Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Forum Commissar
"70 years ago, today" reads this interesting article that argues that this victory by the Red Army was the most important turning point of all of World War II
Quote: ![]() "You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 55
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Feb 2011, 12:58 Ideology: Social Democracy Pioneer
I would agree with the Historian. The victory at the gates of Moscow was far more significant than the Normandy landings. I feel that the Allied invasion of France in 1944 only hastened along the process of Germany's defeat. By 1944, the Soviets had retaken most if not all the land taken from them and were pushing into German territories.
![]() "Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem." Joseph Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 2408
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17 Ideology: Other Forum Commissar
As great as the Soviet victory was it is important to not downplay the tremendous contributions made by the Allies in multiple theatres.
Soviet cogitations: 55
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Feb 2011, 12:58 Ideology: Social Democracy Pioneer
Of course. It was not my intention to downgrade the Allied efforts. Any loss of life is significant but, if Germany had taken Moscow, they would have been able to push South into the oilfields of Asia. England and America received much of their oil from Asia, so if Germany had taken the oilfields, it would have been cut off from reaching it's Western destination which, in turn, would have had disastrous consequences for the RAF and such.
![]() "Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem." Joseph Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Oct 2010, 00:20 Ideology: Other Pioneer
As to the significance/impact of three major battles on the eastern front, in all shortness I would put it this way:
Moscow, (November-December 1941): First sign that the Wehrmacht was not invincible (and a major boost of moral for the Sovjets) Stalingrad, (August 1942 - February 1943): Turning point of the war in the east. Kursk, (July-August 1943): Point of no return for the Wehrmacht and the Reich. After Kursk the Fall of the Reich was unavoidable and a question of time. P.S.: ATM I'm reading 'The Battle of Kursk' by David M. Glantz and Jonathan M. House. Many WWII buffs are considering this book as the definitive account of the battle. It's not an easy read though (compared for example to Anthony Beevors books 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin: The Downfall 1945'). What you get are plenty of facts, numbers, charts and maps. The narrative could perhaps be better - but then again. This is a book for those who are already familiar with the events on the eastern front. Still: I have my hopes up that Beevor will write a book about Kursk some day. ![]()
The truth is, the Red Army was numerically and materially stronger than Wehrmacht at any time in the War, save for the short period of the fall of 1941. What it lacked was adequate logistical capacity. Simply put, the Soviets had more tanks and guns, but the Nazis had more trucks and trains. This factor was understimated by the Soviet high command. So after the Battle of Moscow it commenced full scale offensive operations with the goal to crush Nazi Germany within a year. In fact, in his speech on Nov. 6th, 1941 (a whole month ahead of the counteroffensive in the Moscow sector) Stalin expressed little doubt that the war would be over within a year. Part of this certainty was, of course, based on the notion that the British would definitely open the second front once the Red Army has begun its victorious march on Berlin - pretty much like it indeed happened a couple of years later.
However, in 1942 most offensive operations were bogged down by the end of the spring when the advancing troops ran out of ammunition, fuel and food supplies that could not be restocked in time. Many of those troops were surrounded and surrendered or starved to death. In one sector, near the town of Rzhev somewhat of a Verdun-like situation persisted for the entire year, with the Soviets several times able to gain some ground against heavily entrenched Nazis at a heavy price but unable to hold it for very long due to insufficient reserves. Thus the 1942 turned out almost as much of a disaster for the Red Army, as the 1941, and that pretty much gave the Axis a second chance in the war. So Stalingrad became the place where it was all decided, not Moscow. It must also be noted, that should Moscow fall it would have meant little in terms of the Red Army's resolve and ability to continue operations, while the loss of Stalingrad would have effectively cut the main "oil artery" of the Soviet Union which the Volga river served as at the time. It would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet. - Hugo Chavez
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37 Party Bureaucrat
One factor that is often overlooked is that Moscow is a significant railroad hub. Loss of that would have made moving troops and supplies significantly more difficult.
Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job Zulu wrote: We have to be careful here, since this kind of statement can be (and often is) misinterpreted to mean that the Soviets just threw wave after wave of human meat at the Nazis to win. The reality was that by 1942 the majority of the USSR's old industrial centre, its agricultural centre, and a substantial portion of its population, were in the hands of the Nazis, while the Nazis held the resources, industrial base and manpower of pretty much all of Europe. It was the Soviets' ingenuity, efficient relocation of industry, the strictness and diligence with which all manner of physical and intellectual activity became directed toward fighting the war, together with the aid in the later years of the war from the Western allies, which allowed it to defeat the greatest military force ever assembled. Zulu wrote: 1941 and the 1942 winter offensive, while disastrous from the Soviet point of view, weren't so easy on the Germans and their allies either. In the first year alone the Axis lost more men and material than in the rest of their former operations put together. In fact there are some arguments to the effect that by the end of 1941 and early 1942, Germany's best, most experienced and most fanatical troops had already been spent, meaning that any real chance for the Axis to win the war, as small as it was, was already lost. "The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Oct 2010, 00:20 Ideology: Other Pioneer Zulu wrote: I'm not completely sure about that. Do you have some numbers from reliable sources? As to logistical capacity - I can agree 100%. According to Taylor and Proektor (1974), the Soviet armed forces in the west were outnumbered, with 2.6 million Soviet soldiers vs. 4.5 million Axis soldiers. The total size of the Soviet armed forces in early July 1941, amounted to a little more than 5 million men, 2.6 million in the west, 1.8 million in the far east, with the rest being deployed or training. PLUS (and I know it's a hot potatoe here on S-E, it seems that Uncle Joe really was taken by surprise by Barbarossa. All the signs and intelligence info (Sorge) were painfully obvious but (so it seems) Uncle Joe hesitated although (and this is really bewildering) he obviously gave a speech on May 5th 1941 at the military academy in Moscow declaring: "War with Germany is inevitable". Zulu wrote: Yes - logistics. First in favour of the Wehrmacht, later on (as the front was getting more and more outstreached) in favour of the Red Army. Zulu wrote: His speech at that point was IMHO a speech to motivate people. It took the Red Army 3½ years and more than 10 million casualties to achieve that. Yes: The second front, the D-Day - I don't underestimate the significance of a second front, still: at the time of D-Day it didn't matter a whole lot for the Red Army anymore IMHO. By that time victory was inevitable. Zulu wrote: I couldn't agree more. Still I'd like to add that Uncle Joe made some very bad decisions at that time, and didn't trust his generals (generally speaking). Much like Hitler did. Ironic, isn't it? Both men were amateurs when it came to warfare and strategy, still they insisted on fumbling around instaed of leaving the crucial tactics to their generals. Zulu wrote: I repeat myself: Stalingrad was a turning point. But first after Kursk was it clear that the Wehrmacht had lost the war. From then on - the fall of the Reich was a matter of time and human casualties. Zulu wrote: Psychologically and in terms of motivation it would have meant a lot! Zulu wrote: Correct! Last edited by Pink Spider on 01 Feb 2012, 22:49, edited 1 time in total.
![]()
It is generally correct that the Soviet forces were indeed outnumbered throughout 1941 and 1942.
But even in 1943,from what i know,the Red Army didn't have some significant numerical supperiority against the Axis. Quote: Stalin thought that the war would begin maybe in 1942 and that the German intelligence was sending him false information. Just for curiosity,some days before the German invasion of Belgium and other Low Countries Belgian AA shot down a German plane and from it they recovered complete plans for the invasion,but they disregarded them believeng that the whole thing was a ruse. But even the inveterate Trotskite Deutscher noted that: Quote: Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 461 More: Quote: Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 221 Quote: Read, Anthony and David Fisher. The Deadly Embrace. New York: Norton, 1988, p. 600 Quote: Nonsense: Quote: Zhukov, Georgii. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 268 Quote: Zhukov, Georgii. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 284-285 Much,much more on all this: http://anonym.to/?http://revolutionarys ... d-war.html
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Oct 2010, 00:20 Ideology: Other Pioneer Loz wrote: Why? Do you suggest that Uncle Joe and A.H. were military geniuses? Do you realize that by painting up a picture of Stalin as all-knowing, military genius and Sovjet Super-leader it is the same picture the Germans painted/and (some still) paint of A.H.? Standard argument: Both A.H. and Stalin were (to a point) betrayed by their generals who didn't understand their masters grand plans... Otherwise: Thank you for the information and sources. ![]()
I have already provided sources (some of them from Zhukov himself) which describe Stalin's role in the War.
But OK,would you care to name an instance where Stalin interfered in the matters in such a way to cause a disaster,a la Hitler in Stalingrad and many other battles where he caused German defeats due to his stubborness or his ideas about the ME-262 as a bomber for example? Quote: What exactly are you talking about? Von Paulus and Vlassov?
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Oct 2010, 00:20 Ideology: Other Pioneer Loz wrote: Yes. And what a source. Zhukovs memoirs are a bit biased especially when it comes to the great leader - but nevermind. Loz wrote: No of course not. He was the greatest military genius of all time and all Soldiers of the Red Army where angels of liberation. They never did anything wrong and the USSR was paradise on earth. Hitler and his generals were imbeciles who got lucky, reaching Moscow in 5 months whereas it took the army of supersoldiers and superheroes nearly 4 years to reach Berlin. But that must be a coincidence or timewarp and surely we can blame someone else for that. As always... This is my last post in this forum, so rejoice. Apart from a few decent members I met more dogmatic imbecils in this godforsaken forum than is tolerable. Goodbye. ![]() Quote: How exactly are they biased? Zhukov is not Kaganovich or someone else,he's not really known for sycophanty or adoration of Stalin or whatever. Quote: Calm down,i only asked you to substantiate your claims. Quote: Cool story. Loz wrote: Actually, there is certain circumstantial evidence, that Zhukov's memoires were not written by him, and definitely they have been "improved" in later editions. It's kind of a case study for the "Ministry of Truth" thingy. Lots of food for anti-soviet trolls there. The facts, however, are that unlike others Soviet top WW2 brass (Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky, Konev, etc.) Zhukov's career suffered a demotion of office during the War. He began it as the Chief of General Staff of the Red Army, and finished as a front's CO, one of many. Soon after the War he completely fell out of Stalin's favor, in part due to the scandals about the "trophy taking", in which Zhukov and officers close to him had outrageously overstepped some informally tolerated limits, and it was not until Stalin's death that Khrushchev gave Zhukov a brief boost, only be used in the dirtiest moment of the power struggle that ensued, and then be tossed away. So it's quite possible that Zhukov was not quite such a St. George on White Horse he's been "canonized" as in Brezhnev's time. It would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet. - Hugo Chavez
|
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||