Tweet
Okay, I get it. The USA has flooded the world with mass media, so we've sent so many USA-centric depictions out over the past 70 years, and considered the Soviet Union an arch enemy, so of course their contributions have been understated.
But I think the pendulum has swung too far the other direction. People are making it sound like the USSR singlehandedly saved all of Europe. It's like the kid who discovers there's more than just pop music, suddenly they think they know it all.
Consider the following points:
1) USSR invaded Poland and all the Baltic States, and signed a non aggression pact with Germany, handing over mainland Europe to Hitler
2) UK was not some little desperate island as is often depicted. Though waning, it was the premiere empire in the world at the time, with control of the seas. An invasion of England had very little chance of succeeding. Hitler wanted peace but it got rejected.
3) Once Japan attacked the USA, the USA relieved the USSR of its eastern flank, letting it free up its best troops and its best general. This point is the most understated of all and is forgotten.
4) Strategic and terror carpet bombing effects are also understated. The often cited statistic is that Germany's wartime production by tonnage actually increased as the war went on. This is a failed logic for the following reasons:
* Anyone who knows anything about supply chain knows:
** The difference between gross and net. Maybe I supply you 50,000 tons more gear than I did last year, but if it gets blown up in transit, it's just as useless
** Disruption. Shortages of key material can delay and even cripple manufacturing.
** Diversion of material. If I have to spend all my resources building bunkers and moving stuff, that's less time I have to spend actually making it.
** Germany only switched to a total war production footing late in the game. Hitler correctly understood the home front could be demoralized by asking them for sacrifices (just as in WW1), but incorrectly implemented a home front production strategy.
* Diversion of air cover. Soviets relied on huge overwhelming tank formations. Germany had to redirect alot of resources towards civilian protection, this strained the Luftwaffe, which could have left those huge tank formations stuck in a stalemate and dragged on the war indefinitely.
5) Poland and France ate up a ton of German resources, and their partisan resistors were key in harassing occupation forces and providing manpower
6) Soviet doctrine is to blame for the huge numbers of casualties suffered. Instead of using tactical withdrawal to save millions of troops, they were given stupid orders to stand their ground and let themselves get encircled. This did not delay Germany. If anything, it sped it up. So yes, there's huge numbers of casualties, but that's to blame on Stalin himself. Zhukov is on record several times stating he did not agree with the human wave tactics and they were useless.
The REAL unsung heroes of WW2 were the Nationalist Chinese.
But I think the pendulum has swung too far the other direction. People are making it sound like the USSR singlehandedly saved all of Europe. It's like the kid who discovers there's more than just pop music, suddenly they think they know it all.
Consider the following points:
1) USSR invaded Poland and all the Baltic States, and signed a non aggression pact with Germany, handing over mainland Europe to Hitler
2) UK was not some little desperate island as is often depicted. Though waning, it was the premiere empire in the world at the time, with control of the seas. An invasion of England had very little chance of succeeding. Hitler wanted peace but it got rejected.
3) Once Japan attacked the USA, the USA relieved the USSR of its eastern flank, letting it free up its best troops and its best general. This point is the most understated of all and is forgotten.
4) Strategic and terror carpet bombing effects are also understated. The often cited statistic is that Germany's wartime production by tonnage actually increased as the war went on. This is a failed logic for the following reasons:
* Anyone who knows anything about supply chain knows:
** The difference between gross and net. Maybe I supply you 50,000 tons more gear than I did last year, but if it gets blown up in transit, it's just as useless
** Disruption. Shortages of key material can delay and even cripple manufacturing.
** Diversion of material. If I have to spend all my resources building bunkers and moving stuff, that's less time I have to spend actually making it.
** Germany only switched to a total war production footing late in the game. Hitler correctly understood the home front could be demoralized by asking them for sacrifices (just as in WW1), but incorrectly implemented a home front production strategy.
* Diversion of air cover. Soviets relied on huge overwhelming tank formations. Germany had to redirect alot of resources towards civilian protection, this strained the Luftwaffe, which could have left those huge tank formations stuck in a stalemate and dragged on the war indefinitely.
5) Poland and France ate up a ton of German resources, and their partisan resistors were key in harassing occupation forces and providing manpower
6) Soviet doctrine is to blame for the huge numbers of casualties suffered. Instead of using tactical withdrawal to save millions of troops, they were given stupid orders to stand their ground and let themselves get encircled. This did not delay Germany. If anything, it sped it up. So yes, there's huge numbers of casualties, but that's to blame on Stalin himself. Zhukov is on record several times stating he did not agree with the human wave tactics and they were useless.
The REAL unsung heroes of WW2 were the Nationalist Chinese.
Comment