Russia saved our asses in WWII?

[squigian]

You forgot Poland. Without them, the war would never have kicked off when it did.

But, on that point, I think Stalin (unsourced) put it best: Britain gave time, America gave money and Russia gave blood.

[CaesarBR]

Britain gave time, America gave money and Russia gave blood.

Interesting observation, indeed there is kind of a point in it, Britain indeed buyed a lot of time, US indeed spent a lot of money building up their power and helping their allies, and Russia indeed did the crude part, fighting with all their strenght with their nation directly at stake...

[xzyx]

No - I simply doubt that such a completly brutal and negative state such as Nazi Germany could have ever pacified Europe and Russia sufficiently to manage a trans Atlantic invasion.

In any case Nazi racism had already provided the US with means of relative security via an atomic option Germany did not have.

ahn...a good part of the atom bomb was developed only because of the german scientists abducted in the war (there were american too, butif they didn't need germans to make it, they would just kill them or whatever)...

[FarKenal]

ahn...a good part of the atom bomb was developed only because of the german scientists abducted in the war (there were american too, butif they didn't need germans to make it, they would just kill them or whatever)...

Thats so very true, Im not sure if many people realise this but the US had actually taken the research for the atom as far as they could around some time in April 1945, and could not get the damned thing to actually explode.

It was however not until the German U-boat U-234, that had secretly been enroute to Japan as a result of the Allies closing in all around Germany and their imminent surrender, that the captain abondoned their secret mission, and on board was uranium and key scientists. And it was actually these scientists who later told the US officials about their own research and how to successfully develop the triggers to detonate the bombs.

So without the research conducted by the Germans, the US atom bombs would of been the worlds most expensive paperweights. In addition to the fuses was sufficient uranium for two atom bombs, (strangely enough at a time when top secret US documents comment that they have barely enough for one). In addition to this aboard U-234, there was over 1,100 tonnes of uranium captured by the US in a salt mine of the German city Strassfurt in the final days leading up to Germanys surrender.

http://greyfalcon.us/restored/U.htm

This is but one of many hundreds of sites that can tell you all about it. Its just that its only been in the last decade that ex US army officials have been able to tell/leak their stories. So if you ever come across some smart ass who tells you that even if the war had of lasted longer that the US could just drop nukes on Germany or Japan anyway, just tell them to go......do some reading

[Romulus_A]

The relationship between Russia and the United States in WWII was mutual, in my eyes. If Russia had backed out of the war, that would have allowed the Germans to fight a one front war, and likewise if the U.S. had never joined the war.

[man]

depends, if you say russia made the germans attck lenin/stalingrad in winter/muddy season them yes after they got hostile with germany their only contribution to england was that hitler was now fighting on 3 sides (east,west and africa) like in WW1.
I always said germany was a bad place to start for world conquest.....

[KoRnflakes]

I always said germany was a bad place to start for world conquest.....

was ???
it still is

[Ahlerich]

well first of all who is "us"?
i assume western europe right?
so its save to say that russias sons paid the highest blood toll to save western europe from the nazis. the western allies saved western europe from the communists.
this should tickle the balls of all the nationalists from all the different countries that argue here sufficiently.

[Legio XII]

No - I simply doubt that such a completly brutal and negative state such as Nazi Germany could have ever pacified Europe and Russia sufficiently to manage a trans Atlantic invasion.

In any case Nazi racism had already provided the US with means of relative security via an atomic option Germany did not have.

Ok, so do you really think that we could have defeated a Germany that was free to concentrate all of its troops in the west? In the campaign in France, there were nearly 3 million Allied soldiers engaged in the fighting against 1.5 million Germans. Had Germany been able to concentrate the troops on the Eastern Front in western Europe instead, there would have been nearly 3.5 million troops in occupied western Europe(1.5 million in Western Europe, plus the roughly 2 million troops the Germans had on the Russian front at any one given time). In addition, the fortifications of the Atlantic Wall would have undoubtedly been much stronger, without having to compete for resources being devoted to the Eastern Front. It is possible that victory might have been achieved, but at what cost? Both America and Britain would have had to shoulder the burden of casualties that was borne by Russia.

And, if you are thinking of putting forth the argument that Germany could have eventually been blockaded into submission, you are mistaken. Part of the non-agression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany was economic. Germany was free to, and did, purchase raw materials from the Soviet Union prior to invading it. It would be a quite reasonable assumption that they would have continued to do so if there had been no invasion of Russia. If you are skeptical of this fact, read the book "The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad".

As to your point about Racism, you seem to forget that America had its own racist attitudes at the time, and in some areas, still does. A further point in this direction is that there was in fact a Nazi Party in America, with several influential supporters, among them Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK and RFK. This is not to say that the Nazi Party would have come to power in America; it is simply a fact that America was not as un-racist as you seem to have insinuated.

And, to the atomic question, you should be made aware of the existence of a German nuclear program, which was rather advanced in 1943 until allied saboteurs destroyed the heavy water processing plant in Telemark, Norway, one of the few and most productive in German hands. While it has been concluded by most scholars that the Germans were not anywhere close to having a bomb by the end of the war, it is again worth wondering if that would be the case had not 2/3 of German resources been devoted to fighting Russia. That is to say, America's dominance in this field was not always assured.

So, yes, Russia was absolutely vital to victory.

[Forve]

I guess it would be more correct saying that Soviet Union saved our asses.

[FarKenal]

Lexio XII, I completely agree, the other thing to note is that not only would Germany have another 2 million soldiers on the Western Front in late 1944, but also several more million who were killed on the Eastern Front during 1941-1944, the losses in men, tanks, artillery, aircraft in this time alone, could have easily thrown back what ever the US and UK could combine.

Another factor is that with the XXI u-boats coming out in early 1945, these technologically advanced machines would have sunk anything and everything of both the United States & UK's Royal navies.
Additionally in this case, with there being no war with Russia, the Kriegsmarine would have had more than triple the amount of resources/research to build up its u-boat, surface fleet and merchant navy. Whislt historically the Allies could have only remained at the same pace with the fact that they unlike the Germans, there is no other front that would not be taking up their resources as they did historically. So the u-boats would be sinking them quicker than they could build them, let alone losing crews etc. Plus it literaly took years to buid a naval warship, completely unlike the hastily rushed out and half welded liberty ships.

And with control of the seas they could have starved Britain into surrendering, and easily being able to secure the neccessary Islands/bases for making a Trans-atlantic invasion to anywhere along the entire length of the mid-north American coast in late 1945- early 1946. And just to mention it again, the US would not have been able to use atomic bombs, as they were historically only able to do so with the capture of German scientists and uranium in the last few days of the war when Germany surrendered. Add to that a un-harrassed german war time economy, and Jet fighter/bomber aircraft with experienced crews and fuel, and the Germans can pack one hell of a punch.

[iksterminator]

I guess it would be more correct saying that Soviet Union saved our asses.

+ rep man!

Russia is just half of Soviet Unions population. It's totally unfair to say that Russia won the war on the eastern front. Then where are all those Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Georgians, Uzbeks, Armenians, Tadjiks, Azerbaijanis and etc.?
As a matter of fact it was Ukraine that suffered the heavyest civil casualties in that war and it was Georgia that suffered highest military casualties among it's personnel.
It is a matter of question what whould Russia do if there was only it, with only half of Soviet population.
So if you want to continue discussion, let's call it what it is - "Soviets saved our...", because thats correct version.

[iksterminator]

Another vital point is that by June 1941 Stalin had numerous information that Germany was going to invade USSR. There have been reports from Soviet ambassador in Tokyo, information from spys in Germany and other sources.
So basically they knew that Germany was going to invade USSR, the simple fact that vast majority of soviet troops, artillery, aircraft and tanks were located on western border instead of their bases show this also. More than this, Hitler also knew about Soviet troops location near it's eastern border, so it was clearly the point who whould start it first. In some points, Germany started eastern campaing relatively unprepared and a lot of it's heavy equipment on eastern front were soviet trophy machines. Their initial success was mostly due to the exact point that Soviets had their major military near the border, so by overcomeing it by surprise attack, there was little to nothing to stop them until first counter attacks near Kiev and Moscow.
So it's not about Soviets saving western ass, the war between 3rd Reich and Soviet Union was inevitable, they simply were saving their own asses and it just contributed major role in total defeat of axis in Europe.
Soviets did play a double game there also. They didn't start 2nd front against Japan until late in the war despite many requests from USA, because they didn't want to spread resources and also by this they have put USA in similar situation as Germany in Europe by having it fight on 2 fronts. There were no heros in those politics, everybody knew that, so temporary alliance between west and USSR soon turned into cold war as the threat of common enemy dissolved.

[Erebus Pasha]

Lexio XII, I completely agree, the other thing to note is that not only would Germany have another 2 million soldiers on the Western Front in late 1944, but also several more million who were killed on the Eastern Front during 1941-1944, the losses in men, tanks, artillery, aircraft in this time alone, could have easily thrown back what ever the US and UK could combine.

Another factor is that with the XXI u-boats coming out in early 1945, these technologically advanced machines would have sunk anything and everything of both the United States & UK's Royal navies.
Additionally in this case, with there being no war with Russia, the Kriegsmarine would have had more than triple the amount of resources/research to build up its u-boat, surface fleet and merchant navy. Whislt historically the Allies could have only remained at the same pace with the fact that they unlike the Germans, there is no other front that would not be taking up their resources as they did historically. So the u-boats would be sinking them quicker than they could build them, let alone losing crews etc. Plus it literaly took years to buid a naval warship, completely unlike the hastily rushed out and half welded liberty ships.

And with control of the seas they could have starved Britain into surrendering, and easily being able to secure the neccessary Islands/bases for making a Trans-atlantic invasion to anywhere along the entire length of the mid-north American coast in late 1945- early 1946. And just to mention it again, the US would not have been able to use atomic bombs, as they were historically only able to do so with the capture of German scientists and uranium in the last few days of the war when Germany surrendered. Add to that a un-harrassed german war time economy, and Jet fighter/bomber aircraft with experienced crews and fuel, and the Germans can pack one hell of a punch.

Yet by late 1943 the Allied navies had got the upper hand in the Battles of the Atlantic and the Mediterrean and U-Boat effectiveness was very much on the wane (for example they failed to intercept ships carrying US troops to North Africa and Britain and never made a dent on the D-Day landings). Their major battleships had been sunk by the Royal Navy whilst the rest dared not come out in the face of the superior British Fleet.

[Legio XII]

Yet by late 1943 the Allied navies had got the upper hand in the Battles of the Atlantic and the Mediterrean and U-Boat effectiveness was very much on the wane (for example they failed to intercept ships carrying US troops to North Africa and Britain and never made a dent on the D-Day landings). Their major battleships had been sunk by the Royal Navy whilst the rest dared not come out in the face of the superior British Fleet.

Bu the whole point is whether this would have been the case had the Germans not been distracted from the Battle of the Atlantic by the invasion of the Soviet Union. While the Brits and Americans may have been able to gain control of the sea, would it really have mattered, with the Soviet Union selling any needed raw materials to Germany? I would think not. Also, the Germans would have been able to build up a rather strong surface fleet, possible in the Baltic, as it was well shielded by occupied Denmark and Norway and forces stationed in those areas. The Baltic would have essentially been one large protected German harbor.

[Hanny]

Bu the whole point is whether this would have been the case had the Germans not been distracted from the Battle of the Atlantic by the invasion of the Soviet Union. While the Brits and Americans may have been able to gain control of the sea, would it really have mattered, with the Soviet Union selling any needed raw materials to Germany? I would think not. Also, the Germans would have been able to build up a rather strong surface fleet, possible in the Baltic, as it was well shielded by occupied Denmark and Norway and forces stationed in those areas. The Baltic would have essentially been one large protected German harbor.

red herring, Uboats unlike AFVs, have a massive lead build time, when AH set up the U Boat increase inm 40, he had more enginers working on u Boats than he did all other engines of war combined, had he not moved 10k from AFV and MTV to U boat production, he could have increased the very arm that might have been of use in the next land phase of his war, of course the bottleneck was still going to be oil to run the engines.

[conon394]

Ok, so do you really think that we could have defeated a Germany that was free to concentrate all of its troops in the west? In the campaign in France, there were nearly 3 million Allied soldiers engaged in the fighting against 1.5 million Germans. Had Germany been able to concentrate the troops on the Eastern Front in western Europe instead, there would have been nearly 3.5 million troops in occupied western Europe(1.5 million in Western Europe, plus the roughly 2 million troops the Germans had on the Russian front at any one given time). In addition, the fortifications of the Atlantic Wall would have undoubtedly been much stronger, without having to compete for resources being devoted to the Eastern Front. It is possible that victory might have been achieved, but at what cost? Both America and Britain would have had to shoulder the burden of casualties that was borne by Russia.

And, if you are thinking of putting forth the argument that Germany could have eventually been blockaded into submission, you are mistaken. Part of the non-agression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany was economic. Germany was free to, and did, purchase raw materials from the Soviet Union prior to invading it. It would be a quite reasonable assumption that they would have continued to do so if there had been no invasion of Russia. If you are skeptical of this fact, read the book "The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad".

As to your point about Racism, you seem to forget that America had its own racist attitudes at the time, and in some areas, still does. A further point in this direction is that there was in fact a Nazi Party in America, with several influential supporters, among them Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK and RFK. This is not to say that the Nazi Party would have come to power in America; it is simply a fact that America was not as un-racist as you seem to have insinuated.

And, to the atomic question, you should be made aware of the existence of a German nuclear program, which was rather advanced in 1943 until allied saboteurs destroyed the heavy water processing plant in Telemark, Norway, one of the few and most productive in German hands. While it has been concluded by most scholars that the Germans were not anywhere close to having a bomb by the end of the war, it is again worth wondering if that would be the case had not 2/3 of German resources been devoted to fighting Russia. That is to say, America's dominance in this field was not always assured.

So, yes, Russia was absolutely vital to victory.

Again the basic issue here is DID the USSR contribute a significantly and pay a very heavy butcher bill to win the war that was – yes. I make no argument there.

But if the question is did the USSR save the ‘our asses’ and in the context of the original post I presume that to be the US (or maybe the US/UK). I still say no.

In particular:

I don’t really understand your argument or bringing up the non-aggression pact between Stalin and Hitler. The Germans broke the pact all by their lonesome; and in the first place the very fact the USSR agreed to it suggests they came close to loosing our asses.

So the US could simply have defended the UK, defeated Japan and watched the Hitler bog himself down in a long grinding war with the Soviets without necessarily acting.

Could Germany have overrun the UK, and launched and invasion of NA/SA in the face of a vastly superior US/UK air force and navy while holding down under incredibly brutal occupation the USSR and much or Europe – I think the answer is no. So no the USSR helped to save its own ass and is lucky the UK and USA thought that was a good thing because if Churchill and agreed to the kind of self serving non aggression pact Stalin did the world could easily have watched the public execution of Stalin by the Gestapo…

The USSR might well be considered to have saved many asses in Europe – except for the one in eastern Europe (I’m sure less than living-members of the Polish home army might a definite opinion on that or perhaps those Poles who enjoyed an all expenses paid trip to Katyn forest...) – since I allow that the US and UK might not have launched an invasion of Europe outside of Italy for many years if no Eastern front existed.

And, to the atomic question, you should be made aware of the existence of a German nuclear program, which was rather advanced in 1943 until allied saboteurs destroyed the heavy water processing plant in Telemark, Norway, one of the few and most productive in German hands. While it has been concluded by most scholars that the Germans were not anywhere close to having a bomb by the end of the war, it is again worth wondering if that would be the case had not 2/3 of German resources been devoted to fighting Russia. That is to say, America's dominance in this field was not always assured.

So 2/3 of German nuclear scientists were serving on the eastern front, what defeating devilish attempts by the Russians to use the periodic chart as a cipher?

[FarKenal]

Yet by late 1943 the Allied navies had got the upper hand in the Battles of the Atlantic and the Mediterrean and U-Boat effectiveness was very much on the wane (for example they failed to intercept ships carrying US troops to North Africa and Britain and never made a dent on the D-Day landings). Their major battleships had been sunk by the Royal Navy whilst the rest dared not come out in the face of the superior British Fleet.

Thats true, but if there had of been no Eastern Front, and tens of thousands of aircraft and tanks not lost there, the Germans could have built several hundred more u-boats. The other important consideration is that the XXI type u-boats that were just starting to roll out late 1944 were so good they could single handly approach the strongest military battle group and sink the capital flagship and escape without being detected.

The XXI u-boats could stay underwater for 99% of the time, unlike every other u-boat that was on the surface for 99% of its voyage. They could fire 18 torpedeos in 20 minutes, as opposed to hours, so they can attack multiple targets more quickly. Their normal underwater speed was faster than if it was surfaced, it had the ability to sprint underwater to get in position when attacking unlike other uboats that had to surface to so. From its advanced sonar it could locate and fire on targets without even having to raise the periscope.

The radar-search receiver Tunis fitted to the schnorkel and anti-radar rubber coating offered additional safety. Even when located, an alteration of speed and course would help to evade escorts or aircraft-dropped sonar buoys. When escaping at high speed, the Type XXI was almost as fast as most of the Allied escorts and bubbling of water rushing along the hull would make ASDIC location difficult. The potential area where a hunted Type XXI, escaping at the silent speed of 5 knots, would be forced to raise the schnorkel again was some 10-13 times greater than an area for conventional U-boat (escaping at 2 knots with a range of 100 miles). With the existing anti-submarine forces search abilities a chance for a kill was therefore greatly reduced.

In short I think that were pretty lucky, that these were pressed into service too late, especially given that Germany could have realistically had hundreds of them operating as early as 1942

[christof139]

U-Boats used up large amounts of resources and manpower and their large scle building may have had detrimental effect on Germany's over extended and not too well organized war production. The U-XXI's would have been defeated even if they had appeared in numbers earlier on. Germany could not match the Allies war production nor manpower resources, plain and simple.

Chris

[Hanny]

So 2/3 of German nuclear scientists were serving on the eastern front, what defeating devilish attempts by the Russians to use the periodic chart as a cipher?

Simple, because in 41 AH stopped the German nuclear program and reasigned the scientist to opther works, mainatianing only theoritical work from that period on, and german had advanced zero % more in 43 than it had achieved in 41, when AH told them, im fighting a war now and you cannot solve the problem in its timeframe. Or in other words germany had no nuclear program of any meaning after 41, and when they captured sicentist in the UK were told of the use of atomics they would not believe it as they thought it impossible.