"Why did the USSR defeat Germany in WW2?" Topic

Hi

What would yoy see as the main reasons why the USSR defeated Nazi Germany 1941 – 1945? I'm teaching a group of Yr 10s (14/15 yr olds) about this and would like then to see the views of those who are serious students of military History to compare against their research. Thankyou in advance
Rob

Relative to the Soviets, the Germans had little supplies spread over a great big area with a tactical doctrine that didn't plan for long, drawn out warfare.

I wasn't aware that the Russians beat Germany. I was always under the impression that it was a team effort

Then Kawasaki, I believe you're mistaken.

Keine Tiefrüstung an der deutschen Seite.

That was what my German history teacher said.

Not prepared for a war of attrition and several strategic FU's by high command.

Then Kawasaki, I believe you're mistaken.

The United States, Great Britain and the Empire, France and the other allies needn't have bothered then?

The question would have been better phrased as "why couldn't the Germans defeat the Soviet Union in WW2?". To suggest that the USSR was solely responsible for Germany's defeat is somewhat foolish

I think the real answer lies some where between the two views. I doubt either side could have succeeded without the others actions. Although, the German blunders certainly played their role as well.

LLC aka Ron

Stalin's take on who won the war, as related to an American (Truman perhaps?):

"Our blood, your steel."

I personally don't think the Soviets could have pulled it off without the strategic distraction caused by the Western Allies.

That, and all the Spam.

I'd have to say that without lend-lease, the Soviets may not have been so successful in their efforts and the resources used to try to keep the western allies away may have made a significant difference against the Russians.

That's my opinion, though.

IIRC my figures 81% of the german army was in the USSR before 1944. After D-day, 70% stayed there. So the soviets definitely tied up and grinded down most of the german army.
And while that does not means that they would have won by themselves, they certainly did most of the dying. Real numbers will never be known, but an estimated 24-32 million soviets died during the war (not all of them military, civilians are included).

Bottom line is, they had the manpower needed, and used it ruthlessly.

Try reading Norman Davies, Europe at War may shed some light on it
Just finished it food for thought
hope it is of some use

As was stated before Lend lease provided a huge multiplier to the Soviet force. Every truck uniform or bite of food that wasn't manufactured in the USSR meant that much more could be devoted to producing tanks rifles aircraft artillery and munitions. Then lets not discount the fact that the Western Allies were bombing German production back into the stone age. If the USSR had to go it alone ALL the production of Germany would have gone to the East

Main reasons for Germany loosing…

numbers and Hitler

The Soviets had the numbers… they could afford high numbers of losses in both men and materiel due to the fact that the former were plenty and the later more easy to manufacture (less time and resources). Also they had the economies of botht he UK and the USA supporting it, both lend lease and food supplies played a large part in the USSR being able to substain their numbers.
Also it should not be forgotten that training of German troops was higher and therefore a loss also took longer to replace due to training. When training time was reduced the quality of troops could not match the emands placed upon them by the tactics.

The other big problem was Hitler. His insistance that no ground should be given cost too many of the precious troops since it robbed commanders on the ground of the option for tactical or even strategic withdrawls. Also his micromanagement (and military inability) often lead to the wrong decisions and drew reaction time out to days at times. The effective and good commandrs who ignored this or complained to often were sacked and replaced by less efficient ones which only enforced this problem.
Hitlers orders on the treatment of the population meant that a felling of not caring who ruled them even happyness at the German "liberators" often changed to one of hate. This dennied the German troops a safe rear for thousands of kilometers which sucked up troops that could have been used at the front and made resupply harder and less efficient.

Cheers,

Burkhard

This is a list of Lend Lease items that went the the USSR>

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

Check off the ones you like:

Germans believed their own propaganda.

German army as excellent as it was in 1941 was geared and wired for only short, sharp wars.

The Russians could absorb 11 million war dead and still beat their brains out.

General Mud.

Didn't hurt the Russian cause of have a madman running Germany.

Bad planning.

8th US Air Force impacted German production, transportation, and oil.

Invasions of Russia from the west, usually fail.

Sew the wind; reap the whirlwind.

Photonred, an impressive list, and yes, I'm sure it was bitterly needed by the Soviets, but let's keep in mind that of those tanks only 4.000 were Shermans, the rest obsolete, while the Soviet production for medium and heavy tanks, plus SP guns, was around 87.000 for the whole of the war.

Yes the Allied war effort was important but the war was lost for Germany in the East. Everything I have read indicates Stalin was more likely to listen to his Generals than Hitler was, and that made a big difference. Russian losses were indeed colossal. Anthony Beavoir's books on Stalingrad and Berlin make good reading. Nazi policy also prevented the emergence of a coherent Russian anti communist movement that might have fragmented Russian resistance and allegiance to the State.

Think also about the severe winters in Russia. No wonder that Hitler planned to finish the war before winter.

The only way the Germans could have made up the difference in manpower would have been to have enrolled the Russians in an anti-Stalinst movement, like the Vlasov Army; but Nazi racial policies, linked or not to the old German designs on the Ukraine, made this a non-starter.

"A War To Be Won" by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett.

Gross simplifications (by me): Germans were a non-mechanized army trying to defeat a power that could be pushed back farther than the Germans could supply their own army. Quality could not defeat quanity in such a situation.

German did not have the industrial depth and organization to compete with the Soviets (and the Western Allies).

The bulk of the Soviet industrial effort was beyond Germany's ability to attack.

Germany was not prepared for a long drawn out war in terms of economic and military organization.

Germany had no strategic plans from the start, but lurched from one crisis to another.

Germany's insistance on fighting a "racial" war in the east, rather than a "political" war doomed any chances that they might have had to divide and conquer the Soviets.

Declaring war on the US just as the entire German effort collasped in early December 1941 was golden (and the worst single decision made by Hitler during the war).

The refusal of the Soviets to accept defeat and their willingness to pay the price to win (no other nation made the effort, or paid the human cost that the Soviets did).

The aid the Western Allies sent did not make much of a difference in the first year of the war when the Soviets could have been defeated, so it is difficult to consider such aid as having had much impact in 1941 to early 1942, and the Americans did not start sending much aid until 1942 so one can made a case that it was not until roughly late 1942, or early 1943 that Western Allied aid had an impact, and by then the Soviets were on the offensive (they had stopped and survived Germany's best efforts).

Western Allied bombing campaigns had little major impact on German war production until early 1944, so it is difficult to claim that the bombing was defeating Germany. It did suck up much of the German fighter strength and a lot of AA weapons and crews that could have been used in the east, but again, not a decisive force.

Where the Western Allies played an important, if not decisive part was in the naval blockage that denied Germany the industrial materials it needed, the supply of resistance/terrorist groups through out occupied Europe, forcing Germany to support Italy, and the constant threat of invasion that tied down more and more German troops as the war went on. It is in this regard that one must be careful of which time period that one is discussing when making arguments for and against Western Allied aid (physical and material) being of a particular inportance.

One comes to the conclusion that while the Soviets could not have defeated Germany (as quickly, or as easily), that Germany had no real chance of defeating the Soviets. The Soviet Union was a tar pit that Hitler jumped into and could never escape having once done so.

Dan

The main reason(s) why the USSR won was because they were part of a multinational alliance against the Axis powers. They certainly didn't do it all by themselves!

Lend-Lease, forcing the Germans to fight on 2 or 3 fronts, constant strategic bombing by western allies, etc. all contributed to denying Germany the means (and will) to resist. Your students would be well served if they understand that "War is imposing your will upon your enemy by denying him the means to resist." It took a joint effort to beat the axis powers. To think that just one of the allied countries was solely responsible is simply irresponsible!

What good were all those Tiger and Panther tanks, operational jet aircraft and guided missles if they could not be sustained and maintained in combat? Another thing to teach your students is that "Ameturs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics." This lesson can be found in everyday life! Simple example: You like to eat Corn Flakes for breakfast. In order to have them, a trip to the store for them, milk and sugar will be required. Money will need to be taken to pay for the goods. Does the car have gas in it so you can get to the store? Is it cold or rainy outside? Should you wear your coat? Well, you now get the idea!

Gamers all too often take such mundne details for granted, but in reality, could never fight a battle if their soldiers did not get the food, water, clothing, equipment, training, transportation, shelter, etc. before, during and after the battle. Lack of any of the above will seriously alter their ability to fight and win. Why fight a war unless you have a decent chance to win? It takes "might" to make "right".

As for the horrendus Russian casualties, blame Stalin. He purged his best leaders right before the war. Their replacements had to pay for their training with the blood of their soldiers and needless loss of equipment and supplies. With what they had to work with, they used. Maybe not the most efficient way, but good enough to HELP win the war!

BTW, please explain to them the politics behind allowing the Russians to take Berlin….another interesting story in history!

Good luck with your class! Hats off to you for teaching the truth!

Best,
Tom Dye
GFI

Gungnir threw out: <<but let's keep in mind that of those tanks only 4.000 were Shermans, the rest obsolete,>>

That should not matter except for wargamers obsessed with comparing Tigers vs them. There are many instances in history where inferior armaments won wars by superior employment of those systems. (Vietnam first comes to mind.)

The Russians could have used them for local support, as an example, on portions of the front(s) where little German armor was present. In such local situations, an armored vehicle would have been worth it's weight in gold…even if it was consdiered to be "obsolete " at the time. Also, those "obsolete" tanks could be used to pull neavy guns, trailers loaded with building supplies, etc. Their use could have been exploited in roles other than "vs. Tiger" uses.

There's more to WWII than an 80 page rulebook and it's suppliments! 8>) (But Gungnir, I KNOW you already knew that!) I just wanted to point out that even though 4,000 of those tanks were obsolete, they still had the potential to be of service to Russia…provided they had the "smarts" to best employ them.

Cheers!

Tom Dye
GFI

The Soviets won due to superior strategy and operational art.

Paul hit on the non-technical reason.

The German army and occupation was too brutal and didn'yt have a very applealing political strategy (slight understatement!)- that politically ment that Stalin could hold Russia together and that the germans drove of many of their protental allies , within the Soviet Union. Also the population of Greater Germany and actual Russian are far closer that pre-wa Germany and the USSR, so less of a reason than often stated, i think. Why did the Germans win in WW1 in Russia- I'd say because of the above political reasons to a large degree.

Tom Dye, I only emphasized the 4.000 modern tanks because I also did not include outmoded or light Soviet equipment in my count. I'm afraid you read the rest into it yourself.

Dan Cyr writes: <<Western Allied bombing campaigns had little major impact on German war production until early 1944, so it is difficult to claim that the bombing was defeating Germany. It did suck up much of the German fighter strength and a lot of AA weapons and crews that could have been used in the east, but again, not a decisive force.>>

I agree with all you posted but this. (And remember, before Barbarossa, Russia was a German Ally.)

While you are correct in that bombing campaigns did little (but some) material damage to the German war effort, it did serve to demoralize the population. Bombing both day and night served to wear down those factory worker's potential. (As evidence, see how many forced laborers were employed in German factories!) It served to get many Germans to seek active ways to overthrow Hitler. Which also resulted in sapping yet more German resources to counter these "threats" that were badly needed elsewhere.

To dismiss the bombing on the basis of material good alone is misleading. Wars are fought by people. It takes the will of all the people in a warring nation to stand together to win. If you can create cracks in that bond, you are practicing warfare….imposing your will upon the enemy by denying him the means to resist. (That includes the enemy's will to resist or seek alternative means for an end game in your favor!)

Very good posts!

Tom Dye
GFI

I recall reading that the German's initial advanced into Russia were pretty successful. The Russians fell back, but did so using a scorched earth policy leaving nothing the Germans could use to support themselves. As has happened with many many armies through histor, the Germans advanced farther than their logistics could support them. The supply convoys/trains became targets to Russian resistance and such groups.

The Russian winter coupled with the supply issue did a great number on the German ability to fight and as stated, the Russian tenacity pretty well screwed the German army. IMO though, had Russia been forced to go it alone and Hitler not made the mistake of opening more than a single front that divided his army and resources Germany would have won eventually…at a rather Pyhrric price.

However, given Hitlers multi-front mistake and the Japanese lighting off the righteous indignation of the US so that we actually became committed as a nation to the defeat of the Axis powers…The only way Germany could have won against Russia and the allies was to have successfully developed and deployed the atomic bomb first, which they also failed to do (and probably would have used far less discriminately than the US did).

Not to put to fine a point on it but for ALL the efforts put in by the western Allies NOT JUST THE BLOODY USA. Would mean that ALL of Germany's forces/industry would have been available FROM THE START of offensive action against the USSR. Yes Hitler Sucked as a Commander In Chief and that played an important factor in how German forces were MISS used but to just waive your hands and state that the efforts of the west were not significant in defeating Germany is ludicrous

Gungnir: Fair dinkum. I should have quoted the difference between those numbers.

Rich Bliss: What "superior Operational art"? When their expendature of resources vs gains is studied, their "operational art" was about on par to their remaining military expertise, heavily forced by imbedded party members (where most had little or no training in matters military) who overruled the generals for political reasons.

Can you offer some examples of their superior operational art and strategies? Perhaps I also have misread your post?

Best,
Tom Dye
GFI

Without the Soviets taking on the bulk of the German Army and the Western Allies supporting the Soviet effort with supplies and smaller operations til D-Day, the Germans would have won.

It was a team effort where each side added what they did best to victory. That's what allies are for.

Most important number on the items given to the Soviets was not tanks, or machine guns or cannon, but

375,883 Trucks.

Good, strong, start everytime, dependable, made in the USA trucks that will haul all the supplies your forces need.

If you have the trucks given to you, you can make more tanks, machine guns and cannon.

My view on the issue of obsolete tanks? Any Japanese tank in W.W. II is a joke compared to Western designs. Unless you don't happen to have any good AT weapons available.

Then that Ha-Go looks like a Tiger tank if all you have is a rifle and one hand grenade.

During the '48 war in Israel, a Syrian unit had 5 old French H-35's. An obsolete tank by any standards in '48, but they were the terror in the area because there was no effective weapon against them. The Israelis move up 2 Cromwells (the only 2 they had) into that area after getting beaten up by these Syrian tanks several times and after the first engagement, the H-35's were not longer a problem.

It's not how big your tank is, it's how and where you use it.

Tom,

Bagration 1944 was a well planned and developed operation.

As for the short answer to Robbie7 question I would say that Germany has less human and material resources to win a protracted struggle than the Allies. Her racial policy eliminated politics from the equation, i.e. her leadership put aside Clausewitz's dictum and decided that war was fought as an absolute against the Soviets: no pacts, no negotiations… nothing. Otherwise Hitler would have negotiated with Stalin a surrender of URSS in november 1941 and Stalin would have probably jumped to the oportunity.

But once the Nazis decided that war could only have a result -the absolute submission of the enemy- they were bound to lose, because their enemies were bigger, more populated, with a stronger industrial base, ecc.

Of course, Hitler's mistakes -specially his strange allocation of resources to I+D- counted for a faster defeat. But Germany, simply put, couldn't win without physically destroying her enemies. And that proved to be more difficult than her leaders foresaw.

Best

A big place Russia and eventually very good Generals and lots of well motivated and equipped troops were too much for Germany. The high quality of Russian armaments did make an impact too. I dont think the Nazi's could have won in Russia for all the reasons others have outlined above. They did however kill an awful lot of people. No other nation suffered on the same scale as the Russians. At the time this was widely recognised in the West.

One example of why the Germans lost came as a respone to Bagration 1944 (the destruction of Army Group Center). Marshal Model was tasked with putting a line back together after the Soviets ripped a huge hole in the previous line and killed or captured 250,000 Germans. He scraped the depots and anywhere else in the rear he could for troops and stopped fugitives running away from the front.

Model was waiting for 60 trainloads of weapons and supplies to re-equip his forces. Then he was informed that the trains were being used by the Gestapo, undoubtedly to take Jews and other undesireables to death camps.

Too much land, too many Russians, too many allies.

Tell your kids to look at it this way – it was sort of like Texas taking on all of the rest of North America, and part of South America. Sure, everything's bigger in Texas, but they'd be biting off mnore than they could chew, most likely.
-Kle.

I can't add much to what has been discussed already, It is really cold here, and the place is huge!

I can tell you that if you ever come over to Russia (Moscow), when you take the taxi ride from SVO 2 to downtown look to the right as you exit the airport and you will see a big monument in the form of a steel girder tank trap. It marks the point where they stopped the German advance at the outskirts of Moscow.

I have driven past it dozens of times, and it still sends a little chill down my spine.

More.

In the same vein as Oddball's comment:

On the Lend-Lease list, the two items that kept the Russians alive were the 15 million pairs of boots, and the 375,000 trucks.

You could take everything else on the list, and the Russians still could have pulled it out. Take away Lend-Lease boots and trucks, though, and the Russians lose the war.

While you are correct in that bombing campaigns did little (but some) material damage to the German war effort,

I agree with both of you except for this point. The Allied bombing campaigns did considerable material damage to the German war effort.

The problem, from an Intelligence point of view, was that Germany didn't put the economy onto a war footing until 1945. That's why, even at the height of the bombing, German production appeared to rise! It was because previously uncommitted industrial resources were converted to the war effort because of the loss of existing capacity (due to bombing).

The German strategy assumed that if the Germans killed and captured millions of Russian soldiers, the army and state would collapse. They Russians didn't, and the German plan from that point onwards was pretty much obsolete.

What "superior Operational art"? Well, Kursk, Vistula-Oder, Dnepr 1943, Bagration and Uranus, to name but a few operations in which Russian forces outfought, outmaneuvered and completely deceived opposing German forces to achieve enormous victories.

Never start a land war in Asia.

The Germans were over-confident, and the Soviets brutally bloody-minded.

The Germans also treated their allies badly (not supplying them with ammo at crucial moments etc.)and their racial policies made enemies of nations within the Soviet Union who hated the Russians.

But then if they hadn't been stupid, they wouldn't have been Nazis.

Not helped by equipment not designed for Russian conditions (overlapped tank wheels freeze together, initially no winter clothing) coupled with some unusually harsh winters.

Robbie, you will mention the Germans nearly did win?
I think the ultimate reason for their loss to the Soviets was the Russian will to win.

There was a candid tape recording made of Hitler discussing Russian situation with some of his advisors. (Some guards were setting up a tape recorder and had the microphone in Hitler's conference room on.)
He was assessing the quantity of tanks the Russians were making. Is goes something like "If you were to tell me in 1940 that Russia could produce 35,000 tanks I never would believe it."

'The United States, Great Britain and the Empire, France and the other allies needn't have bothered then?'

Kawasaki, I'm intrigued. What did France do in the Second World War other than surrender as soon as possible?

The Nazi leadership had an army that was ideal for Western Europe where good road and rail networks made supply easy. Serious lack of long range bombers meant that the Russians could move vital industries out of the Nazi's reach.

A lack of raw materials in Germany itself and an economy that was not geared up for total war in the first years of the war, coupled with a search for super weapons meant that much needed equipment was delayed. Favoured formations getting priority meant regular army units went without.

Hitler's insistence in never giving ground left many thousands to their fate.

The vast size of the Soviet Union and is sheer overwhelming manpower, backed by the industrial might of the USA as well as the very proficient Soviet war industries meant that the Germans would always lose the battle of supply. Coupled with the fact that the Russians utilised the Female half of their population, where as the Germans tried to discourage housewives from taking up roles in the economy let alone the military.

The toughness of the Russian solider that became highly adept at improvising, adapting, and overcoming. The Russians had done what no other army could do, they had survived crippling blows that had knocked Western armies out of the fight early in the war, and had replaced these lost men, equipment and grew stronger and stronger. Where as the Germans found that they where growing weaker with every year. It is by no accident that the Russians found that they where a superpower in 1945, the Russians deserved it.

As a Brit I am proud of our and the Commonwealths contribution to final victory, and I fully recognise the debt we owe the Americans, but lets face it the Russians did the majority of the fighting from 1941-43, and it was the Russians that smashed the Nazi state into rubble.

I'd say Hitler and his insistence that Stalingrad fell, he wouldn't let his commanders attempt to break out when surrounded, the Luftwaffe for insisiting to Hitler they could resupply the troops caught in the pocket at Stalingrad, the lack of equipment and supplies for a winter campaign on the German side of things, superior Russian numbers and stubborness, and the fact Germany was trying to fight Russia and the Allies on numerous fronts.

The Russians had more land, more people, and better allies. The Germans had to beat them quickly, or not at all – and the country was just too big to be beat quickly.

The Soviets did more their share of dying and killing Germans and/or Nazis, compared to the western allies (we still lost quite a few). I heard 20 million dead or so, some killed by Stalin and the Soviet state too, i.e., the ethic groups sent to Siberia for helping the Hitlerite forces, the people of Leningrad starved and dying of cold during the siege ( Stalin didn't like the political independence of the Leningraders and wouldn't send enough food etc.). Noone really knows who killed the all those russians, or how many died, but they stopped the germans.

1) General Winter
2) General Mud
3) Poor German planning (no winter gear, etc.) and General Overconfidence
4) Not enough german supplies, tanks, planes, soldiers, gas, food, etc.
5) Too many T-34 tanks
6) Too many PE-2 attack planes
7) Loss of the Battle of Stalingrad and (1 million German soldiers captured and dead)
8) Loss of Battle of Moscow (huge amounts of German dead and material lost)
9) Loss of Battle of Leningrad (see above)
10) Too many Soviet soldiers.
11) General Zukov and the other Soviet generals learned German tactics and used them with their massive manpower and firepower.
12) Stalin finally let the Soviet generals do their job.
13) Hitler didn't allow his generals to make tactical and strategic decisions to save their men and material.
14) The western allies won in North Africa, Sicily, Southern Italy, France, Southern France, Belgium, and ultimately the Heimat ( Western Germany)
15) Massive material support for Soviets from the West.
16) All the things those other gents said.
17) Hitler was pretty nuts by the end.
18) Stalin wasn't as nuts as Hitler.
19) Soviets had shorter supply lines.
20) Soviet Union is huge!
21) Soviets used their own walking privates to clear german land mines for Soviet tanks- they were brutal.
22) General Buck Turgidson said it best, " Those Rooskies killed a lot of them Nazis!"

What about the "Mussolini factor"? His catastrophic invasion of Greece caused Hitler to divert troops from Operation Barbarossa to drive the British out of Greece in early 1941. This side-show pushed back the invasion date set for Barbarossa from mid-April to June 22, 1941. Had the Germans had those 6 weeks back, they may very well have taken Moscow before the snow and cold weather halted their offensive. Had Moscow fallen in September or October, Stalin may well have been killed or captured and then who would have led Russian resistence?

The generalizations in this discusion are always the same. The Germans lost because of the overwhelming resources of the Soviets, Lend-Lease, and the meddling of Hitler. I am a Soviet gamer and I see it differently.
The Soviets had overwhelming numerical superiority in 1941 (4 to 1 in equipment). They had more and better tanks, aircraft, and artillery (Most was obsolete, but even the modern stuff outnumbered the Germans). Their navy was more than adequate against the Germans. It was Stalin's meddling that gave the Germans even a ghost of a chance. The purge of the officer corps before the war and his insistance on positioning most of the best units of the Soviet army on the front lines where they were easily surrounded gave the Germans their early victories.
A good example is the Soviet 76.2mm/L51 field/anti tank gun. After the first couple weeks of the fighting there were more of these captured weapons in the German inventory than in the Soviet, and they were the only weapons that could defeat the more modern Soviet armor. To save time, the Soviets had to replace them with inferior guns manufactured with shorter barrels and lower muzzle velocity.
If Stalin had maintained a more effective defensive posture early on, reserved his best troops, waited for the arrival of Zhukov and the Red Banner army from Manchuria, and not killed most of his officers, the war probably would have been over by Spring of 1942.
The real issue is not whether the Germans could have won if they were luckier, it's why were they lucky enough to get as far as they did?