There was a more important front for Germany's defeat in WWII? | Forums

[Wildnoob]

Hello,

Many historians today, say that the Eastern Front was decisive for Germany's defeat.

In my view, WWII was a conflict were everything was interconnected, hence it was a global conflict. If the German suffered 7 of 10 Army casualities in the East, this certainly has to do with the British naval blockade of Germany, with Germans building U-boats to fight the Western Allies instatead of tanks, with the bombing, with most of the Luftwaffe being lost in the West, with the Lend-Lease to the Soviets, etc.

The impression I have is the Western Allies are having a credit for secondary participation in the conflict, what I belive it's inadequate for their contributions, that were far from just avoid a supposed inevitable Soviet victory with less casualities, since the war could have been much different without them. Perhaps Germany would not won, but it would be at least much more harder for the Soviets won, perhaps impractival, and therefore a draw would be possibility. The same can be said about the Western Allies without the Soviets.

What are your opinions?

[arthursmedley]

The Russians died for it. The Americans payed for it and Great Britain was a very handy aircraft carrier just off the coast of north-west Europe.

[WTE_Galway]

1000 Hollywood movies cannot be wrong

[K_Freddie]

Stalin was completely worked up at the Yalta meeting. This probably because he was fully aware of the Russian casualties to come, and he desperately needed a second front in Europe. Although North Africa, and Italy was a front, it was not big enough.
All the Allies contributed but the Russians sufferered the most, and the fault of this falls on Stalin himself - He killed off most of his top military leaders long before the war.
The Germans were brilliant tacticians and even more so when retreating on the eastern front - they made the Reds pay dearly for every yard gained.

5c (inflation)

[Treetop64]

What ^they^ said.

Until recent years, the Soviet's contribution to the defeat of Germany in WWII has been largely muted in the West. Most people here think that the Americans and British did most of the fighting against Germany in WWII, with the Soviets playing an auxiliary role, when in fact almost the opposite was true. The Red Army did the lion's share of the fighting against Germany, and they paid a disproportionately high price for it. Depending who you ask or where you look, the Soviet Union suffered between 30 and 50 million military and civilian casualties in the four years fighting Germany. In Kiev alone the Soviets lost nearly three-quarters of a million troops killed, wounded, and captured within the space of two weeks. The German encirclement there was the largest in military history. On the other hand, the entire U.S. armed forces suffered a total less than half that during the entire war, though most of the fighting in the Pacific was on terrain that prohibited large-scale land operations, and we had plenty of reliable and robust help from - and rendered the same to - many partners in Europe and Africa.

[horseback]

I'm not trying to denigrate the importance of the Soviet Union's contributions, but I do have to wonder where they would have been if the Germans' U-boat blockade in the Atlantic had not been largely defeated by mid-1943. The Soviets received massive amounts of food, clothing, and materials via Lend-Lease above and beyond the weapons, aircraft, trucks and fuel most of which were delivered across the Atlantic, to either Murmansk or through the Mediterannean & Suez to Iran and then on to The USSR. Until the U-boats were stopped, a large percentage of those goods were lost before they got as far as the Irish coast, and this was at a time when the production of the US was only just getting off the ground, so it was all the more hurtful, limiting the efforts in N. Africa and what could be sent even farther around German held Norway to Russia.

One could argue that winning the Battle of the Atlantic enabled all the other victories that eventually beat Hitler. Measured against Soviet sacrifices it may not seem like much, but it has to have been one of the most cost effective victories of the war.

cheers

horseback

[Wildnoob]

I'm not trying to denigrate the importance of the Soviet Union's contributions, but I do have to wonder where they would have been if the Germans' U-boat blockade in the Atlantic had not been largely defeated by mid-1943. The Soviets received massive amounts of food, clothing, and materials via Lend-Lease above and beyond the weapons, aircraft, trucks and fuel most of which were delivered across the Atlantic, to either Murmansk or through the Mediterannean & Suez to Iran and then on to The USSR. Until the U-boats were stopped, a large percentage of those goods were lost before they got as far as the Irish coast, and this was at a time when the production of the US was only just getting off the ground, so it was all the more hurtful, limiting the efforts in N. Africa and what could be sent even farther around German held Norway to Russia.

One could argue that winning the Battle of the Atlantic enabled all the other victories that eventually beat Hitler. Measured against Soviet sacrifices it may not seem like much, but it has to have been one of the most cost effective victories of the war.

cheers

horseback

I tend to agree. People care much about the ground war, forgoting that the cost effective actions of naval and air forces are just as important. Also, casualities are not a factor to measure anything. Actually, it's something to not praise like many do. What matter is how the casualities ocurred, and this certainly has to do with the global conflict.

[K_Freddie]

If Hitler was not obsessed with Russia, and if the Russians had not stopped them at Moscow... we'd all be speaking German, Japanese or both.
I'm sure this will help put things into perspective..

The rest of the world was not prepared for war for at least 4 years into the war. Russia took the brunt of this for 3 years alone (as did England until Pearl Harbour), except for 'dribbles' of equipment that could get through and North Africa. Russia drained a vast majority of the German/Japanese ability to wage war - The west by comparison did have it 'easy' in the ETO.

In the Pacific the Japanese, like the Germans in the east, made it very difficult and costly for the attacker.

[Wildnoob]

If Hitler was not obsessed with Russia, and if the Russians had not stopped them at Moscow... we'd all be speaking German, Japanese or both.
I'm sure this will help put things into perspective...

Soviet perspective, eh? In the way you wrote, looks like WWII was only the Communism saving Democracy, and not vice versa. Actually, both survived because their alliance. If was not for the Western Allies, perhaps there would be no USSR as well.

And to the ones saying that the West largely ignored the Russian participation, I suggest look the other side of the coin as well. Practically all Russians belived they single-handled won the war during the Cold War, and the Communist propangada make sure, using the most drastic means if necessary, that this is what people should belive. In Russia today, still about 70% belive they achived this, comparable to the western wrong view of the Soviets.

[K_Freddie]

WWII was only the Communism saving Democracy

Essentially at the time YES... Democracy as we know it was self absorbed in it's own interest (as it is today), and it took the Japanese High Command to wake up 'real democracy', which is what we're seeing today... no doubt