More revisitionist history, eh, Kenny? Just because you WANT something to be so, does not make it so. Just because the Soviets under Stalin were as bad as Hitler, doesn't mean you can change history.
Whereas the Soviets would certainly have defeated the Germans without our help, the inverse cannot be said. The Soviets tied up millions of German troops, while inflicting 75% of the casualties suffered by the Germans.
ww2n.com
"This column is not noted for being pro-Soviet. But give the USSR its due. The Soviet Union played the paramount role in defeating Hitler.
Figures speak for themselves. Stalin's Red Army destroyed 507 German divisions and 100 divisions of Nazi allied states. Soviet forces downed 77,000 German warplanes, knocked out 107,000 heavy guns and 48,000 German tanks.
Seventy-five percent of the 10 million German casualties in World War Two, (7.5 million men), were inflicted by the Red Army on the Eastern Front. The USSR, in turn, lost at least 20 million casualties. Russian historians now say the real figure could be closer to 30 million.
Compared to this duel of giants, Normandy was a large raid. In the battle of Kursk, the Russians alone lost five times more men than were in the entire Allied D-Day invasion force. At Stalingrad, Germany lost 50 divisions, 850,000 men. Compare these awesome figures to the total Allied casualties in World War Two. Britain: 726,000; Canada: 95,000; the U.S.: 900,000, and these numbers include the Pacific theatre. There, by the way, in an opportunistic campaign at the end of the war , the USSR killed, wounded or captured 450,000 Japanese soldiers, 32% of Japan's total military losses.
Even while the Allies were landing at Normandy, Germany kept moving divisions east to fight advancing Soviet forces. In spring, 1945, Germany still had 214 divisions on the Eastern Front and only 60 holding the Allies in France, the Low Countries and Italy. Germany's best units remained in the East.
At Normandy, the Allies faced crippled, understrength German units that were unable to move in daylight because of the Allies' whelming air superiority. And they could decode most German radio communications. The real surprise at Normandy was the fierce, skilful resistance put up by the outgunned Germans."
Note also that the American contribution to the Soviets was very small compared to their own output. The Murmansk convoys supplied the Soviet Union with 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 350,000 tons of explosives; a goodly amount delivered at a critical time, but hardly a drop compared to what the Soviets built themselves.
Ah, yes, and the next argument: that our technology was so much better. Well, ours may have been more elegant, but the Soviet military hardware in WWII was pragmatic, easy to mass produce, and deadly effective. Their Il-2 attack aircraft was amongst the best in the world at the time (don't take my word for it, take Eddie Rickenbacker's):
"Total production of the Shturmovik was over 36.000 Il-2s of all makes and some 6.000 Il-10s, a total of over 42.000, making it one of the most heavily produced aircraft in history. Its preeminence in its role is indicated by the fact that the term "Shturmovik", or "Storm Bird", is a general Soviet designation for an attack aircraft, but came to be uniquely descriptive of the Il-2.
American World War I fighter ace Eddie Rickenbacker was shown a demonstration of the Shturmovik during a visit to the USSR, leaving him extremely impressed. He reported it the best attack aircraft in existence, that the USA had never built anything like it, and that such a machine should be part of every army."
The Russian T-34 tank was superior to even the sophisticated German tanks, and far superior to the US Sherman. And the Russians make more than 50,000 of them in WWII.
Take away the American equipment and technology, and the Russians have a tougher fight but still kick the Germans butt. Take away the Russians, and England would be Seig Heiling today. |
