3 ms·

"No Simple Victory", by Norman Davies used material released only after the USSR fell in the early 90s.

the_af 4y ago
Same with David Glantz. Though unlike the author of this article, he acknowledges it was pretty much the Soviet Union which defeated Nazi Germany.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  Two dictators' totalitarian despotries slugging it out while the US and Britain mostly watch, and chip in materiel when the marginally preferred one runs low; and then move in to mop up before western Europe gets engulfed by the winner, leaving eastern Europe to suffer under them for another almost 50 years. Promoting industrial production is a way of taking away credit from the millions of soldiers who actually went and died using it. The US did do a fair bit of naval work in the second half. And Russia was always openly appreciative of the Hormel SPAM.
  - InTheArena 4y ago
    The reason a euro-centric, Russia-centric view doesn’t work here is: 1( A huge portion of Russian casualties came not because of Nazi, but total and complete ineptitude on the part of the Russian commanders, and later in the war, casual disregard of strategy in favor of brute force, no matter the casualties. 2) it completely ignores the pacific theaters which the United States, Australia and New Zealand took on, but the rest of the allied and axis powers could not physically do anything in, until the very last minutes of the war. 3) Once you dig into the numbers, the American aid to both GB and Russia kept both countries in the war in 1942. the Americans where literally disassembling their power plants, steel mills, and entire classes of aircraft and shipping them to Russia. Sean McMeekin’s breaks the numbers down pretty well. Russias own industrial renaissance was enabled by the exporting of American industrialization and equipment.
    - the_af 4y ago
      > 1( A huge portion of Russian casualties came not because of Nazi, but total and complete ineptitude on the part of the Russian commanders, and later in the war, casual disregard of strategy in favor of brute force, no matter the casualties. Careful with rehashing German canards about the USSR, repeated to their American interlocutors, and which mostly absolved the Wehrmacht of their own mistakes. "We were brilliant, it's just that the Soviet 'asiatic horde' was too numerous and didn't care about casualties". This has been shown to be false in more recent studies, less influenced by Cold War thinking. (For example: Glantz shows the frequent outnumbering of Soviets vs Germans was often due to concentration of force -- the Soviets weakened some sectors to overwhelm Germans in others, which is a sound tactic which the Germans failed to understand or prevent again and again, and who made them claim the Soviets were "a horde"). The conclusion of experts is also that as the war went on, Soviet strategic and operational thinking got better, not worse, while Germany's followed the opposite direction (and correspondingly, Stalin's confidence in his generals grew, while Hitler's weakened). They became masters at deception and strategic maneuver, it was just at the tactical level that the Germans were consistently better. As for casualties, well, Nazi Germany was hell-bent on eradicating the "surplus" Slav race from Eastern Europe, so... The fighting on the Eastern Front was savage and unlike what the Western Allies faced because the Germans were engaged in a war of extermination, and the casualties reflected this. "It's not that the Germans were murdering them by the millions, it's that they were bad at defending themselves" is an odd argument. > it completely ignores the pacific theaters which the United States, Australia and New Zealand took on It doesn't ignore them, it's just that those theaters weren't as instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany as the Soviet Union's contribution to the war. It's just that the Pacific War looms larger in American culture, for understandable reasons. > Once you dig into the numbers, the American aid to both GB and Russia kept both countries in the war in 1942 It's ok to bring attention to American industrial might and their very helpful assistance to the USSR, but it's even better to remember it was the Soviets who defeated Nazi Germany. It's the Soviets who heroically defended Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, against all odds. It's the Soviets who disassembled whole factories and relocated them in record time to the Urals when they fell threatened by the German advance. It was the Soviets who, with Operation Bagration, inflicted the single largest military defeat on Nazi Germany (we have heard plenty about Normandy, why so little about Bagration?). Especially since all of this was downplayed for political reasons during the Cold War.

Same with David Glantz. Though unlike the author of this article, he acknowledges it was pretty much the Soviet Union which defeated Nazi Germany.

pencilguin 4y ago
Two dictators' totalitarian despotries slugging it out while the US and Britain mostly watch, and chip in materiel when the marginally preferred one runs low; and then move in to mop up before western Europe gets engulfed by the winner, leaving eastern Europe to suffer under them for another almost 50 years. Promoting industrial production is a way of taking away credit from the millions of soldiers who actually went and died using it. The US did do a fair bit of naval work in the second half. And Russia was always openly appreciative of the Hormel SPAM.
- InTheArena 4y ago
  The reason a euro-centric, Russia-centric view doesn’t work here is: 1( A huge portion of Russian casualties came not because of Nazi, but total and complete ineptitude on the part of the Russian commanders, and later in the war, casual disregard of strategy in favor of brute force, no matter the casualties. 2) it completely ignores the pacific theaters which the United States, Australia and New Zealand took on, but the rest of the allied and axis powers could not physically do anything in, until the very last minutes of the war. 3) Once you dig into the numbers, the American aid to both GB and Russia kept both countries in the war in 1942. the Americans where literally disassembling their power plants, steel mills, and entire classes of aircraft and shipping them to Russia. Sean McMeekin’s breaks the numbers down pretty well. Russias own industrial renaissance was enabled by the exporting of American industrialization and equipment.
  - the_af 4y ago
    > 1( A huge portion of Russian casualties came not because of Nazi, but total and complete ineptitude on the part of the Russian commanders, and later in the war, casual disregard of strategy in favor of brute force, no matter the casualties. Careful with rehashing German canards about the USSR, repeated to their American interlocutors, and which mostly absolved the Wehrmacht of their own mistakes. "We were brilliant, it's just that the Soviet 'asiatic horde' was too numerous and didn't care about casualties". This has been shown to be false in more recent studies, less influenced by Cold War thinking. (For example: Glantz shows the frequent outnumbering of Soviets vs Germans was often due to concentration of force -- the Soviets weakened some sectors to overwhelm Germans in others, which is a sound tactic which the Germans failed to understand or prevent again and again, and who made them claim the Soviets were "a horde"). The conclusion of experts is also that as the war went on, Soviet strategic and operational thinking got better, not worse, while Germany's followed the opposite direction (and correspondingly, Stalin's confidence in his generals grew, while Hitler's weakened). They became masters at deception and strategic maneuver, it was just at the tactical level that the Germans were consistently better. As for casualties, well, Nazi Germany was hell-bent on eradicating the "surplus" Slav race from Eastern Europe, so... The fighting on the Eastern Front was savage and unlike what the Western Allies faced because the Germans were engaged in a war of extermination, and the casualties reflected this. "It's not that the Germans were murdering them by the millions, it's that they were bad at defending themselves" is an odd argument. > it completely ignores the pacific theaters which the United States, Australia and New Zealand took on It doesn't ignore them, it's just that those theaters weren't as instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany as the Soviet Union's contribution to the war. It's just that the Pacific War looms larger in American culture, for understandable reasons. > Once you dig into the numbers, the American aid to both GB and Russia kept both countries in the war in 1942 It's ok to bring attention to American industrial might and their very helpful assistance to the USSR, but it's even better to remember it was the Soviets who defeated Nazi Germany. It's the Soviets who heroically defended Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, against all odds. It's the Soviets who disassembled whole factories and relocated them in record time to the Urals when they fell threatened by the German advance. It was the Soviets who, with Operation Bagration, inflicted the single largest military defeat on Nazi Germany (we have heard plenty about Normandy, why so little about Bagration?). Especially since all of this was downplayed for political reasons during the Cold War.