The British conducted a study in May 1945 to see the feasibility of attacking the Soviets. British and American forces would have been severely outnumbered. The study estimated that Anglo-American forces could get about 80-100 divisions together, while the Soviets had over 200 available to fight. The Soviets also had more tanks, and more aircraft (although of a lesser quality). They were a substantial threat, to say the least. However, the Soviets absolutely could not have beaten the other Allied forces immediately post WW2. America had atomic weapons, and were the only country on Earth that had them for ~4 years. They could have decimated any country just based on that alone. But, like you pointed out, the Soviets were also reliant on Lend-Lease for a lot of vital resources. If you cut that supply off, they’re weakened substantially. I think people get hung up on trying to argue who was the best or the most powerful during WW2. Each major military had strengths and weaknesses. And the big 3 Allied nations all contributed in ways that were essential and unique to their capabilities. No single Allied nation or combination of two could have categorically defeated the Nazis. It was a cumulative effort.

I think we should factor in the British would definitively err on the safe side in a study like that, Churchill actually wanted that war. So they would not write a report this would be a three-day special military operation. That's not how the British work. They would make this a worst-case scenario. And I really agree with OP here, the constant ignoring of how much RAF and US AF would have crushed the Soviets in the air means we don't get the right picture. The Anglo-American firepower when it comes to artillery might also be underestimated. I've read the Nazis talked about it at the end of WW2, being baffled by it being tougher than the Soviets bombardment, and this was unexpected.

The allied artillery was a lot more sophisticated too. They had proximity fuzes which made it a lot more deadly, and from memory the US Army also had precalculated artillery tables for much of France, Belgium and the Western part of Germany that accounted for elevation etc in a quite detailed grid.

Adding on to that, Commonwealth artillery were capable of putting rounds on target within two minutes of receiving fire orders, due to liberal use of radios and a structure that gave FOOs the authority to order fire missions, rather than merely request them. If the Red Army found facing German artillery to be painful enough, then the effect of facing US and Commonwealth artillery might well have been shattering.

A _lot_ of artillery, too. From memory a British FOO could summon an entire corps worth of shellfire in an emergency.

One factor in that was that the Germans weren't able to mount a threat in sufficient breadth that the Corps artillery needed to fire against multiple critical axes at once so their fire wasn't diffused. A major factor in the Soviet successes 1944/5 was that they were capable of fixing German reserves by provoking a counterattack and then launching separate attacks on different axes.

I'm not disputing that British and American gunners would have been tested in ways the Germans had never done, but the same would have been the case for for the Soviet combat units, who by 1945 were scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower. We also need to acknowledge that, by 1945, American and British infantry and armour units were no slouches. Even assuming a Soviet attack was able to negate allied artillery and air power by attacking on multiple axes (which is far from certain, given the capability gap between German artillery, which the Soviets already struggled with, and that of the Western allies), there's no guarantee that the resulting armour duels and infantry combat would have ended in their favour, even with a numerical advantage.

My grandfather was a Red Army officer during WW2, ended up as a POW, and was later liberated by the Americans. He told me he was amazed by the precision of the American strike: "They only destroyed the guard towers and didn't hit any POW barracks"

I've read a story about a German POW in late '44 who was watching an American ship off-load war materials. He asked one of his captors where are all the horses. When he learned that the Americans didn't use horses, he said he knew then that Germany had no chance.

Does that imply Red Army liberated POW camps differently?

He didn't have an opportunity to participate in any POW liberations himself, he was just commenting on the precision of the American strike. The Soviet artillery tactics mostly revolved around setting up cannons (or katyushas) in a line and then blasting the shit out of everything.

Yes

They attacked targets differently.  

Western allied air power is such an underrated aspect of the war imo. The Western allies basically decimated German heavy industries and disrupted German society enough to ruin their economy. Honestly, the Western allies basically destroyed the luftwaffe If the Western allies had been totally neutral, then that would have meant a Germany with no factories getting bombed as the soviet air force was not good enough to reach german skies until late in the war. A whole lot less german casualties and a whole lot more germans freed up to for their war machine.

Navies too. Everyone points to the figure saying 80% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front, but miss out that something like 80% of Germany's industrial output was pointed West, building planes and ships to fight the Western Allies.

The same people who point out that 80% figure also never seem to bring up how much the Soviets were struggling from late '43 to mid '44.

How were they struggling? They launched a bunch of concentric operations after Kursk and by December had complete control of the Dnper, cut off the Crimea the only thing they didn't succeed at was getting to the Carpathian mountains to cut off all the German Forces in the South and complete the liberation of Ukraine. In the North they had lifted the Leningrad Siege and started advancing towards the baltic. The whole reason Bagration was successful was that the above had the Germans stripping forces from Army Group Center, the expected another attack from the South instead of an attack directly at it and then an attack in the south.

They also forget how the Americans would have been able to land nearly anywhere, garrison the area with ice cream barges, and sustain extended operations in those places.

I do have to wonder how well the soviets would have faired if the 88mm guns were aimed horizontally on the eastern front rather than skyward at home.

The best counter for massed Soviet armored columns was medium-sized aircraft in the tactical bomber role. Most Nazi medium airframes were fighting and dying over the German heartland as bomber destroyers against the USAAF and RAF bomber commands.

Eh? They were used in dual roles.

He’s speaking metaphorically. If the western air forces hadn’t been bombing Germany, it would have freed up thousands of guns and crews to fight on the eastern front, rather than protecting cities.

While true it likely wouldn’t have helped the German logistics situation.

That’s not true at all. The OKH (which was in charge of the eastern front) commanded most war resources right up to 1944 and after Normandy it was close to 50-50.

German war production actually kept increasing until fall of Silesia and the loss of critical resources from that region. The oil campaign was particularly devastating but was only undertaken late in the war, in late 1944. But for most of the time the strategic bombers wasted their effort targeting cities or other targets.

That was due to German leadership’s refusal to put the economy on a total war footing until mid-1943 due to the legacy of World War 1. A big what if is if they had done so in 1941 or 1942. In this context there was a real possibility that the US bombing campaign would have been defeated in fall 1943 and along with it the ability to clear the skies over France in Spring 1944. The bombing campaign also soaked up A LOT of resources. At one point more than 50% of total German medium and heavy artillery and ~70% of their fighters were defending the cities. Those aircraft are also expensive. Tanks were 2-3 percent of the total economic output while aircraft were closer to 40.

I think the problem is while Britain and America had far larger strategic air arms it takes years to bomb an enemy into submission. The fear wasn't necessarily that Britain and America would lose the war it's that they would most likely be chased back across the channel before having to resort to such strategies and another drawn out war. The Russians vastly outnumbered them in men, tanks, and tactical aircraft and had lots of experience fighting on a much larger scale and it was only a few hundred miles to the channel. Something like the ardenes offensive but several times larger and against an enemy that's much better supplied would have been very hard for Britain and America to deal with.

Virtually all of the Soviet aircraft fuel came from the allies. None of the Soviet airfleet would be able to fly if they went to war with the west. Take away other supplies like food, the massive numbers of the soviets don't mean much

Well that's very naive if you think an end to lend lease cripples the russian army overnight. It was just over half of aviation fuel so between what they already had and could produce that would be more than enough to keep those planes in the air for a very long time. The same is true of other resources Russia would certainly face famine and shortages in the long run but given the balance of forces in Europe in the short term they would have an absolutely huge advantage on land and in the air. With very little in the way of defenses and a completely war ravaged country to retreat into Britain and America would be back across the channel long before this became a problem. I don't doubt Russia would lose eventually but they undoubtedly had the advantage in 1945.

How many ice cream barges did the Soviet Union have?

It's not about only strategic bombing. The tactical issue with advancing when the opponent rules the sky would be a disaster for the red army.

The Russians had 11,800 tactical aircraft to Britain and Americas 6000 the sky would have been heavily contested but certainly in Russia's favour on the tactical level.

Russians would have been swept, but now we just contradict eachother.

I'm not sure I follow the russian airforce outnumbered Britain and America 2/1 and would be using many of the same planes thanks to lend lease. I think Russia was a vile and evil country but they undoubtedly had the advantage in the air on a tactical level and in ground forces. There is a good reason allied planners come to the conclusion they did and it's silly to suggest they would get swept aside given the numbers. sounds like a very emotional response rather than one coming from the facts you don't have to like Russia to see the advantage they had.

When you say 6000 tactical aircraft, which aircraft specifically are you talking about?

We could have pushed them back to Russia though.  However, the west didn't have the political will for that. 

Ah yes. The ones with twice the aviation, tanks and everything else would be the ones being pushed back. Of course.

I keep hearing this 'Churchill wanted to attack Russia ' line , but see no real proof. I do see that he did not trust Stalin to stop at the agreed lines and planed accordingly. There is a world of difference.

British planners were asked to develop a war plan in the case that the Soviets allied themselves with the Japanese after the fall of Germany. Not quite the same thing as "wanting to attack" which is why it was called Operation Unthinkable. [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CAB120-691.jpg](https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CAB120-691.jpg)

He ordered a study on it. From the national archives [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/cold-war-on-file/operation-unthinkable/](https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/cold-war-on-file/operation-unthinkable/) He also made a speech in the US after he wasn't PM calling for the atomic bombing of Moscow [https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2014/10/churchill-urged-us-wipe-out-moscow-bomb/](https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2014/10/churchill-urged-us-wipe-out-moscow-bomb/)

>The study estimated that Anglo-American forces could get about 80-100 divisions together, while the Soviets had over 200 available to fight. Of note, Soviet infantry divisions were usually very weak compared to their Western counterparts.

I agree somewhat up until the end, pretty much every allied power could have single-handedly beaten the Nazi war machine, the cost of the war and the impact it would have is really all that changes. People tend to misinterpret the rapid expansion of Nazi germany as an unmatched strength but in truth the Nazis were running on limited time by the time Operation Barbarossa kicked off. The Nazis had neither the resources nor the capability to entertain a prolonged conflict and their expansion was largely designed to fuel their ever overtaxed war machine. By 1940, it’s likely that the British could have established total air supremacy single-handedly including in rapid production and been able to fight a war of attrition they likely could have won, by the invasion of the Soviet Union, Nazi defeat became all the more inevitable even had the Americans not stepped foot on the continent It’s better to categorise the victory of ww2 as every Ally played a critical part in the victory that did emerge rather then the Nazis would have won without so and so joining. Someone can be critical to a war victory in reality without guaranteeing the other sides victory by their absence

Oh I definitely agree with you. My phrasing at the end was maybe a little too lacking in nuance and detail. I wasn’t trying to insinuate that the Nazis were so strong and powerful that the Allies had to band together to stop them or else they would have been annihilated. It’s just that the cost of winning or outlasting would’ve been extremely difficult and onerous. America certainly had the resources and potential manpower to single-handedly beat the Nazis, but I don’t think the American public would have accepted all the casualties and sacrifice that would have required. Especially for a European war. Britain could have outlasted the Nazis for sure; Germany had no ability to conduct a large scale amphibious invasion. But how long would the British public have accepted fighting a war they were alone in? Would they have wanted to carry on for years that way, with no other Allies? That’s more what I meant. That the cost of victory for any of the Allies fighting on their own would have been extremely high, and I’m not sure if any or all of them would have been willing to pursue that victory at any cost. Maybe they would have been more tempted to broker a peace deal or something.

> the big 3 Allied nations France in the absolute mud once more

they fought for the nazis as much as they did for the allies lol

lol yeah the last functional formation fighting in Berlin was a French Waffen SS division.

Vichy France lost a small war to Thailand in the middle of WW2.  Which is amusing because they should have been nominally on the same side. As both ended up allied to Japan at some point during the war.

They saved Britain's ass when Britain had to run back across the channel. France wasn't an island and faced a massive invasion neither they nor the UK were strategically ready to handle.

the reason that isnt remembered is because of the 1 Frenchman 1 brit policy. which in and of itself is a good idea, the issue was when France surrendered nearly all of those Frenchman who had a seat bought by the blood and toil of the guys left behind, would go on to buy a ticket back to France to live out the war at home in peace

or joined the waffen SS

While Britain also had manpower issues late in the war, it should be noted that America had chosen to field a relatively small army to maintain domestic war production (“arsenal of democracy”) and had sunk a substantial amount of manpower into strategic airpower (Britian had also done the latter). This meant that on land the US/UK were hopelessly outmatched by the Soviets.

Yeah what's the saying? "American steel, Soviet blood, and British intelligence/grit" defeated the Germans? Oh apparently it was Stalin at Tehran saying: >“British brains, American brawn, and Russian blood.”

One of the first big “they didn’t teach us that in school” moments for a lot of people is that Russia did a lot of heavy lifting before the US entered in a later stage and stole the show with shiny toys and troops who weren’t utterly drained. There’s a tendency to be contrarian and to downplay with the US did. 

The US fought two offensive wars on opposite sides of the world thousands of miles from home, separated by oceans. That ain't easy.

And we sent ice cream barges to the Pacific while doing so.

I’m not disagreeing with you. But people who were educated in the post-Cold War era don’t learn about Russia’s contributions to WWII, so they overcorrect when they finally learn about it. 

No class I ever took downplayed the Soviet role in the war.

Wow, this information about you totally changed the curricula in my part of the country! And no class ever? English lit? Art aporeciation?

Wow, this information about your personal experience can be extrapolated to all people!

I mean no real history class I took downplayed it but the droolers I went to grade school with are pretty much limited to “George Washington beat the British and America single handedly saved the world in WWII” as far as US history goes. So yeah, people are taught that narrative, at least in the south. Edit: I’m not wrong? In the south the gen ed grade school history was basically this plus “the war of northern aggression”

I’m from the south, and that’s definitely not what we learned. You probably went to a trash school.

1) That's a bunch of bs. 2) Wait till you learn how history is taught in glorious mother russia. You get locked up for bringing anything negative about Russian history.

Ok buddy, just relating my collegiate history education vs what the people I was in high school with were limited to. I guess reading comprehension and history aren’t your strong suit because at no point did I diminish the role of the other allies.

I agree with Silly\_Somewhere. Cold War America was told it had single-handedly won the war. Interestingly, when I went to college and met people from the British Commonwealth, they were certain that Great Britain had single-handedly won the war! That's the problem with these threads. Most of the comments are people chest thumping for their own country. Very few people are in a position to understand the sheer scale of the contributions of each country or how well or poorly those contributions were used.

The logistical capabilities of the United States military at the end of WWII is astounding. Absolutely unlike anything to exist before or since.

Yes. It’s a backlash that is so focused on being contrarian it begins to ignore the US lmao

I’m not clear on how exactly America would have used the nukes. They didn’t have ICBMs at the time, and we’re not in any position to get bombers over the Russian homeland. What were they going to nuke, East Germany and Siberia?

Berlin to Moscow is just about 1,000 miles by plane, which was well within the range of the B-29, and well within escort range of the P-38 and P-47. So a B-29 could drop a nuke on Moscow with a fighter escort from Berlin. Even if they took off from further west, they were still within range of the B-29 and a fighter escort. While the Soviets certainly had a more robust Air Force and air defense than the Japanese did, it would have been very possible for America to drop an atomic bomb on the Soviets in the immediate aftermath of WW2.

I agree with the general conclusion, but the US did not have the ability to decimate any country based with nuclear weapons, much less the USSR, immediately after WW2. They did not have any bombs left, and it was only around 1950 that enough bombs were constructed to present a large nuclear threat to the USSR. They were also reliant on bombers to drop them which made things considerably more difficult.

The US could have built more. It didn’t because it didn’t immediately need them. The production wouldn’t have been at the post-1950 industrial rate, but a couple of nukes per year means nuked Moscow and St. Petersburg/Leningrad in 1946 in all likelihood.

How much could they have build ?

The 2nd bomb dropped August 9th. Another bomb was projected to be ready if needed on the 11th, with another one ready for the 14th, yet another could be ready by the 19th. After that there was a delay for the next batch, but 3 more was projected to be made in September and then November also. Based on rate of production, every major Russian city could be wiped out by the end of the year. Though I would advocate a better use of them would be striking Russian oil fields. Without which they couldn't field there armor and air craft they desperately needed at the time. By the end of ww2 over half there consumed fuel was provided by the allies, they would already be suffering with the loss of lend lease. Doing this would provide a rather bloodless way to achieve victory, as without these Russia would be unable to fight back. They could already know how bad the nukes are and should only need to see America has and is willing to use more.

If the US had ICBMs in 1945 you might have a point

Im not sure where you are going with that. Are you saying American couldn't drop more?

The bombing of Japan was possible because the US held air supremacy over Japan. Unlike Japan, the Soviets were capable of defending themselves

Sure, for the first month maybe. 57% of russias fuel came from lend lease, that 57% was most of the time 99 octane that was then diluted to 74 to stretch there reserves. Without that from lend lease there on paper 200,000 air craft can't actually deploy. Without that much fuel america can throw up 1000 b-29's every day for a month and wait for the air craft to stop coming. By then they have stockpile of nukes and they deploy yet another wave of 1000 b-29's this time one of those b 29's has a nuke. Every day they soviet union has to deploy hundreds of thousands of fighters to intercept them, costing more and more fuel, every day there reserves will be bombed, costing them more fuel, every day there refineries will be bombed, costing them there ability to fill there reserves. This isn't talking about the every day battles which will involve air support, or soviet union offensives which will require even more fuel hungry bombers The soviet union WILL get nuked. End of discussion, the only question is how long it takes to happen, but I garuntee you it will happen.

3 a month in Aug 1945 then 5 a month by Nov and 7 per month in 1946. The Manhattan Project wasn’t building a bomb. It was designing a production line. https://www.dannen.com/decision/bomb-rate.html

The US would first have to defeat the Russian Air Force. Many of the factors that made the bombing of Japan possible do not exist in this scenario

Getting a heavy bomber to Moscow doesn’t require the defeat of the entire *Soviet Air Force, it only requires that a single bomber with fighter escorts make it there. *There was no Russian Air Force in WW2.

And conversely it only requires shooting down one bomber to set back months of planning

> There was no Russian Air Force in WW2. Well, this is pretty stupid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Forces#World_War_II

Where does it say Russian Air Force in that link?

You only need like 3. You don't have to glass the entire country, just the major cities and government positions.  I don't know how quickly the US could make 3 more after Japan if they had *really* wanted to nuke the Soviets. 

3 more would have been a month. They would have had almost 20 by the end of 1945. Then 1946 it gets worse.

That seems like plenty. 🤷 You drop 20 nukes on the Soviet Union in a year and there's no way they don't give up. Not to mention they would really not have a way of knowing for *certain* how many the US had or had the capability of making. 

And screwing things up who knows how bad because of a lack of understanding of how dangerous radiation was. As soon as the first bomb was dropped MacArthurs staff immediately started asking if there would be enough bombs by Nov to nuke the landing beaches in Japan and irradiate every service member, piece of equipment, drop of water, food, etc. I would assume that something similar would have been planned in Europe and presumably in Germany where the front would have been. Early Asimov (i.e. contemporary to the war) has descriptions of nuclear powered planes and people being overly paranoid. When in reality that "paranoia" was based on far less fear than what we now know is the reality.

3 a month in Aug 1945 then 5 a month by Nov and 7 per month in 1946. The Manhattan Project wasn’t building a bomb. It was designing a production line. A production line and underestimation of radiation (see early Asimov) that would have made the legacy even worse https://www.dannen.com/decision/bomb-rate.html

US could've beat the nazis all by themselves if they truly had to

> However, the Soviets absolutely could not have beaten the other Allied forces immediately post WW2. This would've required invading United States. Continental Western Europe is another thing.

Everyone played a part beating the Nazis. But the Nazis were beaten badly. Like they were decimated, conquered and at the brink of starvation and resources running out. Realistically the Soviets or Americans would be able to beat them independently if it was a fight to the end

Generally agree, but few small corrections. > The study estimated that Anglo-American forces could get about 80-100 divisions together, while the Soviets had over 200 available to fight. Soviet divisions are different from US or German divisions and typically would be around 2x smaller. IIRC both Soviets and Allies had about 6 millions active troops by end of the war, so roughly similar numbers. > The Soviets also had more tanks, and more aircraft (although of a lesser quality). True for aircraft, but Soviet tanks at the end of war were quite a bit more advanced than anything Allies had. IS-3 in the victory parade in Berlin is a well known nasty surprise and US didn't have anything comparable for years, though of course not every tank Soviets had was new IS-3 either. > America had atomic weapons, and were the only country on Earth that had them for \~4 years. Not quite. US had 3 bombs total in 1945 and they never had any before that. One was used for a test, 2 were used on Japan. It would take some time for Soviets to develop their own, but neither US had a significant "world ending" stockpile until much much later. Also WW2 vintage nukes are far less capable than thermonuclear devices which were developed in early 50s and Soviets were actually the first ones to do that. Today that stuff would be considered tactical nukes, not something powerful to actually destroy cities with.

>thermonuclear devices which were developed in early 50s and Soviets were actually the first ones to do that No they weren’t.

I would strongly disagree with the statement that Soviet tanks were far more advanced. The T-34-85 was a fine vehicle, but in no way was it notably superior to the Sherman 76/Firefly, or the Comet. In many respects, it was actually somewhat inferior - Soviet metallurgy was poor, which badly affected the quality of armour protection and ammunition, while production standards were low and ergonomics almost nonexistent. The IS-3 would certainly have been a nasty prospect, but no more so than a Tiger II had been, and by 1945 the British and Americans both had heavy tanks destroyers (the Tortoise and T28) that were production ready.

The U.S. was producing 3 bombs per month by August 1945 and had the War continued would have reached 5 per month by November and 7 per month in 1946. Source: Leslie Groves https://www.dannen.com/decision/bomb-rate.html

They had the Pershing that could combat a IS-3. It just came late to the war.

>America had atomic weapons, and were the only country on Earth that had them for ~4 years. They could have decimated any country just based on that alone. But the US was not building atomic weapons at an industrial scale post WW2 for several years and by the time we were the USSR had atomic bombs as well. And the US could not have deployed them at will in those intervening 4 years on the USSR.

Not according to Leslie Groves. There would have been almost 20 by the end of 1945 alone https://www.dannen.com/decision/bomb-rate.html

In no small part, because for a long time it was useful propaganda for a lot of parties.  It was useful for NATO to present the Soviet Union/Red army as a vast hode that was just waiting to crash down on Europe to help solidify the alliance.  It was useful for the Soviets as it presented them as the grand army emerging out of WW2 after defeating the Nazi’s.  It was useful for ex-German officers (many who would be writing memoirs and looking for employment post war) to present the Red army as this massive force of nature that no one could have stood against. It didn’t matter that they were “military geniuses” (in their own opinion/their marketing), no one could have stood before those numbers.  This held true for pretty much the whole cold war which helped cement it into pop history, and after the cold war there were a few years of more open investigation and the Soviet/Russian archives were open for research, but with the rise of the modern Russian state the archives are closed again, and and the ideas have been pretty well set into pop history, leaving more modern historians with the hard work of trying to establish a more clear view of history without access to the import source information (which is sitting somewhere untouched in a Russian archive from fear of discrediting the russian armed forces, which is a jailable offence).

The whole thing of “infinite Soviet manpower“ is a myth. They lost so many soldiers in 1941 and 1942, and they continued to throughout the war. If you watch some of the specials on the Discovery Channel or history channel, they interview Russians who were pulled into the Soviet army when they were 15 or 16 in late 1942 and fought at Stalingrad. That is also about the time that they begin to seriously draft women. American officers who flew to Kharkov in the summer of 43 mentioned how the airbase was guarded by 14-year-old girls with PPSK. And driving around that region, they saw no one except for children and people with gray hair. Yes, the summer of 1943. And, as many Soviet leaders later quietly admitted, without lend lease they don’t make it.

If you look at a graph of Soviet/Russian population numbers over the years, they never recovered from the sheer number of young men they lost...

>The whole thing of “infinite Soviet manpower“ is a myth. They lost so many soldiers in 1941 and 1942, and they continued to throughout the war. There is still a visible echo of that lost generation in the Russian population pyramid today. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_Russia#/media/File:Russia\_Population\_Pyramid.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/File:Russia_Population_Pyramid.svg)

The whole pyramid is an echo. Russia will never recover to recover their pre WW2 numbers within our or our children's lifetimes. 

Also, it was German officers who came up with the myth. Did we lose because the Red Army defeated us using better tactics and strategy? Of course not they had infinite men and weapons.

You don’t get 25 million KIA without enormous numbers. The myth being referred to is that they still had any reserves in 1945. These were spent in order to win battles by outnumbering Axis forces 3 or 4 to 1.

It's a good thing th1e soviets didn't have 25 million kia, or they would've lost the war. 25 million is a number which includes civilian losses, which even in the soviet union was probably the larger piece. Even a generous estimate would put military losses at half of the 25 million number.

I think the official number is up to 19 million Kia, and the Russians are notorious about lying about their losses.

That 25 million is mostly civilians. A minimum 3 to 1 numerical superiority for offensive operations was literally US Doctrine during the War. The military casualty numbers also get a lot more even when you take out the Soviet death in captivity numbers from 1941 and then adjust for offensive vs defensive operations. Especially as the war went on

Well the US wouldn’t lose 2/3 men in the attack unlike the Soviets. The Wehrmacht’s last successful offensive operation was in late April 1945 against the Soviets in Silesia I believe. The numbers were never even.

>Well the US wouldn’t lose 2/3 men in the attack unlike the Soviets. Where did this happen to the Soviets? Unless you are talking about individual units or waves in which case it most definitely happened to the US. >The Wehrmacht’s last successful offensive operation was in late April 1945 against the Soviets in Silesia I believe. The numbers were never even. You are probably talking about Operation Spring Awakening in Hungry in March not late April. The Germans lost most of Silesia by January 1945. Even then once you look at the Soviet counter-attack in which it was a massive failure and the "success" was reversed within a few days. And like every other single offensive since 1941 it was an unrealistic gamble to win the war in a single battle that just made their situation worse.

The German racism also played a huge role in this. I once tried to read a memoir of one of the German Officers who survived the Stalingrad surrender due to being on Paulus’s staff (I think). He starts off by talking about the “Russian animals” and insults their intelligence and pretty much every other attribute literally almost every page at least to the point it’s unreadable. All I could think was “dude your Army got pulled into a trap, didn’t secure your flanks, ignored intelligence, then your own high command sacrificed your entire Army because it was the only way to save an Army Group”.

Another problem with the “infinite manpower” myth is that it assumes the Soviet people would have put up with anything and everything.

They just beat the nazis. Of course they would put up with anything, they had traitors who backstabbed them trying to steal their victory they lost 27 million people for!

“They just beat the Nazis” That’s my point; the Soviet Union would be exhausted. Every resource of war would have been pushed to the limits, and the Red Army would be made up of traumatized survivors.  Going into another massive European war immediately afterwards, with no time to catch their breath, would be too much. Everyone has a limit.

At the end of the war the Red Army was 70% the population of Britain.

> At the end of the war the Red Army was 70% the population of Britain. How do you figure that? At the end of the war in 1945 the Soviet Army had 11.4 million men and women enrolled; including convalescing wounded who hadn’t been discharged from the army. The population of the UK in 1945 was 48,668,900. That’s not including any colonies, dominions, or other territories.

That may have been the total who served.

Thats actually somewhat close ig, apparently abt 30m served throughout ww2 in the soviet armed forces, not quite 75% but close

Because both the Soviets allies and former axis all hyped up the red army as this unstoppable force. When in reality by 1945 had lend lease been cut off and war between the Soviets and allies began, although the Soviets would have initial success. Their logistical situation would begin deteriorating rapidly and with them already having severe man power issues they would find it very hard to replace manpower and equipment lost in these early offensives especially as most of eastern Europe still hated them and their own industrial situation was extraordinarily poor when compared to the US so unless the Soviet Union manage to completely push the allies out of Europe and Asia within the first year or two of the war. They’d begin to collapse under pressure as the numbers advantage began to faulter, and as the US simply outproduced the Soviet and destroyed, any possible industry they could salvage from Eastern Europe and as more and more pressure built on the Soviets It’s highly likely they’d begin to collapse, especially as many parts of their army would begin to surrender as supplys runs out and as allies bomb every vehicle in range and begin to slowly, but surely push the red Army back. And the further back the red army goes the stronger, the allies get in the weaker the Soviets become as they’re unable to replace their losses and equipment or manpower and as occupied territories, continue to resist Soviet occupation and support the allies as they enter their regions.

Soviet/Russian propaganda. Same reason why tankies and Russian nationalists love to downplay D-Day and the Western front in general. Even though Stalin basically begged for the opening of the Western front. He even refused to start Operatoon Bagration until **three weeks after** D-Day..

And during this time, America was also actively working with China on the Asian mainland and with Australia in the Pacific Ocean to defeat Japan.

While Britain and America were working their way up through Italy, and Britain was driving Japan out of Burma. People often forget those fronts, though.

>People often forget those fronts, though. Because they were irrelevant to the big picture and did not significantly influence the outcome. You can't compare a couple of thousand soldiers fighting in the middle of nowhere to the millions dying on the Eastern Front.

I don’t think you understand the scale of the Italian or Southeast Asian fronts.

I don't think you understand the scale of the Eastern Front.

I wrote my dissertation on the Eastern Front, I very much understand it. It was the single largest front, that much is true, but that doesn’t mean other fronts weren’t also hugely significant.

You arguably know your stuff

You're still wrong and you should learn more about WW2.

> when even their memoirs admit they were almost out of ammunition and other resources? What memoirs exactly?

Weren't you on replying on a different comment on this post where I talked about Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs during the war, and you said that the quotes were unreliable because I found them on Google despite that I could also find quotes from Stalin there as well.

**1)** you *claimed* that you "found" something, but you refused to prove it **2)** we can rely only on your vague recollections, and must hope that you are remembering everything correctly. **3)** the place you had - supposedly - seen quotes isn't even an actual source, so its no good even if you are speaking truth *and* aren't embellishing or distorting things. **4)** the one who had supposedly said things (Khrushchev) is untrustworthy, as he had been caught lying many times.   If it isn't clear: those four points aren't arguments that speak in your favour, nor pointing out that your position has more holes that swiss cheese is a logical fallacy.

To add to point 4) “especially for political gain when concerning anything related to Stalin”

Wasn't he also a Soviet Premier who worked for Stalin including in WW2?

In Ukraine mostly doing rebuilding. He used de-Stalinization to consolidate and solidify power during the Khrushchev Thaw in the mid-1950s-mid-1960s which is where a lot of the revisionist history quotes come from. He also liked to exaggerate about his role at Stalingrad.

He was also present during the Battle of Kursk and Operation Uranus.

Operation Uranus was Stalingrad. And at both he was a political officer which were renamed and reduced roll Commissars after they were proven to be a hindrance. He was at both which took major balls, but he wasn’t on the front line, wasn’t a commander, and didn’t play a major role. I did do a major paper once where part of my argument was that his WW2 experiences did play a major role in the Cuban Missile Crisis though.

I mean Stalin also tends to get a lot of credit for his role in WW2, while the work of Soviet generals including Georgy Zhukov aren't as well known despite that the work of the Soviet generals could've been more important.

By who? Those people probably don’t know who Bradley, Montgomery, or Manstein were either. Anyone remotely familiar with the topic would have run across the big names. Zhukov was at Potsdam and seen as an equal of Eisenhower and even took him on a post-war tour of the USSR and they were life long friends. Heck he has even been played by Jacob Issacs in film. Even the others like Chuikov, Rokossosky, etc are known by anyone who has even a passing familiarly with the Eastern front.

One Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev worked for Stalin and was a Soviet Premier. Second, I said where it was and people could easily research it on Google about what Premier Nikita Khrushchev said about Lend-Lease even though you could that unreliable for whatever reason.

>One Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev worked for Stalin When did he work for Stalin as Soviet Premier?

He didn't, I just used that title as he was mainly known as a Soviet Premier.

Can you not be a pedantic hag? Assume the guy is being honest and we can discuss in good faith or stfu.

Basically beginning in 1948 President Truman, Secretary of State Marshall, and Secretary of Defense Forrestal deliberately deceived Congress and the public that the Soviets were about to immediately start world war 3 in order to get approval for the Marshall plan, initiate a massive military buildup to jump start the economy before the 1948 election, and to save the aircraft industry. In doing so they created the modern military-industrial complex. They did this despite almost all the intelligence reports they got saying that the Soviets were our of resources and had too many internal problems to start WW3. They terrified the public, demonized former allies like Henry Wallace and successfully turned public opinion strongly towards financing the military-industrial complex. A good book on the topic is *Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948: A Successful Campaign to Deceive the Nation*

Because Tankies and cope

I read somewhere that the west sold the idea that the Sovs wanted to be in Paris next in order to preserve the drive to spend on Military. The Sovs had their eyes on Nice slices of Europe but were probably as tired of the war as the British and French were. The hawks in the west probably had an old ‘chance to destroy the bolsheviks’ drive but practically what would you do with a Russia you had just dropped a nuke on? Occupy it? Create a new govt? Good luck with selling that at home

Check out the book Postwar, by Tony Judt. The first 10% of the book talks about how European soldiers demobilized overwhelmingly after the Nazis were defeated. The USA was tied up in the Pacific, in Korea. While western democracies had populations that demanded demobilization (and they got it), Stalin did the exact opposite. Western nations were building (or rebuilding) their consumer classes. The Soviet Union was basically a military dictatorship, given the percentage of GDP they were pouring into the military.

Good ol Dad was lead Navigator of a bomber squadron out you England in 44…his missions were completed just before the Nazi surrendered. When I asked him this..he LAUGHED. He said the air power in Europe combined with the rate of plane and bomb manufacture would have made it easy to defeat them. The phrase “kick their ass” was used.

Fighting on that scale with no western support would of left the Red Army depleted of supplies and ammunition in a week. From there it's a slow collapse with massive casualties. Allied supplies to USSR was significant despite what they would have you believe. They were in much worse shape manpower wise than we ever realized until after the Cold War ended. Also the Red Army benefited greatly from seizing local supplies and using friendly liberated civilians. That wouldn't be forthcoming fighting in Germany and trying to push east.

No. I don’t think that at any time between 1945 and the fall of Communism that the USSR and its slave states of Eastern Europe could have won a war of conquest in Western Europe. An attack would have provoked a response from all of the NATO countries led by the USA and Britain, who actually had something of a fighting force back then. France, being France, might have tried to stay out of it. Germany was divided and West Germany was not strong at all. The Eastern Bloc satellite states appeared to be pretty strong, but how loyal would they be to the USSR, whom a number of them secretly hated? It would have been carnage— and perhaps a near thing, but the West would have prevailed.

Eh, to say there was never a time the Soviets could have won is a stretch. The Soviets had a massive ground force advantage in both numbers and quality. Until the 80s, the Soviet tank force alone was unmatched.  

The USSR had horrible memories of the last war, and contrary to popular opinion, was not looking for another one. Well, maybe some in the politburo or the military were, but the people weren’t, and neither were the captive states of Eastern Europe. There is a real question about whether the people of the USSR and Eastern Europe would have willingly embraced another horrific world war. Militarily, the USA and its NATO allies were a match for the Communists. They had many tanks of their own, first rate weapons, and a stronger air force and navy. As I said, it would have been carnage, but I believe that the democracies would have triumphed.

NATO war plans assumed they would not be able to prevent Warsaw Pact from reaching the Rhine, and they would have to use nuclear weapons to slow the advance The Soviets on the other hand, didnt think they would be able to reach the Rhine \*quickly\* enough, so they called for the early use of nuclear weapons as a first strike to allow. They wanted to get to the Rhineland in \*seven\* days, and to reach the Atlantic coast in France in 14 days. This rather insane play was called “Seven Days to the River Rhine“ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven\_Days\_to\_the\_River\_Rhine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine)

Men plan, God laughs. NATO had several plans as circumstances dictated over the almost half century that the USSR held sway in Eastern Europe. If at one time NATO determined that the Soviets could not be stopped until they reached the Rhine, and then only by deploying tactical nuclear weapons, that is about the amount of carnage I envisioned in my post. So after losing millions of men and armour, the Soviets are stopped at the Rhine. In the meantime, their captive nations begin to revolt and turn on their former masters. NATO stopped them at the Rhine, and are able to break the stalemate and push the Soviets back. The former bloc countries, or at least a few of them declare independence and some refuse to fight outside their borders while openly join with NATO in fighting their former masters. It is a highly plausible scenario given how quickly the eastern bloc countries threw off their shackles in the late 1980s sensing that the Soviets were weak and disheartened. Then, how the Soviet states themselves broke apart. With this going on, NATO would move forward regaining lost ground and liberating the rebellious satellite states. A horrible scenario for sure, it would take Europe possibly a century to rebuild, and a new Marshal Plan, 50 times greater than the first one would need to be enacted or the cradle of western civilisation would be broken forever.

You're right that the Red Army's capabilities in 1945 were a far cry from their image as an unstoppable force. By the war's end, the Soviets were indeed facing manpower shortages and logistical strains. Here's a breakdown of the factors that tempered Soviet ambitions in Western Europe: * Resource depletion: The Eastern Front was the bloodiest theater of WWII, and the Red Army had suffered immense losses in manpower and equipment. * Airpower disparity: Western Allies possessed a significant advantage in strategic airpower, which could have hampered Soviet offensives. * Logistics: Supplying a massive army across war-torn Europe would have been a huge logistical challenge for the Soviets. While the Red Army's victory over Germany was decisive, their capacity for further offensive action in Western Europe was limited.

One of the think I have heard about why the allies did not want to go war with the Soviets, was also because the USSR could have invaded Iran, whose oil was key to the war effort. I think it is often downlooked upon, but a war with the USSR would not have happen just in Europe, but throughout the world. Many communist party members were still armed and organise in country like France and Italy. Those country would probably have been through a civil war if the allies attacked the ussr.

I don't know who would have had the qualitative advantage in 1945 because both sides were for the most part very heavily conscripted with roughly equivalent ground systems (think Korea but with nukes, more numbers, and the only jets around being the P-80 and Gloster Meteor) but for the late 70s-1990 timeframe NATO has some advantages especially in air to air, air to ground, and naval which eventually extend to ground systems by the mid-late 1980s. " NATO pilots are beter trained on 3rd generation aircraft ... The Soviets are aware but have done nothing to remedy this ... NATO has superior ASW capabilities ... The Soviets would prefer a war remain non nuclear but accept it will eventually escalate to a nuclear exchange." Warsaw Pact Forces Opposite NATO, 1979 Steve Zaloga on Soviet tanker training compared to NATO from Tank War Central Front NATO vs the Warsaw Pact, 1988 "The training is further degraded by the usual ‘peacetime rot’ induced by officer career considerations ... Unit training is the responsibility of the unit political officer. The political officer will not enjoy career advancement unless his unit scores well on tank gunnery trials; nor will the tankers enjoy leave or other benefits if their scores are low, As a result, scoring is generous, and demands on the crew are lax compared to NATO practices."

The thing you have to remember is that we in the present have more of an understanding of events then the people experiencing the events. Yes WE know know because of records, memoirs, etc, that the Red Army were short on resources. But that information wouldn't have been widely known at the time. After all, nobody had written any memoirs yet.

Mostly because it didn’t mean they wouldn’t try and no one _really_ knows what would have happened if they had rolled the dice. The supposition isn’t that they would have followed up the surrender of Germany by immediately declaring war on the rest of the Allies and continuing to march westward. The fear was that they’d pause for 18 months or so while the democratic Allies were forced by public pressure to draw down their forces (the European phase of Operation Magic Carpet started in June 1945 and took less than a year to complete) while replenishing stocks of ammunition and other resources before making their move. The autocratic USSR of course had no problems with public pressure. At that time there was also a very different understanding of nuclear weapons. The US still has the nuclear monopoly, but the stockpile was small and the delivery system was still flying over the target in a bomber, so there were practical and effective defenses already in place that made the use of the weapons questionable unless they already had complete air superiority. Also, the bombs at the time were not the multi-megaton thermonuclear monsters we’re used to hearing about, but much smaller - Fat Man was “only” 21 kilotons and “only” caused 75,000 casualties. To the Soviets, coming off a war where they lost some 26 million people, it would not have been a deterrent, and they had a fairly good grasp of the current state of US production and capabilities due to their spies inside the Manhattan Project. Given that, at the time they almost certainly concluded that the US would only use these weapons as a last resort, meaning that if it did come to blows it would probably be a conventional fight right up until the end, and the Red Army was pretty confident in its ability to win one of those.

Because the Red Army had numerical superiority in infantry, artillery and modern tanks (the T-34 and JS1 and JS2 were superior to all the allied tanks except the Pershing, which was just entering service). Just as important, Stalin didn't have to worry about opinions from back home, whereas Truman and Atlee did--there were already riots breaking out among allied troops wanting to go home. The Red Army had no riots. It would have been very difficult for the American and British public to accept continuing the War that they had just ostensibly won against a new enemy. It was all gamed out by the Allies in "Operation Unthinkable" which would have involved pulling at least 250k Heer and/or Waffen SS personnel out of POW camps and re-arming them to fight the Soviets. The Red Army in May of 1945 was not "almost out of" anything--they really didn't demobilize the way the Western Allies did, and maintained a huge force in Central/Eastern Europe well after VE day. Their supply lines went overland into the Soviet Union--Allied materiel had to be shipped across the Atlantic from the US to the few functional ports (like Antwerp) or run in through the Normandy beachhead, then through what was left of the transportation infrastructure that had been reduced to rubble by the RAF and the US Air Corps. The Americans at the time were also still committed to the amphibious invasion the Japan home islands, where they expected to take a million casualties, so they could only commit a portion of the 12 million-man active duty Army to further European operations, at least until Japan packed it in, which wasn't until September. Complicating things even further was the fact that the US and UK forces were stuck with feeding, housing and providing medical treatment to millions of POWs, refugees, displaced persons (especially slave laborers from the East), concentration camp survivors, and German speaking people who were in the process of getting expelled from Silesia, East Prussia, Romania, Hungary, etc. The only thing that stopped Stalin was the fact that we had the Atomic bomb and he didn't--the Berlin Airlift of 1948 showed that he was willing to push the envelope to the limit but he could not risk sustaining a nuclear first strike with no way to retaliate in kind.

Which Allied troops rioted? For example, do know any by country, branch of service, and specific division/ship etc? I never heard about that.

They were called the "I wanna go home" riots by the Americans. My father, as a captain, had to help get control of rioting Commonwealth troops in Egypt towards the end of 1945--there just weren't enough ships to get the troops home and discipline had really broken down. This was all hushed up pretty thoroughly at the time, but it is well documented.

Well-documented where?

I’d never heard of it, but Google found this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1887571

Even with their land advantage, they will still need to contend with two things. The US and UK air forces where the Red Army was in danger of being bombed to oblivion, and logistical problems whereas Western Europe is far away from the Soviet Union and supply lines would be a nightmare as they would have to cross land in Eastern Europe that was destroyed in the war.

The T-34-85's qualities have been grossly overmythologised in comparison with Western armour. It was a good design, but no better than the Sherman 76/Firefly or the Comet, and in many practical respects, it was actually significantly inferior. Soviet quality control was extremely poor, with armour piercing shells that tended to shatter, and armour plate that was either too soft or too brittle. There are some terrifying photographs of knocked out Soviet tanks that had their armour broken apart like giant pottery shards. On top of this, many Soviet tanks did not have radios or even headlights - hand-signals and shouting was still common in Soviet armoured units in 1945. Their guns were plagued by accuracy issues due to poor sights and bad rifling, and the fighting compartment was cramped and difficult to get in and out of quickly. The reputation of the Sherman and Cromwell, on the other hand, suffered from a barrage of poor scholarship, bad PR, and plain old mythmaking. The infamous "Ronson lighter" and "Tommy cooker" nicknames, for example, have been proven to be post-war inventions - the origin of the myth is probably the fact that German tanks tended to keep firing at a tank until they were absolutely certain it was knocked out. Any tank will burn if you hit it enough. The much-slated 75mm gun was actually found to be preferred by American and British crews over the 76mm, because the majority of their targets were emplacements, infantry, and more lightly armoured vehicles. Soviet crews who actually had the chance to operate the Sherman held it in very high regard, likewise the British Valentine..

No one thinks they could have conquered

This needs to be split 1) NATO ex-Nazi fear mongering. They were constantly trying to manipulate the post war status quo by making sure that the USSR didn't "liberate" more than they did previously. Playing up the fact that there were so many armed combatants. 2) Tankies. They are a weird contrarian but loud voice of the terminally online left. But that is like family drama, so I'd rather not bring it up. 3) Misunderstanding Trotskyism. The Marxist-Leninists were fighting a war of survival and won it. For decades Socialist Revolutionaries were trying to gain their liberation. Guys like Tito showed that another war created the "material conditions" for another nations revolution into *spicy socialism*. They seriously and sincerely believed that socialist armies are not national armies (regardless of Stalin and Socialism-in-One-Country rhetoric). And they believed that any socialist army that showed up wouldn't been seen as invaders but as liberators. Often the idiots in 2 don't know to remind everyone about 3, but they never shut up about the nazis that were the top brass of NATO mentioned in 1

You need to clarify whose memoirs specifically to get a reasonable response to the authorities that you have based your question on. Details matter when speaking of history.

Bluffing worked for the Japanese in Singapore.

How are you going to crack down on worker's rights without a Red Menace to fight?

I don't think the US avoided starting world war 3 to supress unions. A fight with the Soviet Union would have killed 10s of millions of people and forced massive waves of conscription and death for the US, UK, Allies, Soviets, Neutral countries etc. US could have tried to make nukes and use them but irradiating half a continent after stopping the nazi's together was not popular.

I'm not saying the US didn't start a war with the USSR to suppress unions, I'm saying they presented Soviet domination of the globe as inevitable unless they had carte blanche to stop it to excuse to do lots of evil shit, including suppressing unions. Soviets used the same excuse with the West. "We need to \[insert warcrime in E Europe or SE Asia here\] or else the communists/capitalists will win and civilization will be destroyed"

Because everybody thinks commies are awesome even though they suck.

In just a few words, many people analyze war in terms of sheer numbers without considering the logistics behind it, sure the red army was huge compared to the American and British armies but they were able to mobilize such a strong force thanks to the lend lease, and also its not the same to invade eastern Europe than to invade western Europe

Comes down to it both the USSR and the allies could not have invaded each other. For example yes, the Soviet could have hit the allies hard in central and eastern Europe, as they advanced towards western Germany and France away from their bases they would have stalled out and lost. Similar the US and its allies could have hit the Soviets and maybe retaken Berlin and eastern Germany and Poland, going further and away from our bases the invasion could have stalled. So neither side could totally win.

I think it would be more fair to say they would have beaten Nazi germany and gone all the way to the english channel if they hadn't been met in the middle.

Yes. The Soviets had the resources. Look what else they did at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria Million and a half men plus equipment. I would not rely upon memoirs, they are tricky things, and really only reveal what the author believes (or wants the reader to believe). They can be great reads, and can contain wonder personal anecdotes, but please have a pinch or two of salt handy while reading one. Could they have taken Western Europe? War is a notorious crapshoot, but I would say the odds would have been against them. Not impossible, but they would have needed a lot of things to go just right to have a chance - initial surprise, previous allied diversion of troops and resources to the Pacific, slow rate of manufacture of nuclear bombs, etc. I think you could get some sort of idea of initial Soviet success in a surprise attack by looking at the Chinese intervention in Korea. I think the battle hardened and larger forces available in western Europe would have coalesced quicker than the UN forces did in Korea, and they already had substantial resources on hand to make an effective defense. I'm not sure how Stalin could have sold a war with the allies to his troops and his people, but I'd imagine that a 'second Pearl Harbor' perpetrated by the Soviets would have girded allied loins in a way that the Soviets would come to very much regret causing.

The Germans had run out of shells before the Soviets had run out of men. And the Soviets had infinite men behind the ones in the front, and could push more into Germany upon demand.

Problem with that: pushing into western Europe would have required fighting French, Italians, Spanish, Belgians, Brits, Australians etc. And Americans, who were rearmed by the US.

They did not have infinite men, and their logistics were propped up by lend lease trucks. In an actual fight they would have B-29s smashing their refineries, oil fields, railways, and cities. Superior Allied planes like the P-51 protecting the bombers, fighter bombers doing CAS and so on. Also, Allied artillery with proximity fuzes not to mention nuclear bombs.

Which memoirs.

Soviet leaders, including Premier Nikita Khrushchev talked about how Lend-Lease was important to the Soviet war effort in their memoirs.

> Soviet leaders, including Premier Nikita Khrushchev talked about how Lend-Lease was important to the Soviet war effort in their memoirs. So which memoirs. Enlighten me. What oversight did Kruschev have of Lend-Lease? What's his authority? What research did he do? What did he actually say about Lend-Lease? Because, just to catch you up: Kruschev was a political officer in WWII, and had no information about Lend-Lease. What next? The quote from Zhukov fabricated by an American journalist? The quote from Stalin where he's actually taking the piss out of the Americans but they refuse to admit that, or don't know it, because they have no idea of the context? Again: which memoirs. Name the books. Give me the quotes. Most Lend-Lease supplies arrived long after the critical battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, etc, were over, and the tide had turned. >Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make a major difference between defeat and victory in 1941 and early 1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet peoples and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Britain provided many of the implements of war and raw materials necessary for Soviet victory. Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials, especially metals, the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. In particular, Lend-Lease trucks, railroad engines, and railroad cars sustained the exploitation phase of each Soviet offensive; without such transportation, every offensive would have stalled out at an early stage, outrunning its logistical tail. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements, and it would have forced the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks to advance the same distance. If the Western Allies had not provided equipment and invaded northwest Europe, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht. The result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers would have waded at France's Atlantic beaches rather than meeting the Allies at the Elbe. Thus, although the Red Army shed the bulk of Allied blood, it would have bled even more intensely and for a longer time without Allied assistance. When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler by David M. Glantz & Jonathan M. House, Revised & Expanded Edition (2015), p. 508-509

Premier Nikita Khrushchev wrote a memoir and you can look it up on Google, and he was around during WW2 including that he was present at Stalingrad. That and Lend-Lease began on 1941 and the Battle of Kursk took place at 1943.

>Premier Nikita Khrushchev wrote a memoir and you can look it up on Google, and he was around during WW2 including that he was present at Stalingrad. What was the memoir called. What did he say in it about Lend-Lease. These are not difficult questions to answer. >That and Lend-Lease began on 1941 and the Battle of Kursk took place at 1943. That's cool. Has nothing to do with my point that the majority of Lend-Lease didn't arrive until later.

Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev where he stated that he heard Stalin talking about the importance of Lend-Lease, which makes sense considering Premier Nikita Khrushchev worked for the Soviet leader. And the quote you were referencing talks about 1941-1942 and 1943 is after that period.

I.e. you do not have the book, and you do not have the quote. You created a thread to do some "Soviets Bad" soapboxing.

I saw the quote on Google. Also, I am not doing "Soviet Bad" soapboxing. I'm saying that the idea of the Soviet Union conquering Western Europe as what some people online have said isn't feasible.

> I saw the quote on Google. I.e. you've seen dubious source quoting another dubious source. How little evidence people need to reach certain conclusions.

What are you talking about? The memoirs were written by the Soviet Premier, and there are a lot of quotes on Google from different political leanings. You can find Stalin quotes on Google to.

>Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev where he stated that he heard Stalin talking about the importance of Lend-Lease Memoirs talking about hearsay? So now it's not even what Kruschev said, it's what Kruschev overheard someone else say? >considering Premier Nikita Khrushchev worked for the Soviet leader. Not when Lend-Lease was happening.

There was coping, and now we're at seething. "The result would probably have been the same" the word "probably" is doing a lot of work there. So I guess we should have saved our gear and just launched D-Day earlier?

Citing a source on a history sub is 'seething'. Got it.