• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

76 years ago today, Nazi Germany invades the USSR

Jredbaron96

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
31,008
Reaction score
22,245
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
76 years ago today, on June 22nd, 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Union of Soviet Republics, bringing the USSR into WWII on the unexpected side of the allies. Nearly 4 million German and Axis Allies (Hungarian, Finns, Slovaks, Romanians and Italians) commenced Operation Barbarossa. Within months, thanks largely to the poor state of the Red Army, the Ostheer (East Army) had inflicted nearly 5 million Soviet casualties, either killed, captured or wounded. To the Nazis the invasion of the USSR wasn't just another conflict, it was a "Vernichtungskrieg", a war of annihilation. To the Nazis, the purpose of the war was to rid the world of the "Jewish-Bolshevik" collaboration that had been 'poisining' the world, and to finally subdue the "Asiatic hordes" that had threatened Europe for so long. Under these principles the Nazis would commit horrible crimes in the Eastern front, slaughtering nearly 20 million Slavs, gypsies, Jews, and other groups they considered sub humans.

It's a shame that the Red Army served Joseph Stalin, a man as evil and brutal as Hitler himself, but in the end it was the sacrifice of millions of Soviet men and women that enabled the destruction of over a hundred German divisions and 70% of the material losses of the Wehrmacht. Between the invasion of the USSR and the declaration of war on the United States, Hitler doomed Nazi Germany to defeat, either through atomic bombing or through hordes of Red Army divisions and mechanized forces.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
76 years ago today, on June 22nd, 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Union of Soviet Republics, bringing the USSR into WWII on the unexpected side of the allies. Nearly 4 million German and Axis Allies (Hungarian, Finns, Slovaks, Romanians and Italians) commenced Operation Barbarossa. Within months, thanks largely to the poor state of the Red Army, the Ostheer (East Army) had inflicted nearly 5 million Soviet casualties, either killed, captured or wounded. To the Nazis the invasion of the USSR wasn't just another conflict, it was a "Vernichtungskrieg", a war of annihilation. To the Nazis, the purpose of the war was to rid the world of the "Jewish-Bolshevik" collaboration that had been 'poisining' the world, and to finally subdue the "Asiatic hordes" that had threatened Europe for so long. Under these principles the Nazis would commit horrible crimes in the Eastern front, slaughtering nearly 20 million Slavs, gypsies, Jews, and other groups they considered sub humans.

It's a shame that the Red Army served Joseph Stalin, a man as evil and brutal as Hitler himself, but in the end it was the sacrifice of millions of Soviet men and women that enabled the destruction of over a hundred German divisions and 70% of the material losses of the Wehrmacht. Between the invasion of the USSR and the declaration of war on the United States, Hitler doomed Nazi Germany to defeat, either through atomic bombing or through hordes of Red Army divisions and mechanized forces.
Click to expand...

It is not to be forgotten how many Russians died on the Eastern front. Some from direct combat, others from bombings, still more from starvation.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
76 years ago today, on June 22nd, 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Union of Soviet Republics, bringing the USSR into WWII on the unexpected side of the allies. Nearly 4 million German and Axis Allies (Hungarian, Finns, Slovaks, Romanians and Italians) commenced Operation Barbarossa. Within months, thanks largely to the poor state of the Red Army, the Ostheer (East Army) had inflicted nearly 5 million Soviet casualties, either killed, captured or wounded. To the Nazis the invasion of the USSR wasn't just another conflict, it was a "Vernichtungskrieg", a war of annihilation. To the Nazis, the purpose of the war was to rid the world of the "Jewish-Bolshevik" collaboration that had been 'poisining' the world, and to finally subdue the "Asiatic hordes" that had threatened Europe for so long. Under these principles the Nazis would commit horrible crimes in the Eastern front, slaughtering nearly 20 million Slavs, gypsies, Jews, and other groups they considered sub humans.

It's a shame that the Red Army served Joseph Stalin, a man as evil and brutal as Hitler himself, but in the end it was the sacrifice of millions of Soviet men and women that enabled the destruction of over a hundred German divisions and 70% of the material losses of the Wehrmacht. Between the invasion of the USSR and the declaration of war on the United States, Hitler doomed Nazi Germany to defeat, either through atomic bombing or through hordes of Red Army divisions and mechanized forces.
Click to expand...

Yes. It was smart of FDR to support Uncle Joe so well.

But it was almost certainly a mistake not to take him out in 1945.
 
joG said:
Yes. It was smart of FDR to support Uncle Joe so well.

But it was almost certainly a mistake not to take him out in 1945.
Click to expand...

What could he have realistically done? The American people wouldn't have tolerated going to war with the USSR, not while Japan was still at war, and our atom bombs were being built by hand, with serious concern over their success. A war against the Red Army would've ended bad for the Western Allies.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
What could he have realistically done? The American people wouldn't have tolerated going to war with the USSR, not while Japan was still at war, and our atom bombs were being built by hand, with serious concern over their success. A war against the Red Army would've ended bad for the Western Allies.
Click to expand...

Used the first bombs on Leningrad and Moscow? The Japanese would have been impressed too.
 
joG said:
Used the first bombs on Leningrad and Moscow? The Japanese would have been impressed too.
Click to expand...

Attacking the Soviets out of the blue with atomic weapons would've gone a long way to ruin America's public image, and probably would've been impossible.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Attacking the Soviets out of the blue with atomic weapons would've gone a long way to ruin America's public image, and probably would've been impossible.
Click to expand...

It would not have been "out of the blue", you know. The USA would have had to finish the bombs before using them.
 
joG said:
It would not have been "out of the blue", you know. The USA would have had to finish the bombs before using them.
Click to expand...

Attacking a state we had been allied with for the past four years certainly would've been out of the blue.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Attacking a state we had been allied with for the past four years certainly would've been out of the blue.
Click to expand...

The articles and books I have read as primary and secondary literature from and about the time seem to be quite clear that nobody but an illiterate in foreign affairs thought Uncle Joe was a friend. Everyone knew he was a mass murderer and enemy that we had had to allie to beat the primary enemy. There were many issues that we should not have let the soviets override on any of which were enough important to justify war.
 
joG said:
The articles and books I have read as primary and secondary literature from and about the time seem to be quite clear that nobody but an illiterate in foreign affairs thought Uncle Joe was a friend. Everyone knew he was a mass murderer and enemy that we had had to allie to beat the primary enemy. There were many issues that we should not have let the soviets override on any of which were enough important to justify war.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what books you are referring to, because pretty much everything I've read has confirmed the opposite. Max Hasting in his book "Inferno" went so far as to say British propaganda efforts to convince the British that the Soviets were allies were so successful that when the war was over, Churchill had a hard time convincing the British people the Soviets were now their enemy. And regardless, no one in the US would've been okay with opening up another war while Japan was still in the fight. American hatred of the Japanese was by far the most intense.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I'm not sure what books you are referring to, because pretty much everything I've read has confirmed the opposite. Max Hasting in his book "Inferno" went so far as to say British propaganda efforts to convince the British that the Soviets were allies were so successful that when the war was over, Churchill had a hard time convincing the British people the Soviets were now their enemy. And regardless, no one in the US would've been okay with opening up another war while Japan was still in the fight. American hatred of the Japanese was by far the most intense.
Click to expand...

Wherein you are correct is that there was a very different understanding of the situation by the interested elite and the less informed i.e. those informed by the previous war reporting, which was quite selective. Those that didn't know much about the Soviet were relatively blissful. But that would have been a matter of very little time to correct. It was true after all and well enough documented even in the better msm of the time.
 
joG said:
It was true after all and well enough documented even in the better msm of the time.
Click to expand...

Not really. The details of Stalin's purges and Soviet war crimes were not commonly known during WWII, nor reported accurately. Your overestimating the willingness of the American people to justify a war against a nation that had been an ally for the past four years, and had the ability to incur massive losses on American forces, all while Japan still needed to be beaten.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Not really. The details of Stalin's purges and Soviet war crimes were not commonly known during WWII, nor reported accurately. Your overestimating the willingness of the American people to justify a war against a nation that had been an ally for the past four years, and had the ability to incur massive losses on American forces, all while Japan still needed to be beaten.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think I pointed out the fire lack of information among less informed groups. And you are right. That needs handling.
Nothing would have changed in the Pacific war effort and for the front in Europe it would have required some explaining. But the politicians of the time decided to take the way out that seemed easy. That cost us massively later.
 
joG said:
Yes. It was smart of FDR to support Uncle Joe so well.

But it was almost certainly a mistake not to take him out in 1945.
Click to expand...

There was no realistic, sane option for the US to "take out" Stalin.
 
joG said:
Yes. I think I pointed out the fire lack of information among less informed groups. And you are right. That needs handling.
Nothing would have changed in the Pacific war effort and for the front in Europe it would have required some explaining. But the politicians of the time decided to take the way out that seemed easy. That cost us massively later.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? There would have been massive changes to attempt to avoid, you know, the massive numbers of Russian troops in Eastern Europe from sweeping west towards Paris. I wouldn't count on them taking many prisoners after we nuked two of the most influential cities in Russia without warning.
 
joG said:
But the politicians of the time decided to take the way out that seemed easy. That cost us massively later.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the "easy way". Estimates for the invasion of Japan were 1,000,000. Taking on the numerically and operationally superior Red Army would've made it even worse. There is no realistic way for the US to take on the USSR at the end of 1945, not in a sane world.
 
I'm re-reading a great book on this right now- 'The Forgotten Soldier'- an amazing book about the experiences of a German infantryman who was at the Eastern Front from Stalingrad to the end- which was two years of more or less continuous retreat and chaos.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
It has nothing to do with the "easy way". Estimates for the invasion of Japan were 1,000,000. Taking on the numerically and operationally superior Red Army would've made it even worse. There is no realistic way for the US to take on the USSR at the end of 1945, not in a sane world.
Click to expand...

The red army was tiered and relied on US supplies. There was no way the Russians could have sustained a million soldiers in battle for much longer. Using a nuclear devise would have finished their moral as it did the vestiges of fight in the Japanese.
 
joG said:
The red army was tiered and relied on US supplies. There was no way the Russians could have sustained a million soldiers in battle for much longer. Using a nuclear devise would have finished their moral as it did the vestiges of fight in the Japanese.
Click to expand...

By 1945 the entirely of the former USSR had been liberated and was now producing equipment are arms for the Red Army. In just 6 months in 1945, the USSR produced 26,297 armored vehicles, 62,000 artillery pieces, and 68,500 trucks and lorries.

Cutting off lend lease at this point doesn't really do anything; the USSR has recovered it's industrial and resource rich territory from the Nazis and can now pour all of that into war production. Your claim that the Red Army is tired is based on what, exactly? The Soviets had 2,000,000 men reaching military age annually. They have plenty of fresh troops to field, superior operational artists, and unlike the US aren't fighting a two front war.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
By 1945 the entirely of the former USSR had been liberated and was now producing equipment are arms for the Red Army. In just 6 months in 1945, the USSR produced 26,297 armored vehicles, 62,000 artillery pieces, and 68,500 trucks and lorries.

Cutting off lend lease at this point doesn't really do anything; the USSR has recovered it's industrial and resource rich territory from the Nazis and can now pour all of that into war production. Your claim that the Red Army is tired is based on what, exactly? The Soviets had 2,000,000 men reaching military age annually. They have plenty of fresh troops to field, superior operational artists, and unlike the US aren't fighting a two front war.
Click to expand...

You are certainly very optimistic about the Russian situation. I'll leave you that. And you are certainly right that even in rags two million peasants are awesome to see, I'm sure. But you do realize that even Germany in 1945 was producing over 90 percent the Russian GDP. Add in The Brits' Empire and French and you are close to US GDP at that time. Get real. The soviet was a Potemkin mirage. Feeding those two millions under fire would have been a decade beyond its means.
 
joG said:
You are certainly very optimistic about the Russian situation. I'll leave you that. And you are certainly right that even in rags two million peasants are awesome to see, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Right, peasants in rags. In reality, the Soviets produced 6,000,000 submachine guns, and close to 17,400,000 rifles. Enough to arm the Red Army in 1945 and then some.

But you do realize that even Germany in 1945 was producing over 90 percent the Russian GDP.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. German war production was strategically flawed and far more inefficient than Soviet production, which is why Soviet production outstripped the Germans even during the height of German expansion.

Feeding those two millions under fire would have been a decade beyond its means.
Click to expand...

During the Siege of Leningrad the Soviets endured the loss of a million citizens to starvation. The Soviet tolerance for sacrifice is high.

You're also ignoring the fact that the Red Army is an operationally superior force than the Western Allies. They are not evenly matched on the battlefield at all.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
:roll:

Right, peasants in rags. In reality, the Soviets produced 6,000,000 submachine guns, and close to 17,400,000 rifles. Enough to arm the Red Army in 1945 and then some.



Irrelevant. German war production was strategically flawed and far more inefficient than Soviet production, which is why Soviet production outstripped the Germans even during the height of German expansion.



During the Siege of Leningrad the Soviets endured the loss of a million citizens to starvation. The Soviet tolerance for sacrifice is high.

You're also ignoring the fact that the Red Army is an operationally superior force than the Western Allies. They are not evenly matched on the battlefield at all.
Click to expand...

Oh. Nobody said Stalin would have been much worried by the prospect of two or three millions more of his peasantry dead. The loss of guns would have disturbed him more.
 
joG said:
Oh. Nobody said Stalin would have been much worried by the prospect of two or three millions more of his peasantry dead. The loss of guns would have disturbed him more.
Click to expand...

The W. Allies would likely have inflicted heavy causalities and losses in both men and material for the Red Army, had Operation Unthinkable happened. Still would've have won the day for them.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
76 years ago today, on June 22nd, 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Union of Soviet Republics, bringing the USSR into WWII on the unexpected side of the allies. Nearly 4 million German and Axis Allies (Hungarian, Finns, Slovaks, Romanians and Italians) commenced Operation Barbarossa. Within months, thanks largely to the poor state of the Red Army, the Ostheer (East Army) had inflicted nearly 5 million Soviet casualties, either killed, captured or wounded. To the Nazis the invasion of the USSR wasn't just another conflict, it was a "Vernichtungskrieg", a war of annihilation. To the Nazis, the purpose of the war was to rid the world of the "Jewish-Bolshevik" collaboration that had been 'poisining' the world, and to finally subdue the "Asiatic hordes" that had threatened Europe for so long. Under these principles the Nazis would commit horrible crimes in the Eastern front, slaughtering nearly 20 million Slavs, gypsies, Jews, and other groups they considered sub humans.

It's a shame that the Red Army served Joseph Stalin, a man as evil and brutal as Hitler himself, but in the end it was the sacrifice of millions of Soviet men and women that enabled the destruction of over a hundred German divisions and 70% of the material losses of the Wehrmacht. Between the invasion of the USSR and the declaration of war on the United States, Hitler doomed Nazi Germany to defeat, either through atomic bombing or through hordes of Red Army divisions and mechanized forces.
Click to expand...

Russia provided a vacuum wherein Hitler through almost everything he had - and it got sucked up.
 
joG said:
Yes. It was smart of FDR to support Uncle Joe so well.

But it was almost certainly a mistake not to take him out in 1945.
Click to expand...

So, condemn the Soviets for imperial expansionism, and then argue that the Soviets should be taken out, but that that's not somehow expansionist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom