|
You are attributing to a hugely complex and fluid set of factors one, definitive conclusion. Not only is it wildly inaccurate, it leaves out manifold other factors without which there is no telling which way the ware would have gone.
The reasons the Nazis were defeated are varied and numerous. There was no single cause that brought about the effect of their fall.
What mush! Your argument here unduly equalizes the unequal. There are factors and decisive factors. I would say that the Soviet contribution to the war was one of those decisive factors -- if not the decisive factor.
To maintain that if the Nazis had gained control over the Soviet manufacturing base the US and Britain would have been 'easily' crushed is pure speculation and neglects the fact that heavy industry was far enough east to make supply lines and logistics rather less-than-ideal, not to mention the rather primitive (in comparison to Germany) technology and fabricating plants that were basically dedicated to churning out a LOT of one particular product. This wouldn't have been particularly useful to the Germans, other than perhaps metal refining and petroleum.
Don't forget that, at the time of the Nazi invasion of the USSR, they already had the combined industrial capacity of:
Germany
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Poland
Hungary
Denmark
Norway
Belgium
Netherlands
France
Italy
Yugoslavia
Greece
If you add to that the industrial and agricultural capacity of the USSR, as well as its seemingly limitless natural resources (including wood, iron ore, rubber, oil, uranium, coal and other minerals, etc.) and labor power (close to 200 million in 1941), as well as control over close to, at that point, one-fourth of the world's land mass, then the "pure speculation" looks more and more like the logical outcome.
And, yes, in comparison to Germany, Soviet industry looked somewhat primitive. But then, at the opening of Operation Barbarossa, American heavy industry looked relatively primitive compared to Germany. In 1941, German industry was the most modern and advanced in the world, so to say that Country X has relatively primitive industrial power at that time is not saying much.
About $11 billion in war matériel was sent to the Soviet Union under that program. That was hardly a negligible sum, and represented a critical, decisive supply source when the Germans controlled most western Russia.
About $11 billion was sent throughout the war years (1941-1945), but less than $5 billion actually made it through the Nazi naval pickets. In addition, most of what the U.S. sent to the USSR was either non-military or antiquated military equipment. Perhaps the most modern and valuable military equipment that the U.S. sent through to Murmansk were Thompson sub-machine guns -- which were promptly reverse-engineered and then produced in the USSR throughout the war.
For the most part, yes, but the lend-lease program was a life-saver for Russia during a critical point in the war.
Yes and no. It did help solidify the relations between the U.S. (and Britain) and USSR during the war. So, in a political sense, lend-lease was something of a life-saver. It's always heartening to know you have friends (even if those friends had originally extended their "cash and carry" policy to your enemies, too). But the materials did little to actually alleviate the situation facing the Soviet soldier/sailor or civilian. If anything, lend-lease offset the shock of the sudden interruption of international trade.
On sustaining the Soviet offensive: Which has what to do with what?
It goes to the contention that the Soviets could not have sustained their offensive without aid from the U.S. and Britain. Facts are facts: by the spring of 1944, when the Soviet Army crossed the Curzon Line and headed into Central Europe, they had the industrial and military capacity to march all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. The U.S. and British war planners knew this, and pushed up the timetable on Operation Overlord accordingly. (This was more the doing of the British than the Americans, though. The British wanted to restore their influence over the Balkans and Middle East, and that required holding the Soviets in check.) You cannot look at WWII in a purely miltiary sense; the politics of the situation are decisive.
They 'reneged'? Did they do that during the same time that they were bombing German industry into oblivion?
They weren't bombing German industry into oblivion until the beginning of 1944. Before that, Allied air raids were most valuable for their terrorizing effect on the population. But this is not the point.
Part of the initial Allied agreement was that the U.S. and British would open a second front in Western Europe in the spring/summer of 1942. The U.S./British forces opted to land in Africa instead, and pushed off the timing of the second front for a year. Meanwhile, the Nazis used the relatively free hand they had to launch their Caucusas Campaign, culminating in the seige of Stalingrad. Again, the Soviets appealed for the U.S. and Britain to open a second front. Again, the U.S./British forces ignored the USSR and did their own thing, landing in Italy. (This, too, was due to Britain's geopolitical aspirations.) It was not until the Nazis had been forced into an inglorious retreat from Eastern Europe that the U.S. and Britain turned their attention to an amphibious landing in France.
For two years, the capitalist wing of the Allies begged off fighting German imperialism directly, opting for smaller engagements on the fringes of the Nazi empire, until the likelihood arose that the USSR would crush the fascists without their help.
That is what I meant by "reneging" on their agreements.
On Spain: Which has what to do with what?
Are you really that ignorant of history? Had the Soviet Army entered France, it would have compelled Franco -- who would have been fearful of having Communists on his northern border -- to end his formal neutrality and enter the War on the side of the Axis. That would have brought at least 2 million more soldiers into the conflict on the side of the Germans. Such an infusion could have caused (perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently) the Soviet offensive to stall ... and could have even allowed the Nazis to stage a counteroffensive, with Spanish Falangists being thrown to the wolves.
The French resistance was primarily and overwhelmingly supplied by the Allies, primarily throught the Special Operations Executive which would coordinate air-drops of weapons, equipment, etc....
"Primarily"? Yes. "Overwhelmingly"? No. Many of the weapons and supplies came from the East. This is especially true for the units of the Resistance organized by the French Communists, who had a pipeline through Vichy territory out to the Sea, which brought in Soviet-made equipment smuggled past Axis ships in the Mediterranean, Black and Red seas.
This had already been done by the Allies in North Africa and, not long afterwards, Italy.
Nope. The defeat of the Nazis at the gates of Moscow came months before the first Allied advances in Morocco, Algeria and Egypt.
As did the Allies, with the exception of the surrender of a Field Marshall.
Sort of. The capitalist wing of the Allies did these things, too. However, they were not the first, which was my point. While the U.S. and British were bogged down in the Ardennes, the Soviets were liberating the camps in Poland and Hungary. The Soviets had been using their Katyusha rocket systems against the Nazis since the beginning of 1942. And, while the U.S. and Britain did a good job of rolling up the Nazi lines, they did not inflict the damage on the army that the Soviets did.
Who is downplaying the crucial role that the Red Army played in WWII? It seems to me that you are labelling them as the only, decisive factor in the war's eventual outcome, which is utterly unjustified.
Most Americans, and most Westerners, downplay the role the Soviets played in the war. I do not consider them the only factor, but I do consider them the decisive factor. The fact that they single-handedly crushed three-fourths of the Axis forces in Europe is a testament to their place as the decisive factor. If it had been the U.S. that had played that role, I would give them the same amount of credit.
Oh, please.
Oh, please, indeed! That is precisely my point! Both statements have their elements of outrage. However, I don't see many of you rolling your eyes when someone says this in an American context.
Martin
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
