Could the USSR have been defeated?

[unmerged(39280)]

Opinions are nice - but if not supported by any sources they are pretty useless. I give links to some discussions on this matter made in Axis History Forum - usually discussions there are well sourced and documented.
Here you have a topic about the causalty ratio of German vs Soviet during the war:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=81471
Its clear that the causalty ratio was strongly in favor for the Germans - including factors like allied axis armies.

Another good thread on Axis History Forum:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=66102
According to this discussion (source: "When Titans Clashed" by David Glantz) Soviet had numerical advanatage from december 41 onwards.

Im not telling that Russian strategy was bad - after first year (or 2) they learned how to use their strenghts and minimalize weaknesses - in the 43-45 they developed a very effective doctrine, resulting in some brilliant victories over the Wehrmacht and the final victory.

 

[Long Lance]

...At the begging of war for about 2-3 years USSR hadn't any advantage either in manpower or in resources.And USSR won the war not because of great number of people but because good and right strategy...

???

Sorry, I think I'll quit this thread at this point...

 

[unmerged(43653)]

Right behind you Long Lance

 

[unmerged(47690)]

Allright maybe not 2-3 years , but who will win this war was clear only after Kursk . And there were a moment ( at time of order "Not a step behind" )
when on unoccupied territory were less manpower and resources than in German with it's sattelites , it's a historical fact. And about casualties these numbers are correct . I can give links to these sites ( and already gave one ) , but I think that not many can read in russian.

 

[pithorr]

Allright maybe not 2-3 years , but who will win this war was clear only after Kursk . And there were a moment ( at time of order "Not a step behind" )
when on unoccupied territory were less manpower and resources than in German with it's sattelites , it's a historical fact. And about casualties these numbers are correct . I can give links to these sites ( and already gave one ) , but I think that not many can read in russian.

I'm afraid you have forgotten the fact that Germans had to fight against the USA and British Commonwealth in the same time, sharing resources in 2, later 3 front lines...

 

[unmerged(39280)]

Allright maybe not 2-3 years , but who will win this war was clear only after Kursk . And there were a moment ( at time of order "Not a step behind" )
when on unoccupied territory were less manpower and resources than in German with it's sattelites , it's a historical fact. And about casualties these numbers are correct . I can give links to these sites ( and already gave one ) , but I think that not many can read in russian.

Im not quite understanding what you mean - the facts are that Soviets had numerical superiority starting as early as december 41 in men and in main catogories of military equipment but for many reasons this material superiority couldn't be used fully, later in the war Soviets developed a good doctrine for their superior troops - resulting in great vectories in 43-45 period. What numbers are correct ? The causalty ratio was strongly in favor of German army (but of curse it was better for them in the first years and much worse at the end). There is no need to dismiss well established and researched historical facts. Germany wasnt able to match the true powers in production or manpower, in fact it was a medium sized country compared to SU or USA.

 

[Quift]

Ridiculous

Of course they could have been beaten. Read an article yesterday (can't seem to fund it again), from the department of economics at univerity of warwick, that stated that there was a decrease of the overall livingstandards in the soviet union between prewarlevel and -42. The livingstandard, in an already very poor country ravaged by years of civilwar, had dropped to 40% of the prewar standard. This burden was heavily carried mostly by the agriculturalt peasantry who where generally opposed to the communists (being you know, rural instead of industrial), who coincidingly also where the pool from wich the military drew their manpower and food. Had Hitler had a policy of establishing private property, free farmers and reestablish the church, for example, SU political collapse would have been certain. Now Hitler had a much more "ethnic cleansing" view of the russians wich probably did very much in discouraging deflection and treachery, thus making the system more internally stable. But in an more open political strategy, the russain would have collapsed in -41-42, no questions about it. Support for the communist regime was incredibly low, the political system relied heavily on the secret police, and massackers [sic] of political opposition was frequent. Not to mention that Stalin very well could have been toppled in a coup. Main reason it didn't happen was that their was no way out for the russians. Hitler put himself in a corner while not allowing any openings to his enemy. Main rule of warfare, you don't want to corner the enemy. Leave a way out, add some pressure, and that is the easiest way of winning. People don't perform great acts of heroism and patriotism on a mass scale because they want to, but beause they have little, or no other choice.

Of course Stalin didn't want a war. Russia was far from ready for it, and paid it's victory at a price that was at the very edge of possible to bear. To win the war was a feat of enormous proportions. Starvation was rampant on the soviet countryside during the whole war. Only reason the russians won, is because they had no alternative. Left with one they would most certainly have called the quits. Thus the conditions in fact favoured the germans, stronger initial military, very impressive row of military success, high degree of internal opposition.

 

[unmerged(47690)]

Numbers don't lie .Those number before concerned only eastern front & only
deaths of soldiers , I think you mean about 20 mln of civilians , so it's not a big deal to kill unarmed people it was almost the same as Holocost ( after war it was 16% jews and 14% less russian (soviet) ) . About that there were no support of regime , it's not true common people fully supported regime ( I asked all my grands and all my friends has the same picture ) .

 

[Quift]

Numbers don't lie .Those number before concerned only eastern front & only
deaths of soldiers , I think you mean about 20 mln of civilians , so it's not a big deal to kill unarmed people it was almost the same as Holocost ( after war it was 16% jews and 14% less russian (soviet) ) . About that there were no support of regime , it's not true common people fully supported regime ( I asked all my grands and all my friends has the same picture ) .

I think that the perception of the regime might have differed between the agricultural peasantry and the industrial proletariat. Since one of the groups was liberated and the other one starved under Stalins different programs.

This of course is a hypthetical discussion, but I don't think it's so much of a strech to mention the importance of political blunders as a contributing factor of USSR victory. The russians had more or less already lost in 41-42 campaign. Only an effort on the very edge of possibilty, an idustrial mobilisation wich would have brought any other nation well below collapse saved it. Hence, if the russians would have been left with an alternative, there is quite a chance they would actually have seized it. Even if percieved as a defeat! Unfortunatly for the germans, their genocidal policies towards the Slav populations weren't as well recieved as they apparantly had hoped, leaving the russian sociaty with no alternative than to fight to the bitter end. And bitter it was, for all concerned (well, the americans wern't really concerned, but thanks for saving us from russia ).

Thus, the german loss of WW2, was mainly due to POLITICAL reasons, secondly to ECONOMICAL ones, and for the rest of the discussion, I'd like to quote a good friend of mine:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

 

[talin]

I
Thus, the german loss of WW2, was mainly due to POLITICAL reasons, secondly to ECONOMICAL ones, and for the rest of the discussion, I'd like to quote a good friend of mine:

Ockham and his razor. Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity

 

[Quift]

Ockham and his razor. Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity

Or ie. Cut the crap.

 

[unmerged(39280)]

Numbers don't lie .Those number before concerned only eastern front & only
deaths of soldiers , I think you mean about 20 mln of civilians , so it's not a big deal to kill unarmed people it was almost the same as Holocost ( after war it was 16% jews and 14% less russian (soviet) ) . About that there were no support of regime , it's not true common people fully supported regime ( I asked all my grands and all my friends has the same picture ) .

I really dont understand with whom or about what are you arguing.
Soviet had numerical superiority (after december 41 till the end of the war). Soviet were able to mobilise more soldiers (SU had more than twice the population of 3rd Reich - and had only one enemy to fight with) and to sustain much bigger losses than Germans (and in reality hey did, they were running out of manpower in the last months of war)
Are you challenging any of the above statemnts ?
As to popular support of regime - im sure that you are right saying that the war against the invader HAD popular support especially among the Russians (=majority of population of SU) less among other nations of SU, otoh there wasn't a lot of possibilites other than hating the invader (they gave a lot of reasons to do so after all). The will to defend its own country against the enemy and support for the regime doesnt have to be the same thing.

 

[unmerged(18920)]

I think that the perception of the regime might have differed between the agricultural peasantry and the industrial proletariat. Since one of the groups was liberated and the other one starved under Stalins different programs.

This of course is a hypthetical discussion, but I don't think it's so much of a strech to mention the importance of political blunders as a contributing factor of USSR victory. The russians had more or less already lost in 41-42 campaign. Only an effort on the very edge of possibilty, an idustrial mobilisation wich would have brought any other nation well below collapse saved it. Hence, if the russians would have been left with an alternative, there is quite a chance they would actually have seized it. Even if percieved as a defeat! Unfortunatly for the germans, their genocidal policies towards the Slav populations weren't as well recieved as they apparantly had hoped, leaving the russian sociaty with no alternative than to fight to the bitter end. And bitter it was, for all concerned (well, the americans wern't really concerned, but thanks for saving us from russia ).

Thus, the german loss of WW2, was mainly due to POLITICAL reasons, secondly to ECONOMICAL ones, and for the rest of the discussion, I'd like to quote a good friend of mine:

If by saying 'political reasons' you mean the decisions hitler made towards the treatment of the communists and jews, then all i would say is, read mein kampf. hitler always had these views in mind even before coming to power. how can you have hitler without his insanity? many want to remove hitler's mistakes, but not his successes. you can't have it both ways. you can keep hitler's decisions in successes like czech, austria, france and then not keep him for the many more stupid decisions he made like alienate the russian people and make it a war of two groups slavs vs. ayrans, blah, blah, blah. the seeds of defeat can be directly placed in the very same place that all of the early strange victories sprouted from, hitler.

now of course this does not answer the question could the soviet union be defeated-the answer is a resounding no.

 

[unmerged(39280)]

If by saying 'political reasons' you mean the decisions hitler made towards the treatment of the communists and jews, then all i would say is, read mein kampf. hitler always had these views in mind even before coming to power. how can you have hitler without his insanity? many want to remove hitler's mistakes, but not his successes. you can't have it both ways. you can keep hitler's decisions in successes like czech, austria, france and then not keep him for the many more stupid decisions he made like alienate the russian people and make it a war of two groups slavs vs. ayrans, blah, blah, blah. the seeds of defeat can be directly placed in the very same place that all of the early strange victories sprouted from, hitler.

now of course this does not answer the question could the soviet union be defeated-the answer is a resounding no.

Hmm - but we could imagine a situation where Hitler decide to wait until the east is secured for Germany (by temporarily not pursiung his racist agenda, fully and not alienating the people, deciding for decolectivisation, making promises to Ukrainians and other nations of SU, etc...). Only starting his insane racist experiments AFTER Soviets ae defeated. I dont find it totally unprobable.

 

[Dark Knight]

Hmm - but we could imagine a situation where Hitler decide to wait until the east is secured for Germany (by temporarily not pursiung his racist agenda, fully and not alienating the people, deciding for decolectivisation, making promises to Ukrainians and other nations of SU, etc...). Only starting his insane racist experiments AFTER Soviets ae defeated. I dont find it totally unprobable.

This would only be the case if Hitler had expected not to achieve a fairly quick victory over the Soviet Union and that it would have been necessary to delay the implementation of Nazi racial policies in the East. In reality, Hitler thought that the USSR was a "rotten structure" that would instantly collapse under pressure, implementation of the Holocaust in occupied territories began almost immediately, and Germany continued devoting large numbers of resources to carrying out the Holocaust and other racial policies throughout the war even after it became obvious that the war would not end quickly.

 

[unmerged(39280)]

This would only be the case if Hitler had expected not to achieve a fairly quick victory over the Soviet Union and that it would have been necessary to delay the implementation of Nazi racial policies in the East. In reality, Hitler thought that the USSR was a "rotten structure" that would instantly collapse under pressure, implementation of the Holocaust in occupied territories began almost immediately, and Germany continued devoting large numbers of resources to carrying out the Holocaust and other racial policies throughout the war even after it became obvious that the war would not end quickly.

Yes and you are right of curse, but i was only toying with a "what-if" scenario, im not saying it was probable but imo it wasnt comepletly outside the realm of possibility.

 

[Dark Knight]

Yes and you are right of curse, but i was only toying with a "what-if" scenario, im not saying it was probable but imo it wasnt comepletly outside the realm of possibility.

I admit it's less unlikely than the prospect of the Nazis not invading the USSR, which is the premise of another thread.

 

[unmerged(18920)]

This would only be the case if Hitler had expected not to achieve a fairly quick victory over the Soviet Union and that it would have been necessary to delay the implementation of Nazi racial policies in the East. In reality, Hitler thought that the USSR was a "rotten structure" that would instantly collapse under pressure, implementation of the Holocaust in occupied territories began almost immediately, and Germany continued devoting large numbers of resources to carrying out the Holocaust and other racial policies throughout the war even after it became obvious that the war would not end quickly.

I don't think I could have ever imagined that Dark Knight would chime in on something I ever wrote, ever since you banned me

 

[Quift]

Krivitsky,
Do you really think that a combined military and political agenda to destabilise USSR would have failed? Of course we would have to put aside the fact that Hitler had a rather serious case of hybris, but every discussion on however Germany could have won does seem to come down to that point, no?

So then the next question would be, was an idiot destined to take over Germany? Well, no. Imagine a militarist prussian state instead of a nazi bavarian one. It's far from a stetch of mind that a military "junker-junta" comes to power on the exact same premises that Hitler did. With the same feelings of revanshism and an even stronger opposition to Communism. Then you wouldn't have Hitler in power, but say Canaris.

Could the USSR be beaten by a combination of arms and carrots? maniacs put aside; my two pence, It would have collapsed at the mere sight of Wehmacht.

 

[pithorr]

Krivitsky,
So then the next question would be, was an idiot destined to take over Germany? Well, no. Imagine a militarist prussian state instead of a nazi bavarian one. It's far from a stetch of mind that a military "junker-junta" comes to power on the exact same premises that Hitler did. With the same feelings of revanshism and an even stronger opposition to Communism. Then you wouldn't have Hitler in power, but say Canaris.

Actually, Hitler did finally get support from Prussian junkers...