Yak experts

[batdog]

Originally posted by bioconscripter
Yes, very true. USSR was the country that accutally won the war for the rest of the world. They were the ones who wore down the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht so they could be defeated. At a very high price. The battles and the casualties the Allies had on the Western Front are nothing compared to the Eastern Front. It's sad that here in North America the Eastern Front is forgotten. If UK and USA would have to face the Wehrmacht at full strenght, the results would be catastrophic.

Uhhhh....somebody is forgetting the bombing campaign waged vrs the German Industry. There was a REASON the leaders all met to discuss the war. The determined how each one was going to contibute. The Russians didnt have a long range bomber force.. we did. The Westerns also launched an attack though Italy as well... dont forget this.

Germany would of eventualy been fighting a mult-front war regardless. Southern France and Normandy...perhaps also through the Slavic nations/Greece as well. The War would of lasted longer BUT the end result would of depended on whom ever had the A-Bomb first....


xBAT

[bioconscripter]

Actually Stalin was screaming for a western allies invasion of europe since 1942 or so....

Because his people were dieing in millions, and the Germans were almost at Moscow.

So I take it the war against the Japanese doesn't count?

Well, Japan was horribly outmatched against the United States, they did well in Peral Harbor but then it went downhill for them for the rest of the war.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Wotan
before you disgard the russians impact on the war in the pacific read up on manchuria.

That was one hell of an assault put on by the soviets almost equal to the assault on berlin.

 

The Russian movement of assets from its western front to Manchuria during june/july 45 is still the largest military logistical movement ever undertaken and completed.

I would concurr that whilst the VVS controlled the skies of the eastern front from (latest) early 44 onwards it was not due to massive local fighter attrition of the LW. The LW (despite 44 being the highest year of german ACproduction) was simply out numbered, due to the demands of other fronts, and so avoided all situations inducing a "trade off" of hardware & personnel.

Stalin branded Churchill a coward due to his reluctance to open a 2nd front in 43..........Churchill openly stated that the level of losses sustained by the Russians were not acceptable for Britain and her colonies.

Its also clear that the sweeping success's of the Bagration and Lvov assaults would not have been so successfull if the Whermacht was not also facing the twin fronts of Normandy and Italy. ( the Whermacht would not have had to choose which Army group to bolster [Central or Ukraine] for the up coming attack it could have bolstered both).

Even so its my opinion that eventually with or without the 2nd fronts Stalin would have taken Europe using the blood of his own armies as currency.

Kursk had been a miserable shambles for the Whermacht......it would never have been undertaken if they had known the true size and might of the red army.......... Manstien had shown that the only defence was the moving one......which meant retreat/ stretch your opponents short term battle field logistics then counter.......... but this could only be carried out in local manouvers and consistantly ended in loss of ground (although without great loss of assets).... hence the only movement was westwards.

Would this have stretched russian logistics too far? Take a map and look at the distance between the eastern side of the Urals and Berlin........ is the Atlantic coast so much further? Now look at what was moved down one railway during june/july 45 to fuel a campaign thats stretched from korea to japans northern isles.

[whgates3]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Actually Stalin was screaming for a western allies invasion of europe since 1942 or so....

stalin was probably clever enough to lie so as to disguise his true desires - communist world conquest

[Kweassa]

Actually, the last thing Stalin had in mind, all through his regime, was expanding Soviet Russia. Stalin was in a relatively weak position with major contendors, which, only after 1930 he successfully was able to rule out.

 The outcome of WWII was an accidental by-product which he honestly didn't expect, which increased Soviet influence all around the world, giving out favorable results for on the political/strategical position of Russia.

 It can be said Soviet Russia's basic position from 1917 to 1945 was to defend and survive.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Kweassa


 It can be said Soviet Russia's basic position from 1917 to 1945 was to defend and survive.

Agreed although I would have said more likely  1917 to 1944.........

Stalin had no wish to occupy Western Europe............he was positively "Baldwin 'esque" during 40 and early 41 in his attempts to appease Hitler.........he forbade his units in Poland to strengthen the border in case it looked too aggressive............

He was very bitter about the Wests late opening of the 2nd front in 43 and early 44........

Yet after Yalta when he realised just how strong his bargaining power was..............(Churchill and Roosevelt "gave him everything" at his mere suggestion that he would take the balkans as well) he was clearly of the opinion that he did not need the West to achieve his needs.

World wide Soviet influence and the Global spread of sponsored communism was really the toy of Kruschov............

[whgates3]

Originally posted by Tilt
...World wide Soviet influence and the Global spread of sponsored communism was really the toy of Kruschov............

from what i've read it seems a lot more like Kruschev was quite a moderate and reformer, somewhat along the lines of an early Gorby - which is why he was forced out of power before his death (did this happen to any other Soviet leader?).  the shoe banging in the UN gave the impression of a tough guy/hardliner - wrongly - as did the missles in Cuba, which were in response to US missles in Turkey (these were what JFK gave up to solve the Cuban missle crisis).  Stalin, on the other hand was a ruthless dictator - the Soviets took the Balkans even after Churchill and Roosevelt "gave him everything" and certainly Mao took China & North Korea went commie well before Kruschev  made the scene

[Kweassa]

China's communist revolution is in pretty much independant course from that of Europe. Though the changes of worldly political environment during early~mid 20th century did lead to certain expectations of Asia's communist revolution from the Russians, in actual course Soviet Russia and Communist China went very different ways, and they were always in an "uncomfortable" position to each other as "awkward allies". Though their self interest concerning the Korean peninsula has conjured an illusion of Sovier-Chinese coalition in the Korean war, spread of communism in Asia and Europe cannot be viewed as a singular, systematical and orderly plan to conquer the world.

 Every new country that sprang up from the former colonies had two choices - follow the Western-sponsored path of centralized/dogmatic capitalist development, or follow the Russian-Chinese sponsored path of centralized/dogmatic socialist development. Considering that the "West" was to the people of the newborn states "former masters", and Comintern slogan of "anti-imperialism" was very appealing to those who were once under colonial rule, the spread of communism was more of a voluntary course rather than a result of an active ploy devised by either Stalin or Mao.

 Neither Stalin nor Mao was in a position to directly challenge the West, and as pointed out earlier, Stalin was quite surprised to find out that his initial position in diplomatic discussions was much stronger than he thought. Therefore, it was naturally a good chance to firmly establish the concept of "Eastern European-Asian communist bloc", ensuring the survival of Russia's strong communist regime. In fact, this "bloc" concept was devised much earlier than Stalin even came to power, and can be considered almost a "traditional" Soviet Russian diplomatic goal after 1921, when the civil war left Russia in ruins, and the visions of world-wide revolution became dim. It was about then the Comintern agenda changed.

 Onething for certain,  ruthless or not, dictator or otherwise, Russia's leaders were never as aggressive as the West in the "expansion" of their "empire". Their initial position was defensive, and any later attempts to increase influence has been passive at best, with almost no success.

 Then comes death of Stalin, and Kruschev. In a country under massive repression, facing an undeniable, inevitable state of 'clod war', cheesey and unreliable ally in the Eastern borders, and powerful contender/potential enemy at the Western gates, Kruschev was in dire need of strengthening his position or otherwise taking power in a dangerous situation like that is more than likely to become a death trap rather than a stairway to heaven. Thus, Soviet Russia's diplomatic agenda changed once more. Thus the really "colder" war begins.

 Anyhow, 10 years after Soviet Russia has disappeared, things are now starting to look realllllly interesting