Russians simply won by the power of numbers

[Evzonas]

OK, This thread should be locked... the topic being if SU defeated Germany by the power of numbers, instead we are talking about who had thicker armor and other details regarding who was better in the end....

Did or Not SU defeat Germany because it had more men, more resources, more of anything????

[richardrli]

Yes they did, and it was perfectly fair for them to do so.

[Evzonas]

Yes they did, and it was perfectly fair for them to do so.

The question needs no justification in order to be answered... and the subject needs to be closed just for the stupidness of the question itself...
Ofcourse they won by the power of numbers... ofcourse they were justified to do so... and ofcourse we all know that!~

[Topspeed]

Well it is pretty obvious that Soviets had large numbers. That is why Hitler wanted to get also finns onto their side to fight them.

There is a saying in Finland from WW II time: A finn is worth 10 russians. This phrase has always added a question: What happens when the 11th russian comes along ?

There were 47 times more soviets in 1939 than finns.

[RichTO90]

We are talking about two different things then.

Exactly.

I'd argue that there it is easier to see how the USSR could have beaten Germany than vice versa. But that is in the realms of 'what if' and I hate that type of argument.

Thank you, I agree wholeheartedly, "what ifs" are little better than mental masturbation, fleetingly satisfying, but possessing little of the substance of the real thing.

Although I've heard this before, I have to ask if the poster before is correct in saying that 'Russia' owes 100 million to the US?

I am unsure and have not looked up the figures recently, but I suspect they are now negligible.

That's right, and it's a shame that so few people know about what in fact the USSR indirectly did to help the allies in the west.

Yes, but the corrollary is also very evident, "few" people know about what in fact (as opposed to a lot of speculation and misuinderstanding) the Western Allies did to help the USSR. It is obvious also that few are aware that it was all based upon the national self interest of all the parties, rather than some abstract sort of enlightened selfless interest perceived by all.

But what is this debt owed to, if Lend Lease is not a 'lease' at all? I figured you'd show up sooner or later

Caveat emptor.

I think you still may misunderstand, the return of a "lease" for the "loan" of material was just one of the methods used. Long-term loans were also employed as well as payments in "services" or other "reverse Lend-Lease." The actual terms of the act were that the "benefit to the United States might be payment or repayment in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory."

BTW, I'm curious, if Lend-Lease was of no value to the Soviet war effort, then why were the goods ordered and the heavy debt incurred by the Soviet Union? After all, the items contained in the protocols were based upon Soviet requests for assistance, they were not just any old things the west decided to ship. Or was it all just another nefarious plot by Comrade Stalin to confuse later historians?

[Topspeed]

I think a comrade Stalin officially as a communist did not know what lend and lease meant. In communism everybody has a share of everything.

They also figured that finns who they had attacked has to pay for "the fun" they had in "USSR picnic" when trying to capture lost Karelia districts. I am pretty sure people in USA could not comprehend the amount of warpayments if they were translated per capita into USA.

[Kunikov]

BTW, I'm curious, if Lend-Lease was of no value to the Soviet war effort, then why were the goods ordered and the heavy debt incurred by the Soviet Union? After all, the items contained in the protocols were based upon Soviet requests for assistance, they were not just any old things the west decided to ship. Or was it all just another nefarious plot by Comrade Stalin to confuse later historians?

It was of course of value, just not a value that was detrimental to how the war would turn out, meaning would the USSR or Nazi Germany win. What the Soviets requested, they needed to a certain degree, that is obvious, but would they have lost the war without those materials? No, there were other ways they could have taken to get what they needed.

[Evzonas]

BTW, I'm curious, if Lend-Lease was of no value to the Soviet war effort, then why were the goods ordered and the heavy debt incurred by the Soviet Union? After all, the items contained in the protocols were based upon Soviet requests for assistance, they were not just any old things the west decided to ship. Or was it all just another nefarious plot by Comrade Stalin to confuse later historians?

It was of course of value, just not a value that was detrimental to how the war would turn out, meaning would the USSR or Nazi Germany win. What the Soviets requested, they needed to a certain degree, that is obvious, but would they have lost the war without those materials? No, there were other ways they could have taken to get what they needed.

So according to Mr. Kunikov, we shouldn't look at the facts ruther run another What If thread!

If the LL aid to Russia wasn't needed, and given the character of the Russian government and popular feeling, why would Russia turn to US for help? Or you think it was a single-side decision by US themselves? I am sure US had a hard time deciding if they should give this help to USSR and USSR should feel strange asking for help from the capitalists...

Is it a fact or not Mr. Kunikov that aid to USSR came without markings of origin? That Russians in many cases denied bombers just because american crues had to fly with the to SU soil? The Russian government proposed this special treatement so their people wouldn't feel humiliated being fed by another country....

Yes, we all agree that USSR won Germany by the power of numbers, needed LL and asked for it and that is I think to give an end to this thread...
Now, if you Mr. Kunikov or anyone else, thinks LL was of no importance to Russian victory, then I assume you have to start a new WHAT IF thread : What If Russia received no western aid?

END

[RichTO90]

It was of course of value, just not a value that was detrimental to how the war would turn out, meaning would the USSR or Nazi Germany win. What the Soviets requested, they needed to a certain degree, that is obvious, but would they have lost the war without those materials? No, there were other ways they could have taken to get what they needed.

Um, I think "to a certain degree" may be understating things more than just a bit. For instance, the First Protocol (for the nine months October 41-June 42) requested 300 37mm AT guns or larger per month (2,700 total) and the same number of AA guns 37mm or larger. Now coincidentally enough, at the time of the protocol (October 41) Soviet forces were being battered by German air and tank forces. One would have to suspect that urgency played somthing of a part in the types of artillery that were chosen? And that the support remained of interest may be seen in that the Second Protocol (June 42-June 43) maintained the high requirement for light AA guns (3,000 or 250/month) while dropping the AT gun request. So obviously Lend-Lease was filling niche requirements. Similar things may be seen in some of the other niche shipments such as chemicals and explosives, certain metals, and of course the old reliables such as Spam and butter.

The question of course remains how critical these niches were and what the effect would have been on the Soviet economy and war effort if Lend-Lease had not been present to fill the need? But also, some may have been critical enough to have been the "breakpoint" item; some anecdotal evidence indicates that chemicals and especially explosives may have been that item. OTOH static measure of total tanks, guns, planes and so on tell us little, what we really need are monthly, quarterly or yearly comparisons of domestic output versus the imports. Frankly though I think we'll never know for sure, there are simply too many intangibles in the what if.

[Kunikov]

It was of course of value, just not a value that was detrimental to how the war would turn out, meaning would the USSR or Nazi Germany win. What the Soviets requested, they needed to a certain degree, that is obvious, but would they have lost the war without those materials? No, there were other ways they could have taken to get what they needed.

Um, I think "to a certain degree" may be understating things more than just a bit. For instance, the First Protocol (for the nine months October 41-June 42) requested 300 37mm AT guns or larger per month (2,700 total) and the same number of AA guns 37mm or larger. Now coincidentally enough, at the time of the protocol (October 41) Soviet forces were being battered by German air and tank forces. One would have to suspect that urgency played somthing of a part in the types of artillery that were chosen? And that the support remained of interest may be seen in that the Second Protocol (June 42-June 43) maintained the high requirement for light AA guns (3,000 or 250/month) while dropping the AT gun request. So obviously Lend-Lease was filling niche requirements. Similar things may be seen in some of the other niche shipments such as chemicals and explosives, certain metals, and of course the old reliables such as Spam and butter.

The question of course remains how critical these niches were and what the effect would have been on the Soviet economy and war effort if Lend-Lease had not been present to fill the need? But also, some may have been critical enough to have been the "breakpoint" item; some anecdotal evidence indicates that chemicals and especially explosives may have been that item. OTOH static measure of total tanks, guns, planes and so on tell us little, what we really need are monthly, quarterly or yearly comparisons of domestic output versus the imports. Frankly though I think we'll never know for sure, there are simply too many intangibles in the what if.

I put 'to a certain degree' because as you can see some things were/might have been needed more than others. As for the AT guns in 1941, most were located in anti-tank brigades which were a big mistake on the part of the Red Army, they would eventually learn their lessons and somewhat downgrade those formations for more elastic use on the front. As for the AA guns, yes, that was also evident in 1941 when the Germans enjoyed air supremacy to a large degree throughout the year. But, first off how many of those AT and AA guns made it in 1941? When we can find that out we can asertain when the Red Army actually recieved them and on what front, after that to what affect were they used in stopping the Germans? Or was it the old story of mud and snow that stopped their tanks and planes, and not so much the Lend Lease equipment? As for 'breakpoint' items...I dunno, I can't really make that type of statement without knowing all the variables, which as you can see are simply too hard to predict in this case

[Karri]

The answer is no, Soviet Union did not win because of numbers. But, because of numbers they could afford to make more mistakes. Had they not learned from those mistakes, they would have been destroyed.

[Karl234]

At all it is a "What if..." question.
Fact is Hitler had 2 front war.

-Allies bombing on industrie, thousands of 88, 105, 128 AA guns all over germany.
-Thousands of fighter planes inside "Reich".
-North africa...later Italy. Big parts of Army,Navy and Airforce used there.
-Balkan war.
-Troops in Norway, Air Force too.
-Troops in France + Atlantik Wall.
-More than 1000 submarines used in the Atlantic.
-Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Tirpitz, Blücher, Graf Spee and a lot of cruisers/destroyers lost in western area. That were a good fleet for the Baltic Sea.

Fighting against USA, UDSSR, GB, F, NL, B, NOR, PL, CZ, DK, YUG, GR, IT...together. That can work? Crazy...

It`s really sure that Russia won because of numbers and resources. Or want somebody tell they need four years to come to Berlin because of their excellent tactic?

And at all it`s 60 years ago and time to put all facts on the table. Ther is no Hitler and Stalin anymore.

[armour]

Silly summary. 85-90% of all Wermacht casualties happened in the Eastern Front, add to that Finland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia. Through simple logic you can come to conclusion that Germany and the Axis were beaten by USSR and beaten badly. If a country could annihilate 85-90% of German army and all of their Axis Allies(except Italy) and still stay very strong in 1945 what makes you think they couldn't have in the same way destroyed the remaining 10-15 % with their overwhelming at that time forces?

It`s really sure that Russia won because of numbers and resources. Or want somebody tell they need four years to come to Berlin because of their excellent tactic?

You are going to argue that Japanese annihilated American fleet at Pearl Harbour because American *tactics* were inferior to theirs? What tactic should we use against treachery?

[Molobo]

Through simple logic you can come to conclusion that Germany and the Axis were beaten by USSR and beaten badly

Which wouldn't be possible without Lend Lease given by USA.
The statement that it was x % of war production isn't quite definitve-as the time line of war production isn't given, so we don't know if it uses data after Lend Lease provided much needed support without which the production wouldn't continue, and we also don't know what is given into war production-just weapons or resources like oil or coal, iron etc.

[armour]

Which wouldn't be possible without Lend Lease given by USA.
The statement that it was x % of war production isn't quite definitve-as the time line of war production isn't given, so we don't know if it uses data after Lend Lease provided much needed support without which the production wouldn't continue, and we also don't know what is given into war production-just weapons or resources like oil or coal, iron etc.

So those 4% of Soviet production that Americans contributed Won the War against Germans? There must be something wrong with your math skills because 4% doesn't sound like a lot to me. If it was something like 30-50% then you could have your point, otherwise sorry that argument is useless.

Then I can always ask how many divisions did they send to help Russians defeat those 85-90% of Wermacht?

The Allied force that landed in 1944 was no match for German army in 1944 even after they were repeatedly defeated in the East and were in full retreat.

The sole reason why Overlord didn't turn into a complete catastrophe was because they had to engage a much smaller chunk of Wermacht while Red Army still in 1944 had to engage about 80% of it.

In 1941(the most critical year) American aid to USSR consisted of about 1/4( a quarter) of what they sent to Britain which didn't even actively fight a war against Germany at that time. They also ended up sending a lot of inferior tanks like General Stuart which could only be used to pull artillery into the field and General Lee tank which was nicknamed a grave for 6 brothers because it was more suitable for German target practice than fighting a war. Also there was a lot of incompatibility with fuel types sent by USA and Britain - Soviet tanks often didn't work on American type petrol and American tanks didn't work with Soviet petrol. So generally that 4% which was mentioned earlier contributed even less than 4% and was often a hassle to work with. So USSR ended up paying for a whole bunch of American inferior tanks and fuel which couldn't be used on their own tanks.

Not trying to offend any Americans - it is clear that Lend-Lease was a sign of good will from Americans of that time but let's not again go into fairy-tales that Soviets couldn't have won without it.