the Soviet Union would win against Nazi Germany without England and/or the US's help is a very iffy proposition.

Had England sought out a separate peace in June 1940 there is a very good chance the US would never have entered the European war - the battle of the Atlantic is over and there is no invasion through Italy.

Heck the Soviets only held on because of Hitler's blunders. Had he ignored Stalingrad except air attacks. Bypassed Leningrad. Done an narrow front attack and taken Moscow (everything moved to the fronts via rail through Moscow. The Germans would have cut all resupply to most of the Red Forces in the field). If you look at a rail map of the Soviet Union in say 1940 it looked like a wagon wheel with Moscow being the hub. In other words Germany could have defeated Russia in spite of goods received from us had Hitler listened to his generals once he insisted that Operation Barbarossa take place. Hitler made a lot of mistakes.

Rick
 
Why would the US fight the battle of the Atlantic if the European part of the war is over? The US only declared war on Germany AFTER Germany declared war on the US. If England signs a peace treaty there is no battle for North Africa, no Italian landings, no battle for Atlantic and no landings at Normandy.

Without the US and the UK the Soviet Union loses the battle of attrition. Soviet soldiers marched to war in American boots, riding in American trucks and trains and eating canned American food. The US arms, food, clothing and transport was enough to supply a front line army of 60 divisions - England supplied enough for another 30-40 divisions. Remove 80-100 divisions from the Soviet front line armies and there is no Soviet offensive in 1943 and there isn't a reserve army for the counter attack at Stalingrad. Without western armies in North Africa, Italy and France the German army can add 50% to their strength in the Soviet Union. Drop 30 front line German divisions around Stalingrad while reducing Soviet strength by 40 divisions and see how that battle turns out. Add over 800 frontline fighters to German strength at the same time and things get very grim for the Soviet Union in the second year of their war. The battle of Stalingrad is fought and most likely lost by the Soviets in August 1942 while the Soviet Union loses oilfields in the Caucasus while Germany gains their production.
 

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Back
Top