Who won the war? - Stalingrad (1993) Discussion

[–] Nihilismm 17 years ago

I am disgusted by the way the war is percieved now. All we hear about is the poor jews (6 mill. dead) and great Americans (0,2 mil dead). Guess what 2/3 of the German forces were busy invading USSR. 18 MILLION Russians died. The economical losses are undescribably, yet they marched ALL the way to Berlin! The only number close to the losses of the Soviets were Chinese under the Japanese invasion - 10 million.

Comparing the world populations at that time, Russian losses are completely unproportionate.

Just like Napoleon, Hitler forged his own doom by greed. Soviet Union was at peace and was completely unprepared, when the Germans invaded. Beated, but not defeated they stood up - while so many other European nations surrendered.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] julianna-boulter 17 years ago

While I agree that the Western Allies (US and Britain) were very important to the Allied Victory in WWII, I think sometimes we exaggerate the role we played in the War. D-Day didn't happen until Jun 6, 1944--Stalingrad lasted from Aug. 1942 to February 1943. Stalingrad was basically the turning point in the Eastern Front--after that battle, the Germans were almost constantly retreating while the Soviets advanced. So, while the Western Allies certainly brought the war to a more swift conclusion, the war would have ended eventually without the D-Day invasion. That would have been a nightmare for everyone, though. Can you imagine a Europe ruled by Stalin? *shudder* So, technically you could argue that the Western invasion was important mostly because it kept Stalin from continuing to progress Eastward.

Don't get me wrong--the Western Allies played a huge role in the war, but the US and Britain never could have won the war without the Soviets.

And, as for US industry saving the war, Stalin didn't agree with that. He was never impressed with the quality or amount of materiel sent over by US and Britain. He was particularly not impressed with the US tanks. A T39 will beat a Sherman any day.

So, to sum up, there's a reason we refer to the victory as an "Allied" victory. It was a partnership. The Soviets lost more by far than the British or the US, but in the end the Allies needed each other to win.

If you want to read a good book on the Eastern front, check out "When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler" by Glantz and House.

Another good book that gives a general outlook on World War II is "World War II: A Short History" by Michael J. Lyons.

reply

[–] MaximusIX 17 years ago

On the subject of books the best WWII book I ever read was Why the Allies won by Richard Overy.

Basically the Americans and British (but especially the Americans) did very little to contribute to the war effort. The Russians had to cope with the full brunt of Germany and almost folded. Stalingrad was the turning point and Kursk was the final nail in the coffin. The resources used to stop Germany here would have never have been available from any other country, especially America who put in a bit part effort at best.

The British played a huge part in stopping Germany by winning the Battle of Britain, but other than that little was done. With a war on two fronts the forces were split and Africa took some of the German focus when Operation Barbarossa first started. The Germans only lost the battle of Stalingrad by an average of 500 yards. If they had made it to the river they would have taken the city. Take that there is no resistance in the South and they control the oil fields. Take that and you have 1/3 of the full invasion force to push towards Moscow. Leningrad was already under siege by this stage so there was no need to commit further resources to that. Take Moscow and you knock Russia out the war as everything went through Moscow.

America only really contributed to the war in 43/44 and by that stage Kursk had been fought and won. There was no going back after Kursk and Germany were doomed; it was just a matter of time.

The allied effort was to achieve air dominance over mainland Europe. This stopped Germany moving troops and logistics around. This enabled D-Day which helped the West get into Germany at the same time as the Russians. Other than that though very little was ever accomplished by the West. Africa and the Middle East were incidental in the overall war effort.

reply

[–] flammus 17 years ago

As a Russian, I do not agree that capturing Moscow would have changed anything. The entire governement was already relocated from Moscow, except for Stalin who decided to stay there till the end, so USSR would still remain united. Moscow has been captured, burnt, annihilated so many times in the course of history that all it does is anger Russians even more. Napoleon suffered because he went for Moscow, thinking that by capturing it, he would bring down the Russian spirit, before him the Poles tried to do the same (they later suffered badly for briefly capturing it) and before them there were the Tatars who were the only "nation" in the world that successfully conquered the majority of Russia and held on to it for three centuries, but they too were defeated. Capturing of the capital rarely helps, at least in Russia.

reply

[–] Cocainefarm 17 years ago

But at the time of the Napoleonic Wars, Moscow was not the capital, St. Petersburg was.

"who would you say was most responsible for the Allied victory?"

What a stupid thing to ask, the only result is 20 pages of rants.
If you dig deep enough you could eventually say that one man won
the war. One alliance - one country - one general/company -
one factory - one manager - one worker - the workers mother.
WOW, the winner was actually a woman who gave birth to a man
who would eventually become the most important worker in the
most important rifle factory in the world.

reply

[–] flammus 17 years ago

But Moscow has always been the most important city in Russia, despite St. Petersburg's status as the capital at that time. When St. Petersburg was besieged during the WWII and Moscow was under attack, that only sparkled more resistance and anger from people.

reply

[–] RBM1424 17 years ago

You also have to remember that the African Campaign is more important than you think. With German victory, they could have possibly forced Turkey to surrender or ally or whatever and they were very close to Baku so Barbarossa would have been assisted by the loss of nearly all of the Soviet oil. And, without Suez, India would not have been supplied and would be lost to the Japanese most likely and of course without the oil, no T34 tanks or IL-2's. Also, the loss of India would help the Japanese beat the Chinese and well, everyone did their part and there are so many variables that you can't just say "USSR won singlehandedly" or "America FTW!" In the end, everyone lost, Soviet Union army and civilian losses, Japan's Navy, UK's massive empire, all hope for Nationalist China, and many other things. The one who really came on top (arguably) was Communist China. They basically got Manchuria for free and didn't really do anything to fight the Japanese.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 17 years ago

Correct. The capture of Moscow and/or Stalingrad by the Axis Powers in WWII would not have changed the outcome. Obviously the German Army could not go much further eastward and the Soviets were not going to stop fighting just because two more cities had been captured (thought the term "destroyed" is perhaps more realistic). Before he ordered the invasion of the Soviet Union I would estimate that Hitler had a 25% chance of long term survival (he could not defeat the United Kingdom; certainly not with the U.K. receiving help from the United States). After he ordered the invasion of the Soviet Union he was good as dead.

reply

[–] john_chris2006 17 years ago

If Hitler had listened to his Generals and Chief-of-Staff there was a possibility Hitler may have won the war or at least continued it for a few more years. Hitler, who thought of himself as a military genius, along side with his maniac ego, thought he knew military strategy better than the military men he surrounded himself with. If Hitler had listened to his Generals and not invaded Russia the war would have ended very differently. Hitler certainly did not learn from history, for he did, he would have known the hardship and futility Napoleon went through when he tried to conquer Russia. To many historians, this was the fatal move that caused Hitler to eventually lose the war. If one was to look at the greatest loss of any army during WWII it was the Russians, but to say they themselves won it would be to forget all the other armies that fought in the conflict, whether they be American, British, Canadian, French, Polish .... etc.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 17 years ago

Very good point. Hitler could not have conquered the United Kingdom (due to the U.K. Navy) and Churchill would not give in to negotiations with the Axis Powers so, if Hitler had not declared war on the U.S. and the U.S. did not enter that theater, there is no real way to know how long the German-U.K. conflict would have lasted even if Hitler had not ordered the invasion of the Soviet Union. Presumably there would have been some sort of end to the European fighting, in that scenario, by the time the U.S. developed the atomic bomb and used it on Japan. Would the U.S. then have had the guts to use it on a dictator that we were not in war with? Probably not, as the U.S. did not use it on Stalinist Russia (which had another dictator who deserved elimination).

reply

[–] screenman 17 years ago

Crikey! Looking at all these pages, I'm not so sure the war is over at all. It's just being fought-out on the internet.

reply

[–] saltydogdesign 17 years ago

You'll find this same dumb argument replayed ad nauseum on a thread attached to every ww2 film here...

reply

[–] artisticengineer 17 years ago

VERY good point! In fact, my generation (baby boomers; now "middle age" boomers) grew up seeing all these war movies and TV shows and never really understood what WWII was really like. There are not very many movies or TV shows that actually depict what that time frame was truely like, and how it was to be a soldier in that conflict. This movie is a little different (certainly any movie that shows the conflict from the loosing side is unusual). It even has one of Hitler's radio broadcasts in it; without a voice over on it. Here is why that is something of note-

When we (baby boomers) were growing up the TV would sometimes show recordings of Hitler giving a speech. As soon as he would start talking an English language voiceover would begin, and as a result one would not actually hear him speaking (in German of course). Now, I do NOT believe this was done to obscure what he was saying. The English language voiceover was done simply because most (over 99%) Americans do not know the German language well enough to understand a Hitler speech without translation, and I am sure the voiceover gave a very accurate rendition of what Hitler was saying. Still, the point is that one never actually heard Hitler talking. In this movie the Hitler speech is heard without a voiceover. One can actually hear Hitler speaking - and the English translation is given through subtitles.

reply

[–] Racistbuster 17 years ago

The real point is, you have all these geek-boys without a life rambling here over some far-fetched hypotheticals (e.g. what if the Hitler never invaded Russia, what if the Americans weren't tough enough to use the A-tomb, what if this, what if that??)

reply

[–] artisticengineer 16 years ago

Not really that far-fetched. Hitler won the war at least twice, but threw it away (albeit inadvertantly). It was only by a lot of luck that Europe was able to overcome the Nazi dominance. It was a lot closer than most people think.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jared-Fogle-Sucks 10 years ago

Let's not kid ourselves.

The Allied Powers had much more physical resources and men. Britain and France at the beginning of the war were totally unprepared, but to colonize, it results in leaving manpower in conquered areas, where they may be stretched thin. e.g. German troops all over Europe, USSR, North Africa...to an extent that it was NOT sustainable over time.

Britain, France, and USSR would have eventually overcome Germany very easily through a battle of attrition; it would only be a matter of "when", not "if". Same can be applied to U.S. and Japan; no way the latter would be able to purely produce the goods to sustain themselves in a long war vs the U.S.

All this doesn't even factor in the probability that the countries that are being colonized will eventually revolt, and overthrow their German leaders. e.g. Poland, Eastern Europe, North Africa.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amalsmiley 16 years ago

The USSR for sure, no doubt. It was in part to the harsh weather but still, Russians stopped the Germans for the first time in the war in 1942, and after that it was all downhill. The Allies landed 2 years later when the Germans were already pushed back quite a distance.

Bones it, padlock it, and ya put the chain on it! (handshake)
-JasonBateman, Smokin Aces

reply

[–] stathisart 16 years ago

Anybody who has red a history book or two (for example Beevor's, which is very popular), or who has at least given a look over the stats can understand that it was the soviet union that stopped Hitler. It is plain to any logical person.

The cost in human lives was very high, for both sides, although higher more for the russians, so high that the USSR never fully recovered from it. 20000000 milion people died, and whole cities where reduced to ruins.

Ofcourse the tottalitarian regime of Stalin helped in the mobilization of the military and the economy in a way that would probably have been impossible in any other country (not even Germany, despite Hitler's firm control).

It took a ruthless dictator to defeat another ruthless dictator as it seems.

reply

[–] EnZa_Pylamas 16 years ago

Anybody who has red a history book or two (for example Beevor's, which is very popular), or who has at least given a look over the stats can understand that it was the soviet union that stopped Hitler. It is plain to any logical person.

I don't think USSR won the war, the 20 million+ casualties could have been Western too. The Western leaders won the war because they saved their own people. Russians got the worst of the war with all their casualties, and still they had to continue living in the paradise of USSR.

Yeah, keep reading but try something that ain't "popular".

Crying department is upstairs, Lady.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 16 years ago

I totally agree. The 20 million+ casualties were due mainly to Stalin's incompetence. Had a competent ruler been in power in the USSR I do not believe Hitler would have even invaded. If he had, the Soviet casualties would still have been much less than under Stalin.

reply

[–] quan-chi-1 16 years ago

The Red army was the biggest Hero in the war, USA were only a helping out a bit, they only fought for a few years, the war ended in 45, the japan - usa war doesnt count, anyway the re army won the war, with a little help from thw west.
Stalin's 20+ million casualties were only because of the Red army's size, Stalin was brilliant, he used the russian winter to defeat the enemy.

To Weird to live and to rare to die, so lets put a smile on that face

reply

[–] artisticengineer 16 years ago

I do not take offense at you writing that the Red Army was the biggest hero in the war; perhaps they were. I DO take offense at your statement that "USA were only a helping out a bit" (sic). I take offense NOT due to your grammer (I presume you are not a native English speaker), but rather to the statement itself. The USA helped out VERY much; even the Russian leader stated that without the USA supplies (transported by the Allies at horrifying risk via the Murmansk supply route) the Red Army would have not been able to fight; let alone win their front. The Strategic bombing (something the Red Army was unable to do) was also decisive in the European, as well as, in the Pacific theater.

Stalin was incompetent; his generals (most of whom he had put into prison before the war then released only when it became woefully apparent that he needed them too much to keep in prison) were Russia's salvation.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] artisticengineer 16 years ago

I am aware of the arguments concerning how just how important strategic bombing was in World War II. Though I agree that the RAF bombing policy left a lot to be desired they were able to inflict a considerable amount of damage as evidenced by the bombing of Hamburg in 1942. The American bombing pretty much went as you described. However, please remember that the Germans had to divert a lot of equipment and personnel from the Eastern (Russian) Front to the Western front to counter the Allied air raids and this seriously hurt the Axis entire war effort.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] artisticengineer 16 years ago

Careful about Dresden; that is a sensitive subject. The United States Army Air Force was only slightly involved with that mess- the cause of the firestorm was definitely the massive British night bombing. Anyway, back to your arguement. The Allies could have won the European theater in 1943 by concentrating the bombing on refineries. They did not realize it at the time and by the time they did realize it the Germans had constructed the synthetic oil refineries that were very, very difficult to put out of commission. WWII should have ended a lot sooner than it did.

The Soviet Union did do a lot of fighting against the Germans and a lot of Soviet troops were killed or wounded in that process. I am not saying that they were not important in the struggle; only that a lot more died than needed to; this was due to mismanagement-ultimate responsibility being Stalin's.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xaggurat 16 years ago

I agree about Stalin. It was the ordinary Russian soldier who won the World War.

reply

[–] marius_em 15 years ago

actualy, it was Hitler's bad decissions that lost the war. He underestimated the americans.
the war really ended in 1990, when the Soviet Union fell. The americans won it.

reply

[–] dusan-22 15 years ago

There has been a real comedy developed over here. I can't believe that there are comments which have no historical support at all. Main fact: 9 out of 10 German soldiers killed in WWII were killed on the Russian Front. This tells you who won WWII and in what percentage. As for the comment on the Soviets having no military tactics - just to mention that only in Stalingrad around 750 thousand elite German Soldiers were captured or killed (Normandy was defended by 500.000 soldiers, among them most of the soldiers over 35 years old, many prisoners from the Eastern Front, a lot of them happy to surrender which was no case on Eastern Front. Two German fighter airplanes against 10.000 American and British. Still German loses where around 23 thousand versus 45 thousand allied which gives you the picture of military tactics). In the Battle of Kursk the most advanced technologies of Wermacht where completely destroyed only by military strategy of the Soviets. As for the "glorious" war coup of the US, it happened when Russians had already been on the Eastern borders of Germany - the war was almost over. So why did the allies land? Not for the war result, but for their share. They came to secure that western part of Europe won't be under the Russian political and military domination. Without the US landing WWII would probably last longer, but that is most probably all what would happen. Although Germany was military defeated by Soviet Union and truly by Hitler's ridiculous mistakes, the US gave significant contribution with their money - the greatest one US gave in WWII. Convoys of ships were going every day from the docks of NY towards the Baltic Sea. This is the reason why Hitler's U-boats went all the way to American coast desperately trying to sink them. As for the greatest military contribution of the US in WWII I would say that these are the air raids of the US bombers especially over Germany. Already crippled Luftwaffe even though much more technically superior couldn't resist to great numbers of American planes. All in all it is fair to say that without Red Army we would all speak German today, in Europe or the US. Without American support of the Red Army in supplies the war would most probably last much longer. Also, somebody mentioned the money that the US industry made on the aid they sent to the USSR during WWII. I doubt that USSR could pay anything to the US at that time, or the US wanted anything except the axis defeat at that time. However, what we know is that Stalin followed the deal they made on sharing European territories (officially happened in Yalta) until his death. Also, worth of mentioning that the US had traded with Hitler before WWII until Perl Harbor happened and even after that, speaking of few US coorporations. All major US companies had seen a lot of profit in the war faraway from North American continent, until it happened to be not that far any more. Look at this Times Magazine article, for example that I just googled:
GM and Ford, through their subsidiaries, controlled 70 percent of the German automobile market when war broke out in 1939. Those companies "rapidly retooled themselves to become suppliers of war materiel to the Germany army," writes Michael Dobbs in the Washington Post.
"When American GIs invaded Europe in June 1944, they did so in jeeps, trucks and tanks manufactured by the Big Three motor companies in one of the largest crash militarization programs ever undertaken," observes Dobbs. "It came as an unpleasant surprise to discover that the enemy was also driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel — a 100 percent GM-owned subsidiary — and flying Opel-built warplanes."
So folks, yes, I am a patriot too when it comes to my country, but lets try to be realistic a bit.
Online sources on historical facts and data: Wikipedia, Wiki-answers and World Encyclopedia

reply

[–] dusan-22 15 years ago

Without Soviet engagement and all Soviet soldiers died to defeat Reich, no Allie plane would ever fly over Europe and you would most probably speak German today.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 15 years ago

I must point out your error here. The United Kingdom was conducting strategic air bombing of Germany before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. So, without Soviet engagement Allied planes would, and did, fly over Europe. When the United States entered the war Hitler was doomed. The Russian front did make it a little easier for the West; nobody is denying that. However, that front was not absolutely essential to defeating the Third Reich.

It really does not take much to see this. Had the Soviet Union not been as effective as they were (actually, they really were not terribly effective or efficient! but supposing there were even less effective) the war could possibly have dragged onto say August 1945; maybe even September, but certainly not much later than that. AND, I can prove it!! NOW! Here is the proof-

The United States developed the atomic bomb in July 1945. Enough said. There is absolutely no way we, in the United States (greatest and most perfect country ever to exist) would be speaking German today-except perhaps as a college elective. We would be speaking the same language that we actually speak today; which is American English- the greatest and most perfect language to ever be spoken.

reply

[–] dusan-22 15 years ago

Dear Mr Engineer, you are absolutely right about immense American war material supply in WWII. But it wasn't going only towards USSR, but also Third Reich. Can't blame them for that, it was easy money made on blood of non-Americans. Even when US joined the war, some of the US companies didn't stop exporting goods for Hitler, like General Motors for example. Being fair, we may bring these two "exports" in balance as we don't know exacts stats on both of them, we only know it was massive.
As for bombings, once again, pls be advised that non of American airplanes wouldn't be able to enter Europe before Germany became heavy crippled on Eastern front suffering first and most of her great losses. Soviet army was not able to perform air-raids because their country was invaded by massive enemy forces so they had to engage everything they got on their wast territory and they did it very well having the most massive airplane production in WWII after American.

reply

[–] dusan-22 15 years ago

Well said.

reply

[–] joekill162 16 years ago

The russans won because they sent wave after wave afer of men to their death the russans did not use much military fighting tatics because they were unprepared for Stalingrad but after 1941 they kick ass, but at the cost of banzai attacks using thousands of soldiers to attack a few hundred german soldiers, after the german soldiers run out of bullets, they were dead, gunn down, shot in the back, execute, or sent to the gulag witch equal 100% chance of never returning home.

It would be like if the us and china would go to war, just ground battle only no air support, even though we have better weapons and soldiers we do not have enough bullets.

reply

[–] xaggurat 16 years ago

Yeah? Go read some more.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] infinite_regress 16 years ago

hahaha

reply

[–] dusan-22 15 years ago

Yeah? Why didn't Japanese win over America with their Kamikaze attacks? You gotta go over elementary school history before stating such crp.

reply