The Allies had not cooperated with the USSR?

Agreed. Had the Germans been more sincere in their crusade against communism, Stalin and his cronies would have been done in as well as Hitler having more countries behind him.

 

Another thing to thank National Socialism for!

The many peoples of the Soviet Union (Ukrainians, Bielorrussians, Armenians, Gerogians, Mongols, Latvians…) were all considered Untermenschen. The Soviets, since June 22nd 1941, did NOT have any option at all: it was either achieving absolute victory or either facing enslavery and ultimate extermination. Period.

The Soviet people, that had endured so bravely the horrible conditions of a bloody civil war and totalitarism (famine, terror, death), was used enough to bad treatment to bear even the nazis. Besides, they had no option. That is why they kept on.

Za rodinu!

 

We could see a very different outcome indeed. The eastern front included a lot of rear guard action against partisans and sabotage which could have been avoided if the Nazis realized that. Resources which would be better used fighting against the actual red army.

 

True enough Hands. The problem was really that Hitler's campaign was against a people and not a political system. The Slavic people were sub-humans in Hitler's book. That, along with Russia not being a signitor on the Geneva Convention, was one of the reasons for justifying the horrible treatment of the Russians. They were barely good enough to be slaves. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that the only reason any Russian's were left alive in the rear areas was because it would have been too big a logistical drain to supply the bullets.

 

To digress slightly, I was having a quick look at the official British History volume "The War Economy" last night. There was a graph in it that showed the British government spending up to 53% of the GDP on war expenditure up to 1943, before it levelled off at that point to the end of the war. Can't remember the figure for the US, but the USSR never even spent 50% of its GDP at any point. Which proves two things; the Allies weren't in that great a position to offer much material help, and the USSR could have shrugged off Barbarossa a lot sooner had they listened to warnings, not liquidated the cream of their officer's corps, and updated technology sooner.

 

They could have at least waited till the red army is completely subdued before wiping out the Slavs though.

Same as doing off the Jews. Fight the war first, consolidate then begin the extermination.

I meant these in a purely tactical way. In no way am I pro-nazi or agree with their policies.

 

This is truely amazing. I have always thought that the Soviet Union is very backward technological and industrially.

If they could build so much, yet spend less.

Could it be perhaps the main reason is that the Soviet Union used forced labour for their war industries?

 

No, I think it's more a case of the gargantuan Soviet GDP versus the comparatively tiny British & Empire GDP, Hands. Remember that Britain didn't abolish rationing until 1954 despite winning the war, and only recently finished paying off war debts to the US.
Also Britain was fighting Hitler from day one, and later Japan on a global basis, whereas Stalin started as Hitler's ally and later found himself fighting to the death in Europe. The Soviets could afford to concentrate on one front, because they were never as thinly spread as the rest of the Allies.
'Forced labour' is a difficult one too, since technically you could say the same about British industry (thinking of the Bevan Boys!).

 

That is interesting information. As for concentrating on one front, they were thinly formed on the intial stages of Barbarossa even though Stalin had enough manpower to put up an effective front. After the winter of 41/42, he did have the ability to consolidate and provide effective operations against the Germans.

Stalin may not have needed the Western Allies' help but their help did speed up what Stalin could do. The American trucks seem to be the most valuable contribution. Provided the Soviets with higher mobility to keep pressure on the German's withdrawal.

 

I should add that anyone interested in that book can find it here

 

The problem is that, in Hitler's mind, the main enemy were not the US, UK and USSR, but world Jewry. Jews were going to be exterminated at all costs, even at the expense of the German war effort.

Which is not true. The USSR outproduced Germany in all military assets since 1939 until 1945, without interruption. Not even in 1941, when the USSR lost 3/5s of her industry and moved the remaining 2/3s to Asia, did the Germans build more guns, tanks or planes than the USSR.

Also, we could say that Soviet technology in many aspects (if not all) could match or was superior to German one, whether it is in tanks, guns, planes or hand guns.

The answer is no. The number of Soviet captives in the Gulag system was not bigger than 2,5 million at any stage of the war. If we compare this to the 11 million slave workers Germany had in 1944…

 

It could be that the forced labour includes peasants and even city workers as well as those in the prisons who were not paid for their services?

 

Perhaps that's the plan Stalin to get his troops into order. Trading land for time.

Slowly wearing out the germans before striking an decisive blow ?

 

The Red Army tactics as far as I know was to do the fighting in the enemy area ( 1940-41 ) that´s why during the 22nd June 1941 Stalin ordered the troops to beat the Germans back and attack into German territory. By the time however the German tanks were 50-100 kms behind the Red Army troops that were close to the border. So they were "sacked " and the orders drove them into confusion because they could not fulfill the orders required. Later on Stalin´s
" Not a step back" only led to massive losses and definitely did not serve its purpose. In summer 1942 the Red Army withdrew with new tactics in good order and Germans did not get many prisoners which led to Hitler´s " The Russian is dead " quote which was far from the truth as Stalingrad etc proved.

 

Russia's strategy developed after learning some hard lessons in combined arms warfare. When they did learn it was very decisive in their fight with the Germans. By developing their defensive lines in depth and allowing fronts that had been penetrated to fall back to the next line rather than staying and being enveloped, the Russians prevented the capture of large numers of men and every defensive line that was encountered was strengthened by the retreat of the line that had been in front.

 

I thought it was a defeatist crime to retreat. It was punishable by death (shot on the spot). Wouldn't the retreating soldiers be shot by their own men when they reached their lines? Maybe this only started around the time of the Stalingrad offensive...

 

The Russians learned after a while that not retreating = massive encirclement of your own forces. Thats why Barbarossa netted so many prisoners at first, the Russians refused to retreat and it cost them dearly.

 

Ironically, Hitler ordered his men not to retreat one inch when fighting against the Russians after Kursk and many of them too were surrounded and captured.

 

Thank God for historians, they dig up the most incredible sources all the time

 

Yes, but you must take into account that productivity from demoralised and unskilled labour will be very low.