And how would they have fed those troops and moved the supplies to keep all of those tanks and planes moving towards Germany without all of the trucks and other supplies we (the other allies) gave them? There is a cascading effect that would have been caused by taking those supplies out. It wasn’t just a convenience for the Soviets to have a few extra tanks and planes, it was vital that they got the trucks, uniforms, food, medicines, machine tools, ammo, myriad other things AND a few more tanks and planes as well. Without the aggregate they couldn’t have done what they did in the way they did it.
Again, this is revisionist history to try and say the Soviets could have done it all on their own and didn’t really NEED any help. They absolutely did, especially early on but even later it’s what allowed them to become the Juggernaut they eventually became…and even THEN, at the height of their military power they took sickening losses and expended unreal amounts of supplies getting from Russia through Eastern Europe and into Germany. Something they wouldn’t have been able to do without the help of the other major and even minor allies.
So the Soviets needed us to build trains for them. Because the technology was beyond them.
Now I’ll grant you: the United States did build the majority of the locomotives and rail cars the Soviet Union had during WWII. (And as a historical note, the same was true during WWI.) But I don’t agree that the Soviet Union was somehow incapable of building its own rolling stock if it had needed to. Even in the middle of a war.
eta: And in response to XT, the same is true about trucks. Yes, the United States build most of the trucks the Soviet Union used in WWII. But there’s no reason why the Soviet Union couldn’t have built its own trucks if it had needed to.
Sure, they COULD build trucks and grow food and make clothes and even make locomotives, but you don’t seem to grasp the fact that they didn’t have unlimited production capabilities, especially early one when their factories were being overrun or destroyed and they were trying desperately to move production to out of the way places where the Germans weren’t likely to get to very quickly. Something would have had to give. To build trucks and trains, that means they build less planes and tanks…which means they have less to fight the Germans…which means that the ungodly number destroyed hurts them more…which means they need more…which means their production gets strapped more…which means they lose more battles, territory, men and material…
Oh no, they had the technology (rather outdated, of course). What they didnt have were the factories or the time. Some factories were destroyed in the fighting, but rolling stock normally last a looong time, thus there’s not much demand for quick manufacture. But most of the Soviets rolling stock was destroyed or captured by the Germans. Suddenly there was a hundred times ordinary demand, thus the Soviets would have needed to bring on line many many factories very very quickly- and rolling stock is just not something that gets made that fast- especially due to the fact it takes a lot of raw materials. It was simply impossible for the USSR to replace the rolling stock by itself in time.
And as far as trucks? Sure- but if you’re building trucks you’re not building planes or tanks.
and you forget raw material :*In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement: The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. * (from Pravda of all sources!)
The Allies provided: 92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
56% of all aluminum
53% of all copper
57% of all aviation fuel
74% of all truck transport.
74% of all vehicle tires.
My point is this. Whatever supply problems the Soviet Union faced, Germany faced bigger problems.
Now if Germany had been able to land on a knockout blow on the Soviet Union in the first few months of the war (which is how Germany defeated France) then the comparative economies of the two countries wouldn’t have been a factor.
But after that initial period, the war was going to settle down to a slugging match. It was going to be about who could outlast the other. The country that could produce more gas and bullets and artillery shells and planes and tanks and trucks - and put more soldiers in the field - would be the eventual winner.
And the bottom line was the Soviet Union had a deeper economic base than Germany had. Especially when the Soviet Union could focus almost all its efforts against Germany while Germany had to split its efforts between fighting the Soviets, fighting the British and Americans, and holding down occupied Europe. The result was the Soviet Union had more people, more resources, more factories, and more land than Germany had.
Keep in mind the Soviets had an entire economic base built up behind the Urals. Soviet military production was in places like Nizhny Tagil, the center of tank production - which was over eight hundred miles behind the front line when Germany was at its furthest point.
Put aside lend lease and compare German and Soviet wartime production: the Soviet Union built 136,000 aircraft during the war, Germany built 133,000; the Soviet Union built 517,000 artillery pieces during the war, Germany built 73,000; the Soviet Union built 106,000 tanks during the war, Germany built 67,000; the Soviet Union produced 111,000,000 tons of oil during the war, Germany produced 33,000,000.
Germany’s only hope had been that the Soviet regime would collapse. Once that failed to happen, Germany’s defeat was just a matter of time.
Many, if not most, of the points raised in the thread are still valid.
The author somehow figures that the US would have ramped up its military production as much in a cold war as a hot one. That’s questionable in the extreme.
It also assumes a cold war would have been aided by long supply lines in a now unwieldy Japanese empire, providing opportunities for harassment at the periphery and a chance for economic sanctions to work. That’s also questionable.
It also assumes that US naval carrier based tactics/strategy would have developed the same without active war experience.
It’s worth noting this professor is in political science, rather than of history and seems to assume large portions of history (military production, massive government deficit spending, wartime resource allocation, strategic advances, technological advances) would hold constant despite a huge change in conditions. That’s a BIG assumption that is unwarranted. The sheer difference in wartime economy vs the rather laggard recovery from the Great Depression up to that point alone destroys that point.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
My point is this. Whatever supply problems the Soviet Union faced, Germany faced bigger problems.
[/QUOTE]
But the Soviets had the allies providing them with materials, and that is what actually made the difference in the end. Coupled with the large number of Russians, and the willingness of the Soviet government to throw away men like water it was too much for the Germans. But it was the supplies the allies were giving the Soviets that allowed them to get back on their feet and produce all of that stuff they produced AND support it in increasingly offensive operations against the Germans.
And especially with the massive amounts of materials the other allies were supplying to the Russians. Look, no one here is down playing what the Russians were able to do. They did the majority of the fighting and the dying on the allied side. But the only thing that allowed them to do that was that steady and increasing stream of goods and materials the other allies were providing to them.
Again, they were able to produce all of that because they didn’t have to produce all of the other stuff that we gave them. They were able to produce all of that because of the raw materials we gave them. And even WITH all of that, the Soviets lost somewhere between 8 and 13 MILLION soldiers (compared to 4-5 million the Germans lost…and that number included those killed by not just the Russians but the other allies as well and, again, WITH all of the stuff we gave the Russians to enable them to fight).
You are revising history without accounting for the what the costs would have been if they hadn’t had allied assistance (btw, there was more to allied assistance to the Russians than Lend Lease…not sure if you realize this to be honest). They would have had less of everything, especially initially…less tanks, less planes, less food, less trains, less trucks, less uniforms…just less. This would have had an even greater impact on the early fighting…early fighting that they often lost heavily btw, which means they would have needed even more to replace what they lost. Where was that going to come from when they would have had to also make all the other stuff we gave them and do it with less raw materials?? Answer…it wouldn’t have happened the way it did and it would have had a cascading effect through their economy and their military. There would have been a certain point where even the Russians wouldn’t have been able to sustain the losses and keep on fighting. Even WITH all of the stuff we gave them it was touch and go probably until Kursk.
ETA: I guess we should table this though, since it’s not really related to the OP. I think if you’d like to start a thread on the subject it would be a better place for this aspect of the debate.
I agree that we’re wandering off topic with this side debate and should table it. I don’t know if there’s any point in starting a new thread to rehash it.
I am glad that we now have a link to Pr Mueller’s article. I plan on reading it within the next couple of days. Even if I don’t agree it’s always good to see a new viewpoint.
Ok, sure. Now cut that 136,000 aircraft by 56%, since you cant build them without aluminum.
And even Pravda admitted that the Allies sent 70000 T34’s worth of steel- so cut that 106,000 tanks down to 36000.
Now you have the Soviet Union built 60,000 aircraft ,
Germany built 133,000
Soviet Union built 36,000 tanks during the war,
Germany built 67,000
Doesnt look so good, does it?
Then add into the fact that German production was hurt by Allied strategic bombing* and the British blockade. Oil especially. If the Nazis had all the oil they could buy?
not as much as they thought, but still. Oil production was badly hit.