Спасибо, Россия!

[Jokodo]

70 years after Nazi Germany was defeated, when we₁* think of how the war was won for the allies, we think of D-day, of British and American fighter pilots, maybe of the desert war and the French resistance, and in this context we might even remember the civilian losses of the Blitz in London and other places in the UK.

We₁ don't usually think of the Red Army that halted the Axis advance at Stalingrad almost two years before D-day, and was well on its way to Germany proper by mid-'44. We don't think of the partisans in Poland, Yugoslavia, or the occupied parts of the Soviet Union who severely impeded Germany's ability to operate through sabotage. And, at the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the victory, it's anything but easy to find, in English speaking media, even a casual reference to the millions of civilians who were sent to do forced labour for Germany's military-industrial complex from those countries, or the millions who were summarily executed as retaliation for partisan acts (holocaust deaths, the overwhelming majority of which were in the East too, are an honorable exception to this pattern) - while the same media happily report on the savagery of the Blitz and how hard it made life in England.

Even we₂* who were on the wrong side in the war sometimes tend to forget why we lost it. While I do have a direct ancestor who died on the Eastern front (my kid has at least two), and while no-one (that I know of - though people tend not to talk about what their ancestors did then) has relatives who died on the Western front, the narrative we heard in history class still is predominantly that the balance shifted once the US entered the war.

So I guess both we₁ and we₂ are in ample need of a reminder that the Western Front was, relatively, a sideshow, and it's main importance to tie up German troops, thereby hastening the Soviets' advance. The war was, very clearly, won in the East, by Russia.

For illustration, I give you (both via  World_War_II_casualties):

and


Also, WP's don't forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler.

In conclusion: Спасибо, Россия - thank you, Russia!


"We₁" refers to people who were raised and received their basic education in a Western country, and influenced by Western pop-cultural elaborations on the theme of WW2; we₂ refers to people whose ancestors served (and sometimes died) as Axis soldiers, but who are still very happy the war ended the way it did.

 

[Bomb#20]

In conclusion: Спасибо, Россия - thank you, Russia!

"We can win by persistent defense and retreat. If the enemy begins to pursue us it is all up with him; for the farther he advances from his bases of supply into a trackless and foodless country, starved and encircled by an army of Cossacks, his position will become more and more dangerous. He will end by being decimated by the winter, which has always been our most faithful ally."

- Christoph von Liewen, Russian Ambassador to Britain, June, 1812​

 

[Trausti]

Спасибо, Россия!

Though you had signed up with the Nazis and were an Axis power, had invaded Poland, the Baltic countries, and Finland, too, you later had a change of heart when the Nazis took Minsk. And for that, we excused your totalitarian tendencies, rapes, mass slaughter, and deportations. With the help of American aid, and an unabashed willingness to take high casualties and shoot your own soldiers in the back, you did it. Спасибо indeed.

 

[Hickdive]

"We can win by persistent defense and retreat. If the enemy begins to pursue us it is all up with him; for the farther he advances from his bases of supply into a trackless and foodless country, starved and encircled by an army of Cossacks, his position will become more and more dangerous. He will end by being decimated by the winter, which has always been our most faithful ally."

- Christoph von Liewen, Russian Ambassador to Britain, June, 1812​

This reminds me of the old joke about why Egypt always lost its wars with Israel. The problem was the Russian tactical manual they'd been issued with which simply advised them to retreat into their own country and wait for winter.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Спасибо, Россия!

Though you had signed up with the Nazis and were an Axis power, had invaded Poland, the Baltic countries, and Finland, too, you later had a change of heart when the Nazis took Minsk. And for that, we excused your totalitarian tendencies, rapes, mass slaughter, and deportations. With the help of American aid, and an unabashed willingness to take high casualties and shoot your own soldiers in the back, you did it. Спасибо indeed.

I would add to that Hitler and his Nazi arrogance refusing to foment a civil war.

 

[Hickdive]

I think the "we" referred to in the OP does a grave disservice to anyone who has studied WW2 beyond secondary school level.

I don't know of any serious military historian, or anyone with more than a passing interest, who would deny that the war was essentially a showdown between the two totalitarian regimes of Hitler and Stalin.

However, nor do I know of anyone who would deny that the Soviet Union's massive sacrifice of lives was as much the result of Stalin's military doctrine and social policies as enemy action.

 

[Jokodo]

Спасибо, Россия!

Though you had signed up with the Nazis and were an Axis power, had invaded Poland, the Baltic countries, and Finland, too, you later had a change of heart when the Nazis took Minsk. And for that, we excused your totalitarian tendencies, rapes, mass slaughter, and deportations. With the help of American aid, and an unabashed willingness to take high casualties and shoot your own soldiers in the back, you did it. Спасибо indeed.

The fact that Stalin was a power-hungry asshole that had no problem to sign a pact with Hitler while it suited his objectives and invade other countries is neither here nor there with respect to the fact that the Soviet people paid the highest price for defeating the Nazis. Nor does it categorically distinguish the Soviet union from the Western allies - after the War, the US and NATO was quick to embrace Spain under Franco (who had come to power with Hitler's and Mussolini's assistance) as an ally.

I didn't start this thread to honour Stalin. I'm convinced that he's one of the worst figures in recent history. I even believe that his doctrines are partly to blame for Hitler coming to power in the first place - in the last free elections in Germany, while the Nazis were the strongest party, they did not have a majority, and the Social Democrats and Communists between them had more votes and seats than the Nazis. If it hadn't been for Stalin's doctrine of "social fascism", essentially claiming that all non-communist parties including the Social Democrats are just as bad as each other, followed to the word by German communists, there might have been a potential to form a (limited-purpose and temporary) joint left bloc to throw back the Nazis.

I started this thread to honour the massive sacrifice of the Russian people, unparalleled by anything in the West and underrecognised in Western popular imagination. Stalin != Russian people.

 

[Jokodo]

I think the "we" referred to in the OP does a grave disservice to anyone who has studied WW2 beyond secondary school level.

I don't know of any serious military historian, or anyone with more than a passing interest, who would deny that the war was essentially a showdown between the two totalitarian regimes of Hitler and Stalin.

However, nor do I know of anyone who would deny that the Soviet Union's massive sacrifice of lives was as much the result of Stalin's military doctrine and social policies as enemy action.

I'm not talking about military historians, serious or otherwise. I'm talking about the popular perception of someone who's last had history classes in high school, who's seen a couple documentaries and a handful of Hollywood elaborations on WW2, and who may have read a couple of newspaper articles on the commemorations.

As for the reasons for the massive losses: The war in the East really was a different kind of animal from the war in the West. Only in the East did the Germans systematically execute anyone potentially capable of raising resistance. Only in the East were PoWs sent to labour camps where most of them died. Only in the East did the retreating German army raze entire cities to the ground. Only in the East did the the German forces capture all food supplies they found, leaving what remained of the civilian population after the Einsatzgruppen had done their job to starve. The Nazis considered their enemies in the West humans who happened to be on the wrong side, while they considered their enemies in the East subhuman - and it showed.

http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/about/living_history/wwii_soviet_experience.dot

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Спасибо, Россия!

Though you had signed up with the Nazis and were an Axis power, had invaded Poland, the Baltic countries, and Finland, too, you later had a change of heart when the Nazis took Minsk. And for that, we excused your totalitarian tendencies, rapes, mass slaughter, and deportations. With the help of American aid, and an unabashed willingness to take high casualties and shoot your own soldiers in the back, you did it. Спасибо indeed.

I would add to that Hitler and his Nazi arrogance refusing to foment a civil war.

This is always interesting to speculate about.

What if the Germans had been prepared for winter?

What if Hitler had listened to his generals, thereby allowing a more methodical and sensible campaign?

What if the Germans had simple ignored Moscow for the time being instead of diverting masses of divisions to taking a place that was inconsequential in the scheme of things?

What if Hitler had allowed his armies to regroup and retreat as necessary?

Oh, and what if the Germans had built heavy bombers like the allies did? That was one hell of an oversight.

Of course, none of that happened and it's good that it didn't. But Hitler contributed mightily to his own nation's defeat in that war. And that is certainly not to denigrate the losses the Soviets suffered--they were appalling.

But better preparation and a better executed plan could have knocked the Soviets out before they had a chance to regroup due to Hitler's buffoonery.

 

[Horatio Parker]

What if the Germans had been prepared for winter?

IIRC, only the Wehrmacht was unprepared. The SS and the Luftwaffe were ready.

What if Hitler had listened to his generals, thereby allowing a more methodical and sensible campaign?

At the least, they could've delayed Russian entry into Europe. They may have been able to produce a stalemate. There were talks during the war.

What if the Germans had simple ignored Moscow for the time being instead of diverting masses of divisions to taking a place that was inconsequential in the scheme of things?

In 1942 the Germans did ignore Moscow and so threw the Russian defense out of joint. The Germans were most effective when their mobile line of advance threatened multiple objectives. Once the enemy's objective is clear, it's much easier to counter it.

What if Hitler had allowed his armies to regroup and retreat as necessary?

Hitler was a gifted amateur strategist, but as happens to amateurs, he got out of his depth.

Of course, none of that happened and it's good that it didn't. But Hitler contributed mightily to his own nation's defeat in that war. And that is certainly not to denigrate the losses the Soviets suffered--they were appalling.

Barbaric is what it was. I always recommend the Russian movie "Come and See" portraying the liquidation of a White Russian village. A few Fellini-esque excesses, but chilling.

 

[bilby]

IIRC, only the Wehrmacht was unprepared. The SS and the Luftwaffe were ready.

Point of information: The Luftwaffe was part of the Wehrmacht.

The best English translations for 'Wehrmacht' are perhaps 'Military', 'Armed Forces' or 'War Department' - what today might be euphemistically called 'Defence forces'; it was divided into the Kriegsmarine, Heer, and Luftwaffe - Navy, Army and Airforce, respectively.

The Kriegsmarine played little part in Barbarossa; if the Luftwaffe were prepared for winter, then it was the Heer who were not.

The SS was a paramilitary security force, independent of the Wehrmacht, and became more militarised as the war progressed.

It was typical of Hitler to have more than one authority with overlapping responsibilities; this made for less efficient use of his resources, but was critical to ensuring that only the Fuhrer had the authority to control everything, thereby preventing subordinates from staging an effective coup.

That reluctance to delegate, and the half-arsed approach to delegation when he had to do it, was a major contributor to his defeat, IMO.

 

[Jokodo]

IIRC, only the Wehrmacht was unprepared. The SS and the Luftwaffe were ready.

Point of information: The Luftwaffe was part of the Wehrmacht.

The best English translations for 'Wehrmacht' are perhaps 'Military', 'Armed Forces' or 'War Department' - what today might be euphemistically called 'Defence forces'; it was divided into the Kriegsmarine, Heer, and Luftwaffe - Navy, Army and Airforce, respectively.

The Kriegsmarine played little part in Barbarossa; if the Luftwaffe were prepared for winter, then it was the Heer who were not.

Actually, the best English translation of "Wehrmacht" is perhaps exactly - "Defence forces". The reflexive verb "sich wehren" translates to English as "defend oneself"; the euphemism is arguably older than you seem to believe.

 

[bilby]

Point of information: The Luftwaffe was part of the Wehrmacht.

The best English translations for 'Wehrmacht' are perhaps 'Military', 'Armed Forces' or 'War Department' - what today might be euphemistically called 'Defence forces'; it was divided into the Kriegsmarine, Heer, and Luftwaffe - Navy, Army and Airforce, respectively.

The Kriegsmarine played little part in Barbarossa; if the Luftwaffe were prepared for winter, then it was the Heer who were not.

Actually, the best English translation of "Wehrmacht" is perhaps exactly - "Defence forces". The reflexive verb "sich wehren" translates to English as "defend oneself"; the euphemism is arguably older than you seem to believe.

Thank you, I didn't know that - my German is practically nonexistent.

I suspect that in the case of the Wehrmacht it was more a ruse to give the impression of compliance with Versailles than a euphemism as such. But it certainly caught on after WWII.

I always felt that the effective end of the British Empire was not Indian independence, or the Suez crisis, but the change from having a War Office to having a Department of Defence in 1964.

 

[Horatio Parker]

IIRC, only the Wehrmacht was unprepared. The SS and the Luftwaffe were ready.

Point of information: The Luftwaffe was part of the Wehrmacht.

The best English translations for 'Wehrmacht' are perhaps 'Military', 'Armed Forces' or 'War Department' - what today might be euphemistically called 'Defence forces'; it was divided into the Kriegsmarine, Heer, and Luftwaffe - Navy, Army and Airforce, respectively.

The Kriegsmarine played little part in Barbarossa; if the Luftwaffe were prepared for winter, then it was the Heer who were not.

The SS was a paramilitary security force, independent of the Wehrmacht, and became more militarised as the war progressed.

It was typical of Hitler to have more than one authority with overlapping responsibilities; this made for less efficient use of his resources, but was critical to ensuring that only the Fuhrer had the authority to control everything, thereby preventing subordinates from staging an effective coup.

That reluctance to delegate, and the half-arsed approach to delegation when he had to do it, was a major contributor to his defeat, IMO.

Thanks for the clarification. The non-SS infantry and mobile units were what I meant.

 

[Perspicuo]

The Red Army used extensive quantities of Lend-Lease tanks and other armoured vehicles from the USA, Great Britain and Canada. A total of 22,800 armoured vehicles were supplied to the Red Army during the war, of which 1,981 were lost at sea on the one ore other dangerous Arctic convoy .

amounting to 487 Matilda tanks , Valentines and Tetrarchs from the UK and 182 M3A1 Stuart light tanks and M3 Lee medium tanks from the USA.
In 1942, Britain provided a further 2,487 tanks and the USA 3,023 tanks. The first units equipped with Valentines and Matildas went into service in the Staraya Russa and Valdai areas in December 1941 and January 1942.

During the war, Russia produced only 343,624 cars and lorries due to the heavy commitment of major automobile factories like GAZ to armoured vehicle production. The USA alone provided the Russians with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 jeeps, 151,053 1-1/2-ton trucks, and 200,622 2-1/2-ton trucks.
The aid was vital, not only because of the sheer quantity, but because of the quality. While Soviet auto*motive production [...]

In addition, 15,631 artillery guns and 131,633 sub-machine guns were supplied by the Allies to Russia.

http://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/


Спасибо, англо-американцы! ["Thanks, Anglo-Americans!"] (Very unlikely phrase in the Putin era... Envy, jealousy, and sheer ego rivalry in general are a universal constant in the human animal.)

 

[Jokodo]

amounting to 487 Matilda tanks , Valentines and Tetrarchs from the UK and 182 M3A1 Stuart light tanks and M3 Lee medium tanks from the USA.
In 1942, Britain provided a further 2,487 tanks and the USA 3,023 tanks. The first units equipped with Valentines and Matildas went into service in the Staraya Russa and Valdai areas in December 1941 and January 1942.

During the war, Russia produced only 343,624 cars and lorries due to the heavy commitment of major automobile factories like GAZ to armoured vehicle production. The USA alone provided the Russians with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 jeeps, 151,053 1-1/2-ton trucks, and 200,622 2-1/2-ton trucks.
The aid was vital, not only because of the sheer quantity, but because of the quality. While Soviet auto*motive production [...]

In addition, 15,631 artillery guns and 131,633 sub-machine guns were supplied by the Allies to Russia.

http://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/


Спасибо, англо-американцы! ["Thanks, Anglo-Americans!"] (Very unlikely phrase in the Putin era... Envy, jealousy, and sheer ego rivalry in general are a universal constant in the human animal.)

It's true that the Western allies supplied substantial material aid. But, 25 million dead is a sacrifice of quite another magnitude than 25 million doing overtime in war-related industries, isn't it?

 

[Horatio Parker]

During the war, Russia produced only 343,624 cars and lorries due to the heavy commitment of major automobile factories like GAZ to armoured vehicle production. The USA alone provided the Russians with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 jeeps, 151,053 1-1/2-ton trucks, and 200,622 2-1/2-ton trucks.
The aid was vital, not only because of the sheer quantity, but because of the quality. While Soviet auto*motive production [...]

In addition, 15,631 artillery guns and 131,633 sub-machine guns were supplied by the Allies to Russia.

http://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/


Спасибо, англо-американцы! ["Thanks, Anglo-Americans!"] (Very unlikely phrase in the Putin era... Envy, jealousy, and sheer ego rivalry in general are a universal constant in the human animal.)

It's true that the Western allies supplied substantial material aid. But, 25 million dead is a sacrifice of quite another magnitude than 25 million doing overtime in war-related industries, isn't it?

Yes. The West was quite willing to give Russia all the arms possible in lieu of spending the lives of their own people. China, too, the US at any rate. The British, wisely IMO, didn't give a damn for Chiang.

Ghandi knew. That's why he said fight the war yourself.

 

[Perspicuo]

During the war, Russia produced only 343,624 cars and lorries due to the heavy commitment of major automobile factories like GAZ to armoured vehicle production. The USA alone provided the Russians with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 jeeps, 151,053 1-1/2-ton trucks, and 200,622 2-1/2-ton trucks.
The aid was vital, not only because of the sheer quantity, but because of the quality. While Soviet auto*motive production [...]

In addition, 15,631 artillery guns and 131,633 sub-machine guns were supplied by the Allies to Russia.

http://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/


Спасибо, англо-американцы! ["Thanks, Anglo-Americans!"] (Very unlikely phrase in the Putin era... Envy, jealousy, and sheer ego rivalry in general are a universal constant in the human animal.)

It's true that the Western allies supplied substantial material aid. But, 25 million dead is a sacrifice of quite another magnitude than 25 million doing overtime in war-related industries, isn't it?

That was millions of not-Stalins being sent to die by Stalin, as before the war, a war Stalin did not prevent from happening because he was happy dividing Poland with dear Adolf.

I understand what you mean, but... historical context please.

 

[Jokodo]

During the war, Russia produced only 343,624 cars and lorries due to the heavy commitment of major automobile factories like GAZ to armoured vehicle production. The USA alone provided the Russians with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 jeeps, 151,053 1-1/2-ton trucks, and 200,622 2-1/2-ton trucks.
The aid was vital, not only because of the sheer quantity, but because of the quality. While Soviet auto*motive production [...]

In addition, 15,631 artillery guns and 131,633 sub-machine guns were supplied by the Allies to Russia.

http://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/


Спасибо, англо-американцы! ["Thanks, Anglo-Americans!"] (Very unlikely phrase in the Putin era... Envy, jealousy, and sheer ego rivalry in general are a universal constant in the human animal.)

It's true that the Western allies supplied substantial material aid. But, 25 million dead is a sacrifice of quite another magnitude than 25 million doing overtime in war-related industries, isn't it?

That was millions of not-Stalins being sent to die by Stalin, as before the war, a war Stalin did not prevent from happening because he was happy dividing Poland with dear Adolf.

I understand what you mean, but... historical context please.

There's a reason this thread is called "Спасибо, Россия" rather than "Спасибо, Сталин". The fact that Stalin didn't value the lifes of the not-Stalins who died in the war doesn't imply that neither should we.

 

[Perspicuo]

Jokodo,
"Russia" was not, is not, and never has been acephalous. As a comparison, in the same period, "We defeated Germany" and "We defeated Hitler" were synonymous.