Russian Front, WW2 (1 Viewer)

[lancer]

An interesting discussion got started on another thread (off subject of thread), so I have opened this to discuss.
The discussion started about Russian bravery, treatment of POW's, and the outright brutality of the Eastern front. Thought it might be an overall subject to pursue. I do not know a great deal about the Russian Army beyond some of the battles, weapons, aircraft, etc. Would be interested to hear about the influence of the pre-war officer purges on readiness, command structure, motivation, etc. Also would like to hear opinions about the influence of the brutal warfare on the troops from both sides, and how the German troops might have carried this influence to the Western front and the fight against the Western Allies. I have some knowledge but not too deep. Overall, just anything about the Eastern front. -- Al

 

[Currahee Chris]

...Would be interested to hear about the influence of the pre-war officer purges on readiness, command structure, motivation, etc.

Probably the singlemost contributing factor in the "brutality" of that front. I'm not really impressed with the command at any level in the Russian army of the time. The typical Russian grunt, sheer guts and willpower won the war for their country. No creativity whatsoever on the part of the Russian command. No strategy, no thinking, just - we gotta get these guys outta here NOW!! and too bad if we lose half our population in doing it.

 

[Combat]

Anyone over the age of 40 has had their opinion of Russia influenced by the Cold War. As result, the contributions of the Russians in WWII have mostly been ignored or discounted until recently. With some attention on the atrocities of the Red Army when they entered Germany. For me, it's the enormity of the fighting and ferocity that stands out. Somewhere between 20-30 million civilian and military deaths on the Russian side. About the equivalent of the every man, woman, and child in the state of New York and then some. By comparison, American deaths for the entire war were about 400K. And the differences in overall population at that time were not as great as many people might believe. In 1939, there were about 190 million Russians to 131 millions Americans. So roughly one in every ten Russians died.

A ruthless command structure headed by Stalin only partially explains the ability of the Russians to survive. The war was viewed by the people as a great patriotic struggle against an invader similar to Napoleon. So it had popular support. The oppressive treatment by the Germans in occupied areas also played a role. Stalin played to this and maintained a coherent government in the early days of the war when the Germans had their only real opportunity to win. The Germans were unprepared for a long campaign and vastly underestimated the size and fighting capabilities of the Red Army. They expected to win the war in a matter of months (the famous Hitler quote about kicking the door in and the entire rotten structure would fall). When that didn't happen, the advantages turned to the Soviets. The weather played a role, but that has likely been overplayed by the Germans. It was the ability of the Russians to withstand those early defeats and relocate much of their industrial capacity beyond the hands of the Germans that allowed them to turn the tide beginning in Dec. '41. An amazing feat. When you look at a map of Russia, you really have to wonder how the Germans thought they could ever win. But Hitler had taken the risk and had no choice but to fight it out. Even if they had taken Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, the Russians could have continued the war almost indefinitely so long as they maintained political coherence.

 

[fmethorst]

Probably the singlemost contributing factor in the "brutality" of that front. I'm not really impressed with the command at any level in the Russian army of the time. The typical Russian grunt, sheer guts and willpower won the war for their country. No creativity whatsoever on the part of the Russian command. No strategy, no thinking, just - we gotta get these guys outta here NOW!! and too bad if we lose half our population in doing it.

This is interesting. Eisenhower met with Zhukov shortly after the war to discuss a variety of military topics including tactics. Here are a couple excerpts from his writings of this meeting.

"Highly illuminating to me was [Zhukov's] description of the Russian method of attacking through mine fields. The German minefields, covered by defensive fire, were tactical obstacles that caused us many casualties and delays. It was always a laborious business to break through them, even though our technicians invented every conceivable kind of mechanical applliance to destroy mines safely. Marshal Zhukov gave me a matter of fact statemnt of his practice, which was, roughly, "There are two kinds of mines, one is the personnel mine and the other is the vehicular mine. When we come to a minefield our infantry attacks exactly as if it were not there. The losses we get from personnel mines we consider only equal to those we would have gotten from machine guns and artillery if the Germans had chosen to defend that particular area with strong bodies of troops instead of with mine fields.""

"Americans assess the cost of war in terms of human lives, the Russians in overall drain to the nation. The Russians clearly understood the value of morale, but for its development and maintenance they apparently depended upon overall success, and upon patriotism, possibly fanaticism. As far as I could see Zhukov had given little concern to methods we considered important to the maintenance of morale among American troops, systematic rotation of units, facilities for recreation, short leaves and furloughs, and above all, the development of techniques to avoid exposure of men to unnecessary battlefield risks, all of which, although common practice in our Army, seemed to be largely unknown in his."

 

[Currahee Chris]

Even if they had taken Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, the Russians could have continued the war almost indefinitely so long as they maintained political coherence.

Agree with everything you said for the most part though this I disagree with. I think, especially Stalingrad, if those three cities fell, morale would have crushed the Russian resolve.

Should Germany have tried to sue for an Armistice in 1943??? Essentially cut Russia in half, pause and go at it again?

 

[Combat]

Agree with everything you said for the most part though this I disagree with. I think, especially Stalingrad, if those three cities fell, morale would have crushed the Russian resolve.

Should Germany have tried to sue for an Armistice in 1943??? Essentially cut Russia in half, pause and go at it again?

After 1941, Stalin was convinced Russia would win the war. That was an opinion increasingly shared by the military and people. So he faced no internal pressure to make a deal or had any incentive to do so. Hitler knew how Stalin thought and probably believed, correctly, that making any overture would be pointless and perceived as an admission of weaknesses. It was all or nothing from his perspective once the invasion had begun. To the extent the Germans ever had an end game it was likely to reach the Ural mountains and hope to create a defensible barrier between themselves and any remaining resistance. I don't believe even Hitler anticipated they could occupy all of Russia to the Pacific Ocean.

 

[Mitch]

I think even during the war and shortly after there was little real interest in the russian losses from the west. There is also the fact that allies did not want the russians having much influence in the Nuremburg trials because of the atrocities that were readily coming to light in the eastern countries they had occupied during the war and, the actions against the german female population.

Its an interesting point about whether the russians would have surrendered if Moscow had fallen early in the war as the original german plan had wanted. I would venture that the loss of the capital would have been the death blow for communism and russian resistance. The initial german plan never entailed going very much further than Moscow

Its also the stupidity of Hitler et al around him to aggressively treat the population as Untermensch rather than an asset until victory was gained. being seen not as invaders but liberators especially in the areas the germans first took over whose populations were and still are not pro communist.
Mitch

 

[lancer]

The durability and bravery of the Russian soldier has to be unequaled. How else could Russia possibly have survived the opening disasters? Literally millions of prisoners were taken by the Germans in the early months of the war. So many (some 6 million total) that any other nation would have crumbled from POW losses alone, never mind casualties and equipment losses. Patriotic resolve and the NKVD can only partially explain the will to final victory exhibited by the common Russian soldier. An underlying toughness and ability to withstand almost any hardship was the hallmark of the Russian Army. Bad leadership and tactics notwithstanding, the Russian Army was a vastly under-rated foe by the Germans. This fatal underestimation by Hitler and his generals is the key reason for Allied victory in WW2. Considering what the Germans lost in battle against the Russians and the effort expended on the Eastern front, I just don't see how the Western allies could have successfully landed in Europe, much less won a land war against Germany (short of Atomic weapons), without Russian participation. Remember that 75% of Germany's military strength was expended on the Russian front. Still a little known and unapreciated fact in the west. -- Al

 

[lancer]

After 1941, Stalin was convinced Russia would win the war. That was an opinion increasingly shared by the military and people. So he faced no internal pressure to make a deal or had any incentive to do so. Hitler knew how Stalin thought and probably believed, correctly, that making any overture would be pointless and perceived as an admission of weaknesses. It was all or nothing from his perspective once the invasion had begun. To the extent the Germans ever had an end game it was likely to reach the Ural mountains and hope to create a defensible barrier between themselves and any remaining resistance. I don't believe even Hitler anticipated they could occupy all of Russia to the Pacific Ocean.

I believe you are correct in saying Hitler had no intention of going to the Pacific. Hitler's move east was to destroy communism and secure land for the expansion of Germany (living room, literally). Germany wanted Russia's oil and wheat. I believe no move beyond the Urals was ever contemplated. Just occupation of European Russia would have been a daunting task. In WW1, Germany had to use over 1 million troops on occupation duty after Russia bailed on that war. It was not until after officially adopting a peace on the Eastern front in WW1, that Germany could shift any of those troops west. Hitler wasn't going further east. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

Al...

No doubt there was a toughness etc but, they had such vast resources in terms of men they could sustain these losses and, remember they also, after these crushing defeats used women in huge numbers in fighting units. Were the germans not likened to an elephant and the russians ant? no matter how many the elephant crushed there was always thousands behind waiting to attack and would finally overcome the elephant. Its what happened in the east

The willingness of the command from Stalin down to ignore such losses and keep wasting men and material was a greater drain on the germans. I have read battle reports etc where the german soldiers were stunned at the manner in which the russian would throw away his life and, that wounded russians would not moan and groan or ask for help from the germans it must have shaken the german belief when wounded troops only showed hatred and a willingness to even then kill germans.

I don't know how many times I have read that russians were sent to the front with no weapons or one between two a country with an utter disregard for the lives of their people hugely contributed to the number that was killed and why it was so high.

A true ideological war where both sides knew it was a fight to the death.
Mitch

 

[Currahee Chris]

The durability and bravery of the Russian soldier has to be unequaled.

I'm thinking of an 8 letter word that starts with B and ends with T. ^&grin{sm4}
How'd that fighting resolve work for them in Afghanistan?? {sm4} The US accomplished with a SF Brigade in October 2001 what it took 8 years for the Russian Army with mechanized divisions no less to do (and they fell short of our accomplishments).

The Russian army is a solid force but the fact that they were up against the wall as we were in 1776 and 1812 with foreign armies on our soil gave them the extra drive to push the nazis out of Russia. Heck, even the fall of Berlin showed the same fighting determination on the part of the German- and the German forces, the shell that they were, were executing a fighting retreat for a solid 18-24 months leading up to that point- talk about a morale killer.

You are correct, the Russians tied up a vast amount of the Germans- they also weren't deployed all over God's green earth like the US/UK forces were- Japan, CBI, Italy and North Africa were all fronts with zero Russian participation. For some reason people seem to forget that the Japanese occupied more territory in WW2 than any Empire before or since. The Eastern front had Kursk- the largest tank battle ever in the history of warfare, the war with the Japanese had Midway- the largest Carrier based conflict on the planet.

The singlemost relevant fact why we did not execute a land invasion of Japan was the simple fact that they would ferociously defend their territory (much like the Russians did). I cannot possibly underscore how critical that factor is.

The Russians were an average army (as was the US at the time) which did a fantastic job of utilizing their manpower assets to the fullest. The German high command had done a really good job of advancing creative doctrine with the fall of the west. For some reason, they didn't put too much effort into thinking things through heading east- hamstrung by Hitler- quite likely. The Russians just went full frontal assault and let their men win it for em. It was a war where two titanic heavyweights had a backroom brawl.

 

[lancer]

Chris, you make the point well, about fighting resolve. It is one thing to defend one's country, one's way of life, one's family. Quite another to be the invader. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan bore no resemblance to WW2 (and yes, I am aware of other certain parallels here), so the fighting resolve is in no way the same. I do not believe the WW2 Russian Army is in any way the best army put into the field by the belligerents, just the one with the deepest pockets in terms of manpower, that they used ruthlessly to win their victory. One uses what one has and does what one has to do to achieve victory and this the Russians did.
Also I am, as every WW2 vet in the Allied world must be, very glad that no invasion of Japan was necessary. That would have been an epic bloodbath that would have cost the Allies an estimated million casualties and would have, I believe, resulted in the destruction of the Japanese race. Hard to say, but the Atom bomb was a life saver for the Allies, and a race saver for the Japanese. -- Al

 

[lancer]

Al...

No doubt there was a toughness etc but, they had such vast resources in terms of men they could sustain these losses and, remember they also, after these crushing defeats used women in huge numbers in fighting units. Were the germans not likened to an elephant and the russians ant? no matter how many the elephant crushed there was always thousands behind waiting to attack and would finally overcome the elephant. Its what happened in the east

The willingness of the command from Stalin down to ignore such losses and keep wasting men and material was a greater drain on the germans. I have read battle reports etc where the german soldiers were stunned at the manner in which the russian would throw away his life and, that wounded russians would not moan and groan or ask for help from the germans it must have shaken the german belief when wounded troops only showed hatred and a willingness to even then kill germans.

I don't know how many times I have read that russians were sent to the front with no weapons or one between two a country with an utter disregard for the lives of their people hugely contributed to the number that was killed and why it was so high.

A true ideological war where both sides knew it was a fight to the death.
Mitch

All great points, Mitch. Agree with all of them. The effect on German moral, when facing an enemy that refused to admit defeat and threw men into slaughter time after time in a seemingly endless stream, must have been devastating. A true last man standing war. -- Al

 

[Louis Badolato]

When I think of the Nazi's vs. the USSR, what comes to mind for me first and foremost is the battle of the two biggest b@stards of the 20th Century: Hitler vs. Stalin.

In the beginning of the war, they signed a "mutual non-aggression pact" and invaded and carved up Poland between them. Then the Soviets invade Finland, and to the shock of everyone, the Finns really tear them up in the snow (in my opinion this is what convinved Hitler to invade Russia - he figured if the Russians can't handle the Finns, the Germans would walk all over them).

It was only when Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back that the Soviets ended up on our side. Talk about getting in bed with the devil. Wasn't this supposed to be the forces of Democracy vs. the forces of totalitarianism? Didn't really work out that way. But Stalin's willingness to sacrifice 20 million of his subjects to ensure his own power enabled us to win the war.

But emphasizing the enormous casualties the Russian high command was willing to incur overlooks some other factors that enabled them to soundly beat the Nazis on the Eastern front. The Russians designed and mass produced the most effective armor of WWII after they moved their production facilities to beyond the Urals to Tankograd: The T34 and the JS2. They also built the most feared tank buster of the War: the Ilusian IL2M3 Sturmovic. Nobody produced more artillery, and used it to better effect.

Then there is the vast dimensions of Russia, and the horrendous weather conditions. Finally, as Chris pointed out, there is the fact that they were defending their homeland against a vicious and amoral invader. I can't imagine a bigger incentive to fight than preventing your home and family from being wiped out by a bunch of fanatical racists convinced that you are subhuman.

Whatever the factors behind the Soviet victory over the Nazis, I am just glad that the pulled it off. I don't believe the United States and British could have beat the Nazis without them.

 

[lancer]

When I think of the Nazi's vs. the USSR, what comes to mind for me first and foremost is the battle of the two biggest b@stards of the 20th Century: Hitler vs. Stalin.

In the beginning of the war, they signed a "mutual non-aggression pact" and invaded and carved up Poland between them. Then the Soviets invade Finland, and to the shock of everyone, the Finns really tear them up in the snow (in my opinion this is what convinved Hitler to invade Russia - he figured if the Russians can't handle the Finns, the Germans would walk all over them).

It was only when Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back that the Soviets ended up on our side. Talk about getting in bed with the devil. Wasn't this supposed to be the forces of Democracy vs. the forces of totalitarianism? Didn't really work out that way. But Stalin's willingness to sacrifice 20 million of his subjects to ensure his own power enabled us to win the war.

But emphasizing the enormous casualties the Russian high command was willing to incur overlooks some other factors that enabled them to soundly beat the Nazis on the Eastern front. The Russians designed and mass produced the most effective armor of WWII after they moved their production facilities to beyond the Urals to Tankograd: The T34 and the JS2. They also built the most feared tank buster of the War: the Ilusian IL2M3 Sturmovic. Nobody produced more artillery, and used it to better effect.

Then there is the vast dimensions of Russia, and the horrendous weather conditions. Finally, as Chris pointed out, there is the fact that they were defending their homeland against a vicious and amoral invader. I can't imagine a bigger incentive to fight than preventing your home and family from being wiped out by a bunch of fanatical racists convinced that you are subhuman.

Whatever the factors behind the Soviet victory over the Nazis, I am just glad that the pulled it off. I don't believe the United States and British could have beat the Nazis without them.

Outstanding post, Louis. If the Battle of Britain didn't make the Germans sorry about their lack of a strategic, long range bomber, the Russian ability to move their industry out of strike range sure did. Thank goodness the Germans made so many strategic errors, on so many fronts. -- Al

 

[fmethorst]

Germany could not afford to fight a war of attrition. It simply did not have the resources or manpower. When the Soviet Union failed to collapse in 1941 the writing was on the wall. By 1942 the Germans could only attack in one sector of the front.

There has been a lot of talk about the human resource advantage but we shouldn't forget about the material resource advantage the Soviets had. Germany had no hope of competing against the combined industrial might of the Soviet Union and the United States.

 

[Currahee Chris]

There has been a lot of talk about the human resource advantage but we shouldn't forget about the material resource advantage the Soviets had. Germany had no hope of competing against the combined industrial might of the Soviet Union and the United States.

Agree- and btw- thanks for the post with Ike earlier on as well.
One thing I always do is have a tendency to downplay the "industrial" capacity of Russia as I always seem to view Russia as either an agrarian society or given that they aren't capitalists they cannot have the output like us. {sm3}

So, If WW2 is known as the Great Patriotic War over there- what was WW1? Just the Patriotic War??

 

[Mitch]

the only thing I would disagree with is that the UK and US could not have beaten germany without the USSR. I think we would have may have taken a bit longer and been an awful lot harder but, we would have won. I do think we would have suffered significantly higher casualties than we did had the germans been able to deploy all their forces westwards. Though conversly many of the german units that moved back and forth like LAH would not have possibly been as battle hardened as they were having experienced the eastern front. Many germans from units that served on both talked of how easier it was on the western front.

I have little time for Stalin and find his regime as dispicable as the nazi's and, worse as the death toll from Stalin's rule was far worse. We often gloss over USSR in WWII as they were allies however, his regime was a nasty piece of work.

I also think when discussing the industrial might of the USSR and the US that credit should be given to the german armed forces to have done so well against so many for so long. Training tacics and adaptability in the field were superior to the allies in most cases on the west front and, especially so against the russians. even late in the war when the soviets were better they were often given a bloody nose the retaking of Kharkov springs to mind.
Mitch

When I think of the Nazi's vs. the USSR, what comes to mind for me first and foremost is the battle of the two biggest b@stards of the 20th Century: Hitler vs. Stalin.

In the beginning of the war, they signed a "mutual non-aggression pact" and invaded and carved up Poland between them. Then the Soviets invade Finland, and to the shock of everyone, the Finns really tear them up in the snow (in my opinion this is what convinved Hitler to invade Russia - he figured if the Russians can't handle the Finns, the Germans would walk all over them).

It was only when Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back that the Soviets ended up on our side. Talk about getting in bed with the devil. Wasn't this supposed to be the forces of Democracy vs. the forces of totalitarianism? Didn't really work out that way. But Stalin's willingness to sacrifice 20 million of his subjects to ensure his own power enabled us to win the war.

But emphasizing the enormous casualties the Russian high command was willing to incur overlooks some other factors that enabled them to soundly beat the Nazis on the Eastern front. The Russians designed and mass produced the most effective armor of WWII after they moved their production facilities to beyond the Urals to Tankograd: The T34 and the JS2. They also built the most feared tank buster of the War: the Ilusian IL2M3 Sturmovic. Nobody produced more artillery, and used it to better effect.

Then there is the vast dimensions of Russia, and the horrendous weather conditions. Finally, as Chris pointed out, there is the fact that they were defending their homeland against a vicious and amoral invader. I can't imagine a bigger incentive to fight than preventing your home and family from being wiped out by a bunch of fanatical racists convinced that you are subhuman.

Whatever the factors behind the Soviet victory over the Nazis, I am just glad that the pulled it off. I don't believe the United States and British could have beat the Nazis without them.

 

[lancer]

I don't know, Mitch, about the US and GB against Germany, alone. Take everything the Germans used on the Eastern Front and move it west and I think it's a no-win situation for the Allies, short of the Atomic Bomb, which probably could not have been used because of politics. Take the Luftwaffe and move it west, the Panzer divisions, and all the excellent infantry that was chopped up in the east, and I don't see how the Allies can even get ashore, far less go up against a full strength Wehrmacht in a land battle. Allied memoir after memoir and professional historian after historian have testified to the superior fighting ability of the German soldier. I have a great respect for what the fighting forces of the Allies accomplished in the west, but I really believe it was possible because of the Russian Front. Now, German troops may have been less battle tested had not Hitler invaded Russia, and weapons maybe not as developed, but that is a big maybe. There would also have been full strength German units that had not suffered millions of losses. Given that the invasion of Russia did take place, an quick German victory leaves the Allies in the west in basically the same position as if no invasion of Russia had taken place, only now there is combat experience and possible advancement of weaponry development in the German camp, still without the massive losses of German personal. This is a great "what if" discussion, but I think it fortunate that the Russians were our allies, despite the obvious downside to the Stalin regime and all that it entails. -- Al

 

[VIRIATO]

The ''what if'' discussion is very interesting indeed. I believe that probably the US, UK and other allies might have pulled out the win against Nazi Germany, but it obviously would have taken more time, more effort, and tremendously higher sacrifices, but in the end all empires fall, sooner or later, and that would surely have happened with the 3rd Reich. German occupation forces were getting under increased pressure from the national resistance forces, the US was the most important industrial powerhouse in the World and as the Western front showed the Germans were more willing to surrender to the Western Allies or negotiate an armistice with them than with the feared and hated Russians. Last but not least the Western Allies were getting to the A bomb faster than the Germans, the question remains: would they have used it against Berlin? Or would it just have been used against the yellow man? I believe the Allies would have dropped the bomb against Germany, just think of area bombing, Hamburg, Dresden, bomber Harris ( remember his phrase 'I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier'), this path was already on the cards...
I totally agree with the rest what Louis said about the vital part played by the Russians, in the end it was an ugly no rules fight to the death between these totalitarian regimes that decided it against Germany, not just Democracy against the evil Nazis...
When it comes to strategy, probably the Russians did their master coup against the Germans at Stalingrad, comparatively Hitler's decisions concerning Stalingrad were a disaster, irrational, the losses could have been cut short if the decision had been made to withdraw before the siege became unbreakable and suffocating...

Paulo