Are Historians Now Overstating the Role of the U.S.S.R. in defeating Nazi Germany?

**Dayton3** · 28 Jan 12,, 04:04

At one time, historians did not give the Soviets adequate credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Now, most discussions routinely point out that seven out of every eight Germans killed in World War Two were killed by the Soviets.

But is this using numbers to overstate the role of the Soviet Union?

No doubt the decisive defeats of the Germans on land was by the Soviets on the Eastern Front.

But.

It wasn't the Soviets who swept the German Navy from the seas.

It wasn't the Soviets who achieved widespread air superiority over Germany.

It wasn't the Soviets who conducted large scale strategic bombing of Germany. The British (and later the Americans) being the first to bring the war directly to Germany proper first.

Should the pendulum swing back?

Sorry for my long absence by the way.

**Bigfella** · 28 Jan 12,, 07:03

Originally Posted by Dayton3

At one time, historians did not give the Soviets adequate credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Now, most discussions routinely point out that seven out of every eight Germans killed in World War Two were killed by the Soviets.

But is this using numbers to overstate the role of the Soviet Union?

No doubt the decisive defeats of the Germans on land was by the Soviets on the Eastern Front.

But.

It wasn't the Soviets who swept the German Navy from the seas.

It wasn't the Soviets who achieved widespread air superiority over Germany.

It wasn't the Soviets who conducted large scale strategic bombing of Germany. The British (and later the Americans) being the first to bring the war directly to Germany proper first.

Should the pendulum swing back?

Sorry for my long absence by the way.

'The pendulum' seems to be doing just fine. The war in Europe was won & lost on the Eastern front. Other theatres played important roles, but the east was the key to victory. 'Sweeping the German Navy fom the seas' was mostly about anti-sub warfare - not exactly he Pacific theatre....or even the Med for that matter (esp after Norway). leave the german navy intact & lose against Russia & germany still loses. Beat back the bombers & lose in Russia & Germany still loses. All nations can be proud of their contribution, but Germany broke itself in the East. Absent that Allied victory is very far from assured, with it Allied victory is guaranteed.

**USSWisconsin** · 28 Jan 12,, 19:04

I don't like the pendulum type of history - it is normally always wrong - swinging across the facts - normally exhibiting bias one way or the other. It would be nice to try to get it right and explain it without a nationalism bias or the "making up" for inaacurracies by presenting other inaccuracies with an opposite spin.

No doubt in my mind, the Germans attacking the USSR in 1941 was the single most war loosing thing they did. This is rivaled to a lesser degree by the Nazi's declaring war on the USA in Dec 1941, for pretty much no good reason - except perhaps as a show of solidarity with their Japanese allies. Imagine how it might have gone if there were no lend lease, and the Soviets faced German alone or in concert with a Japanese assault from the East? What if the US had stayed out (no Pearl Harbor?) and Britian had fallen in early 1942? The Soviets great victory was part of a complex story - take away the contributions of the West and it might have been a different story.

**Tanker** · 28 Jan 12,, 19:28

A lot of people seem to forget that Lend Lease was one of the major reasons why the Soviet Union was able to beat back Germany. Thousands of trucks, tanks, artillery, planes, ammo, explosives, and so on made it possible for the Soviet army to fight while its industry recovered from a major bombing campaign the Germans unleased on Russia. Where was the Russian Air Force? I'll also point to this fact. The German Army, had Great Britian and the US NOT conducted long range bombing runs crippling Germany's industries probably would have defeated Russia. Also, Germany was crippled by Hitlers insatiable desire to rid the world of every Jew, gypsy, cripple, non-arian, homeless person in the world.

**Gun Boat** · 28 Jan 12,, 23:55

Russia was not the 'key' to victory for the Allies. Without Russia the Allies would have used the A-bomb against germany which would have bought about their defeat. It just would have taken longer and ruined Germany more.

**Kansas Bear** · 29 Jan 12,, 00:39

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

No doubt in my mind, the Germans attacking the USSR in 1941 was the single most war loosing thing they did. This is rivaled to a lesser degree by the Nazi's declaring war on the USA in Dec 1941, for pretty much no good reason - except perhaps as a show of solidarity with their Japanese allies. Imagine how it might have gone if there were no lend lease, and the Soviets faced German alone or in concert with a Japanese assault from the East? What if the US had stayed out (no Pearl Harbor?) and Britian had fallen in early 1942? The Soviets great victory was part of a complex story - take away the contributions of the West and it might have been a different story.

Agreed. The USSR was a big part, but aided by the US.

**Officer of Engineers** · 29 Jan 12,, 02:33

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Now, most discussions routinely point out that seven out of every eight Germans killed in World War Two were killed by the Soviets.

Here's another number. 7 million to 11 million military dead. With or without us, they were determined to kill the Nazis or die taking the Nazis with them.

S2 · 29 Jan 12,, 03:02

"...Thousands of trucks, tanks, artillery, planes, ammo, explosives, and so on made it possible for the Soviet army to fight while its industry recovered from a major bombing campaign the Germans unleased on Russia..."

I won't argue against your essential thrust but I'm not sure about the "...major bombing campaign..." part of your comment. A small bit? Yeah. Maybe. However, Germany physically occupied or displaced a lot more industry than they destroyed by aerial attack.

**Tanker** · 29 Jan 12,, 03:48

Originally Posted by S2

"...Thousands of trucks, tanks, artillery, planes, ammo, explosives, and so on made it possible for the Soviet army to fight while its industry recovered from a major bombing campaign the Germans unleased on Russia..."

I won't argue against your essential thrust but I'm not sure about the "...major bombing campaign..." part of your comment. A small bit? Yeah. Maybe. However, Germany physically occupied or displaced a lot more industry than they destroyed by aerial attack.

The luftwaffe flattened all of Stalingrad and Leningrad between 41-43. Tank Factory 183 responsible for the T34 was and the Stalingrad Tank gun factory was moved as well to the Urals they called it Tankograd I believe. Anyway, the massive air raids supported the German infantry. Almost every building was dropped and house to house and factory to factory fighting ensued...same with Leningrad. Most of the T34s were destroyed Stukas or ME109s with tank busters. The Soviet air force was grounded due to air superiority fighters of the Germans. Matter of fact I think it was the Volgograd Tractor factory where vicious fighting took place. Germans leveled that complex. Maybe I should make it clear that I was talking about the western sections of Russia where the germans were and not the entire country.

**Tanker** · 29 Jan 12,, 03:53

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Here's another number. 7 million to 11 million military dead. With or without us, they were determined to kill the Nazis or die taking the Nazis with them.

1.3 million alone taking Stalingrad back from the Germans. Another 1.2 in Leningrad..

**Officer of Engineers** · 29 Jan 12,, 06:53

Originally Posted by Tanker

Maybe I should make it clear that I was talking about the western sections of Russia where the germans were and not the entire country.

We've discussed this in another thread. It really depends on when the war concluded. Post Stalingrad, the war was lost. Japan was going to lose no matter what. Stalin would not be above grabbing every Japanese, Chinese, and Korean armies he can muster and sending them west as penal battalions.

**1979** · 29 Jan 12,, 07:51

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Here's another number. 7 million to 11 million military dead. With or without us, they were determined to kill the Nazis or die taking the Nazis with them.

Sir, it is not my intention to split hairs but the germans took around 11 million military casualties ( dead, wounded and missing ) in the east.

**1979** · 29 Jan 12,, 07:56

Originally Posted by Tanker

1.3 million alone taking Stalingrad back from the Germans. Another 1.2 in Leningrad..

the Stalingrad figure includes wounded,the Leningrad figure does not, if it did it would be around 4.5 millions including one million civilians.

**Officer of Engineers** · 29 Jan 12,, 08:04

Originally Posted by 1979

Sir, it is not my intention to split hairs but the germans took around 11 million military casualties ( dead, wounded and missing ) in the east.

No hair splitting necessary and it adds to the point. While our steel was necessary, that bloodbath was beyond our capabilities to pay.

**astralis** · 29 Jan 12,, 15:06

80% of german casualties in WWII were at the hands of the soviets, so i do not think their role is over-stated.

Thread: Are Historians Now Overstating the Role of the U.S.S.R. in defeating Nazi Germany?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Are Historians Now Overstating the Role of the U.S.S.R. in defeating Nazi Germany?

Tanker Reply

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Germany wants “Graf Spee” Nazi eagle displayed in a museum

Iran Is No Nazi Germany

Nazi Germany CV wreckage possibly found

America Is Not Nazi Germany!

Soldier Earns Silver Star For Her Role In Defeating Ambush

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions