Matrix Games Forums

Hi!

With many americans and british discussing in this forum I like to have your opinion on this issue.

Id like to seriously discuss the effects that the commercical strength of the west is forming how the WW2 is seen. Despite Holywoods latest film "Enemy at the gates" we see a very strong concentration on describing the campaigns of the western powers. And how west won the war. Altough natural because Holywood and the strong world-media often is american/western influenced I think this creates a historical telling problem. The russian people is not given the historical credit that they are worth.

Back in my schooldays the Normandy-invasion and war-history of the allied powers(america, british) were givin as much
credit of the defeat of Germany as the russians. Despite the enormous effort put in to d-day the casualities on the east front tells us that the normandy-invasion after all was a margin in casualties. Not strategically but in the sacrifices.

The history-book produced as I see it a historical myth, that it was the west that won the war. And the media and films(here in Sweden western media got a strong influence) are continuing to feed this interpretation of the war. I dont mean to anoy anyone but seen to the proportions Russia was almost soley responsible for the defeat of Germany. It was the Sovietunion or should I say rather the sacrifices of the russian people that in the end won the war against Hitler. But maybe due to the hate against communism the role of Russia have shadowed.

I dont like to critize or not credit the victims of the west. On the contrary all countries that fought Hitler can feel proud of them self knowing they contributed to the stabile europe we see today. America and Great Britain for sure fighting a good war, for freedom and democracy. My own country´s lack of braveness is a shame still today.

But please bear with me. Is there anyone out there also seeing this is a problem? I dont really know what to do about it but its a shame.

Hi!

Yes I believe you are right. I'm a hungarian and we *really* don't liked the sovietunion, so I don't give them credit for nothing they are not worthy of. But yes, they did beat the werhmacht alone. By D-day the werhmacht was badly beaten. I think the soviets would have occupied germany without the D-day. The thing that was very important were the countless trucks produced by the US and given to the USSR. They made the red army so much more mobile (see bagration). But I believe that even without this trucks the USSR would have won the ground war even alone against the werhmacht. But much slower. The US and British ground armies were nowhere near to the strength of the red army. (as the red air force was nowhere compared to the allies, but the WWII was deceided in the brutal fighting in the east front)

Speaking as an American, I agree that the history as taught here is very skewed toward what happened with our soldiers rather than the overall situation. However, it seems like most scholars of WW2 have a much more balanced view of what happened and what the actual contributions were toward defeating the Nazis.

If the Soviets had fallen, or a peace agreement had been reached in the East, I think the West would have had to settle for a stalemate or the use of the Bomb to end the war. On the other hand, I think that a peace in the west would have probably led to a stalemate or a very long extension of the war in the east, if the Germans could have used all of their men committed to the west in the east instead. Hard telling for sure, but having 50% more men to fight the Soviets and unhindered production would have made a big difference. Anyway, I give the Soviets the great majority of the credit for defeating Hitler. And the conditions of the Soviet soldiers was terrible.

Now keeping the West in the war but without an invasion of France in 1944 would have led to a fairly realistic course to the war, although extending it until later into 1945.

IMHO the British and American strategic bombing campaign asainst the Axix is not given enough credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany. People concentrate on the overall effect on German production which wasn't degraded until late in the war but the effort that Germany expended on fighting the allied strategic air war was significant. Had those resources been available on the eastern front I'm not sure anyone could predict the outcome.

Its true that the Soviet Union was a major player in the defeat of Germany but cold war propaganda dictated the histories taught in both the west and the Soviet Union. I don't think Russian school children are taught anyone other than the Russian people even fought in the Great War against Germany.

I believe that both the Soviet Union and the western allies were required to cooperate in the defeat of Germany, neither side could have done it alone. Had either the Soviet Union or the western allies called for an early armistice we could still have a Nazi Germany today. The world should be glad that at one time the Soviet Union and the west were able to cooperate.

Svar

The question is, could either side have won without the other.

Even if somehow the Russians managed to build enough trucks and transportation on their own they still could not have beaten Germany without Allied help.

The Allies tied up at least 1/4 of all German strength, possibly more. Their submarine programme took up vital resources which could have been used for AFV's and other forces for the Eastern front. The Allies severely crippled the Luftwaffe, and devestated their manufacturing. During Kursk, vital reinforcements were diverted due to the landing in Sicily and Italy. 50+ good quality German divisions were destroyed during the Normandy campaign, along with hundreds of top quality AFV's.

Without the Second Front to worry about, the Germans could have focussed 100% of their effort, instead of 60-75% of their effort against Russia. Russia secured their Eastern front with Japan and could focus 100% of their resources against Germany, yet still took 2 years to get to the 1941 border.

Russia played a critical part in winning the war, but, without the Allies they could not have done it. And it was not 'just a matter of time'. Those troops and the material expended on the Western front would probably have been sufficient enough to turn the tide even as late as 1943. Without the constant bombing of production, and the need for large numbers of garrison troops, Germany would have been much more capable of dealing with Russia without Allied involvement.

Of course, the Allies probably could not have won without Russian involvement. However, with the English Channel and Atlantic ocean between the United States, Canada and England and the European continent, there would not be too much fear of actual invasion. Plus, North America's industrial potential was higher than that of Russia's. If it came down to either the West, or Russia engaged in a war against Germany on their own, the West probably had a better chance of victory, due to Geography and Industrial strength.

Svar, Major Tom; Youre absolutely right. But what do you, living in north america, think about my opinion that the russian effort is not given the credit it deserves?

I believe most WIR players have a very good knowledge about ww2. We read a lot about the war because we find it fascinating. But whats your opinion concering history-teaching in your home-countries. How is russias effort described in Canada and the US?

Originally posted by Major Tom:
The question is, could either side have won without the other.

Even if somehow the Russians managed to build enough trucks and transportation on their own they still could not have beaten Germany without Allied help.

The Allies tied up at least 1/4 of all German strength, possibly more. Their submarine programme took up vital resources which could have been used for AFV's and other forces for the Eastern front. The Allies severely crippled the Luftwaffe, and devestated their manufacturing. During Kursk, vital reinforcements were diverted due to the landing in Sicily and Italy. 50+ good quality German divisions were destroyed during the Normandy campaign, along with hundreds of top quality AFV's.

Without the Second Front to worry about, the Germans could have focussed 100% of their effort, instead of 60-75% of their effort against Russia. Russia secured their Eastern front with Japan and could focus 100% of their resources against Germany, yet still took 2 years to get to the 1941 border.

.

100% of the Soviet resources? Remember they lost 1/2 their population, most of their farmland and quite a bit of their industry behind the German side of the front line. 2 years to get back what the Germans had taken in 1.5 years is a pretty good return. At the start of the war Soviet industrial production was the same as Germany's. Neither compared to the US who had over 50% of the worlds industrial production by itself. The US couldn't however put 10 million men on the ground in front of the Germans. The German army was defeated in the Soviet Union, everything else was a sideshow.
thanks, John.

Kuniworth:

How is russias effort described in Canada and the US?

Not very well at all. From what I remember the emphasis in my Canadian history class was more on Canada in WWI. Less emphasis was placed on WWII. In fact, there wasn't a whole lot of emphasis placed on either war period. There was always greater emphasis on the explorers, the fur trade, the Rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, the Loyalists, etc.

Things probably have changed since I was in high school though.

Originally posted by Guardsman:
Kuniworth:

Not very well at all. From what I remember the emphasis in my Canadian history class was more on Canada in WWI. Less emphasis was placed on WWII. In fact, there wasn't a whole lot of emphasis placed on either war period. There was always greater emphasis on the explorers, the fur trade, the Rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, the Loyalists, etc.

Amazing!!! How little common people know about history of the outside world! How proud are they about their own history! That's were nationalism comes from.

Originally posted by Guardsman:
Kuniworth:

Not very well at all. From what I remember the emphasis in my Canadian history class was more on Canada in WWI. Less emphasis was placed on WWII. In fact, there wasn't a whole lot of emphasis placed on either war period. There was always greater emphasis on the explorers, the fur trade, the Rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, the Loyalists, etc.

Things probably have changed since I was in high school though.

In the US school system, anything within the last 50 years is considered current events, not history. Back when I was in high school in the early 70's, our American History class ended at WWII. We spent a lot longer on the American Civil War than we did on WWII. I got a better feeling for what happened when I did an independant study project one semester for the English dept, the second world war in Literature. I had to read about a dozen books off a suggested reading list and then was tested as to my understanding of the war. Since I had been reading about WWII for years, it was an easy English credit, something I enjoyed doing instead of taking creative writing or English or American Lit.
thanks, John.

Originally posted by Kuniworth:
Svar, Major Tom; Youre absolutely right. But what do you, living in north america, think about my opinion that the russian effort is not given the credit it deserves?

I believe most WIR players have a very good knowledge about ww2. We read a lot about the war because we find it fascinating. But whats your opinion concering history-teaching in your home-countries. How is russias effort described in Canada and the US?

Kuniworth,

When I went to school in the US (1950s), we didn't learn anything about the Russian effort in WW II except Lend Lease and Moscow almost falling I think. I learned all about WW II in books and movies and they all focused on the western war efforts because thats where the commericial market was. I learned more from the first WIR (1984) on my Atari 800XL than I did from anything else and have great respect for the tremendous sacrifice made by the peoples from the former Soviet Union.

I have tried to play the Soviet side for the first WIR, Second Front, and GGs WIR but the computer AI just isn't capable of mounting a coodinated attack so winning has never been a challenge.

Svar

Well, in the Elementary and Secondary School levels history classes cannot be done in such a depth to allow more than limited knowledge be taught to the classroom. It would be much better to have a Canadian student learn about Canadian contributions during a historical event involving Canada than to learn about a foreign nation's. Historians have to get an education base, and the best way to get this is to learn something that is rudamentary familiar to them. Many people know through stories from relatives about segments of their own history. It is just easier to teach this at lower levels of education. You can only understand others after you understand yourself.

However, in my higher education, at University, I took the WWII course it was much more evenly divided between nationalities. We did not learn a single thing about Canada's contribution, as it was already taught in Secondary School. The war was divided in three, European West, European East and Pacific. No single history course can adequately represent history, as, it is impossible to get 100%.

Even with this specialized course the class was limited. 3 hours a week for 12 weeks cannot give an adequate education about a 5+ year era spanning the entire world.

The best areas of concentration were of my specialized classes of certain regions, in certain time periods with certain themes. I have taken Russian, French, German, African, Asian and North American classes. Spanning 300 years.

General education of History in the main population probably ends at about Secondary School, as even those who progress to University usually do not take History. Unless you take a specialized class in education you tend to be limited to television and what books you independently take out of the library. However, unless you go to school and take only history in your Elementary and Secondary school years, knowledge of much beyond your own national history is very rare.

The main reason that the US did not put more than 10 million in the field, is it did not have to. They did not experience the great losses that Russia did, nor did they need more formations. If Russia and the US switched places, that being the US was invaded and Russia had a free hand to do whatever they wanted, the Russians would have only mobilized 10 million men, and most of the US population up in arms.

However, since the question was wether or not Russia could have survived without the Allies, the fact that most of their resources were under German control is irrelevant. Without the Allies Russian strength would remian the same and possibly decrease, but, the German strength would only increase. This equality between the two nations was changed by Germany's occupation of Russian territory and resources, but, this was again mitigated by Germany expending 1/4-1/2 of their resources on the Allies. Russia focussed all of what they had left on Germany, but Germany did not have the luxury of one single front and could not do the same. Without the threat of a second front Germany would have probably been able to crush Russian resistance, or at least secure Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad.

Major Tom, The Soviet Union outproduced the Germans in heavy industry from about 1943, on. That doesn't include Lend Lease either. They were building more tanks, guns, and aircraft than Germany, and with fewer resources too. While the Soviets were under tremendous hardship from the occupation of Belorussia, western Russia, and the Ukraine, they still had most of their heavy industry beyond the Urals, and all the oil they needed in Baku. The Soviet Union was a very big country, and they were able to make due with what they still retained. However, Lend Lease definitely improved the Soviet timetables for eventually victory.

The problem with western histories of the war in Russia is that most of the sources originate from German non-archival sources, which tended to focus on the early victorious years. Thus, the picture of the Soviet Union and the Red Army is one of ineptitude, and brutality. The fact is that the commissar system was dropped by 1943 in favor of a single military commander, and the STAVKA systematically used their war experience to better their military forces to the point where Soviet military operational art was the equal to the German Blitzkrieg. Not the same as the Blitzkrieg, but certainly it's equal. By 1943-1944, Soviet operational art was a mixture of aggressive, exploitative mechanized warfare, planned on the basis of exhaustive and detailed intelligence from many levels, with military forces routinely secretly assembled under a set of established deception procedures that allowed for maximum numerical superiority and surprise.

At least you should not forget the psycho-factor of the Red Army:
Knowing that being POW in the SU would not be really nice, all German Landsers fought with the last consequence and very fierce.
In the West the Allied soldiers have not been seen as a real enemy, because they were "only amateurs" and a POW would have a good time in a Allied POW camp.

Hi, comrades-in-arms.

I agree with most of you and with De Gaulle who said briefly: "Undoubtedly the western Allies could not defeat the Germans without Soviet participation. On the other hand I cannot imagine how Russians could win without Allied support."
A nation's input to common victory is better measured not with the rate of sacrifice (what to be proud of?), but with total
amount of damage inflicted on the enemy. This can be the best illustrated by statistics. I copied the following table from
Wendel's site www.skalman.nu/third-reich/index.htm
It shows Wehrmacht's human combat losses per theater.
Sorry for some inconvenience.

Losses per theater

Theater Dead %

Africa 16.066 0,3
Balkans 103.693 1,9
North 30.165 0,6
West 339.957 6,4
Italy 150.660 2,8
Eastern Front (- Dec 1944) 2.742.909 51,6
Germany (1945) 1.230.045 23,1
Various 245.561 4,6
Total 4.859.056

POW - France 34.033 0,6
POW - UK 21.033 0,4
POW - US 22.000 0,4
POW - USSR 363.343 6,8
POW - Yugoslavia 11.000 0,2
POW - Various 8.066 0,2

Total 5.318.531

POW Dead %
France 34.033 3,6
UK 21.033 0,5
US 22.000 0,7
USSR 363.343 11,8
Yugoslavia 11.000 5,8
Various 8.066 4,7
Total 459.475
(% of number imprisoned)

Source: "Deutsche militarische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" by Rudiger Overmans

Sure there are many sources of stats, but this one looks pretty authentic, it passes a simple arithmetic check: total Germany's
manpower by 1945=KIA+POW+wounded&crippled&dismissed. The site also gives more or less reliable ratio of combat human losses (KIA) Wehrmacht
: Red Army. It is about 1 : 5. Of course, I do not pretend for the last word, just IMHO, I am not a historian. Btw, the historians are also not unanimous, far from that.

On popular opinion of major input in the victory: I remember a serious american film on WW2 which states that El Alamein, Stalingrad and Monte Cassino battles turned the tide of the war. In fact one can compare the true scale of the events: Africa 16.066 0,3; Eastern Front (- Dec 1944)
2.742.909 51,6. As for Monte Cassino, most of the time it was defended by sole German 1st Para Division with a few battalions.
In addition I would say that the German troops chewed by the Russians were the irreplacible top quality elite early war "human material" of the Third Reich
which cannot be compared to most of 1944 conscripts.

On the other (de Gaulle's) hand, the Allied support was often much more than just important. There was a series of key material and logistical items (like aluminium, high-octane aircraft fuel, rubber etc.) that Soviet Union was able to produce in quite insufficient quantities and so depended on Lend Lease. In fall of 1942 delivery of Caucasus oil was almost paralized, and the Red Air Forces used almost nothing but western petrol. Situation with ground troops was nearly the same. The moment was quite crucial, maybe the most dangerous for Russia. About 80 mln Soviet people remained under occupation, so in manpower the sides were almost equal,
anyway comparable (by the way, later Manstein complained about odds 1:7 in late 1943, Guderian mentioned even 1:11 - from where could SU take that many men?).
I am sure that the Allied supply was priceless, especially in early period.

Just a quick note for Barbos. You had given interesting tables, but what makes me to wonder is why German POW and POW Dead are equal. Did they realy die up to the SINGLE man???

To Frank:
And to the Soviet soldier, there was the psycho-factor of becoming a German POW. Very poor survival rate there. Simply put, the Eastern Front in 1941-45 was truly hell on earth, although there were lesser known battlefields elsewhere (in east Asia for example) that witnessed many Japanese atrocities also. So much for bushido.

To Mist:
Congrats and warm wishes on said anniversary.
One question for you: Do many young Russians (those under 30 years of age) know much of your country's history, for example, significance of 1941-45 war, Stalingrad, Kursk etc etc. I spent many years in both the States and Britain, and in general, the average young American (all US forumers excepted of course knows crap about WWII.
The Brits are not much better. There was a fairly recent poll of young Brits, and something like half didn't know who Neville Chamberlain was. Geez.

To be fair, most young east Asians today also know nada about history. They probably don't even care about recent developments such as the US/China friction over Taiwan arms sales/spyplane issue.

The United Nations Security Council should be run by Matrix forumers - bet we know more about history and international relations than some of those high-profile clowns out there.

To Mist:

Sure no, the third table (as far as I understand) gives total of dead and after a space goes the percentage you interest in. So, 363.343 German POW died in Russia which means 11,8% of total amount of POW taken by the Red Army. Btw, this rate is pretty high, but the appropriate rate for Soviet prisoners in German camps is much higher.

Originally posted by jager506:
There was a fairly recent poll of young Brits, and something like half didn't know who Neville Chamberlain was. Geez.

Ahhh, that's nothing. We've got high school kids over here that couldn't find Britain on a world map.

Hey Ed

Given the fact that something like a third of Caucasian Americans are of British descent and considering how much history both Britain and USA share, that's quite incredible. I mean, don't they want to someday visit London and hear some "quaint" olde English accents?