Russia - worrying?

[scipio_usmc]

A post I wrote years ago while debating WWII:

The major problems facing the Soviet forces when the Germans invaded is they expanded from 1.5 million to 5 million in such a short period of time that they lacked a lot of proper equipment and also training.  The Soviets had a lot of old and obsolete equipment in their ranks but much of this was thinned out during the first year of the war.  They also had very poor maintenance so plenty of this equipment was not even fully operational.  Since they were in the midst of reform and decided to concentrate tanks in armored units a lot of men were in transit.  Many were separated from their vehicles and had no idea where they were supposed to go or where their vehicles were.  Even the General Staff had no idea where some of the units were, or even destined for. This makes things rather difficult to run a war.   

To make it worse Stalin’s purges got rid of the most capable soldiers at all levels so not even they top leadership had many skilled personnel.  Political commissars had to give permission for the movements of units.  Apart from them being slow in making decisions communication took some time traveling from the front to them and vice versa.  Worse yet, they tried to attack everything, and in war if you attack everything, you attack nothing. There is also an old Russian saying that goes "try to catch many rabbits, and you catch none;" certainly fitting of the Soviets' counterattack. The Soviet method of defense was mono-dimensional: hold ground at all cost, which was an ineffective response to the German blitz. This made it easy for the Germans to flank then surround the Red Army, resulting in enormous losses of men and machine for the Soviets.

Even before the Soviets changed their fighting methods the chance for large scale captures on the order of those that occurred July-October were nearly impossible.  By November the Germans had overextended their supply lines and could not perform any major sweeping maneuvers.  Without major improvement to their logistics system they had little hope of pressing into the USSR any further.  They progressed a little bit further in 1942 but not to any large degree.  They simply didn’t have the logistics for it.  Part of this can be attributed to the scorched earth policy. Another is that they failed to truly attempt to win over the disaffected population.  Some looked at the Germans as liberators at first but the Germans failed to nurse this and try to use it to their advantage.  This is a blunder of the first order.  The net result is that unless they built a lot more railways close to the fronts and stockpiled supplies on large scale and had large numbers of trucks to move the supplies along with the troops they would have little chance of success moving further.  As they moved they would have to expand the tracks.  It would take years for Germany to retool their economy to be able to do this if at all.  This means as far as the Germans were concerned they were stuck fighting on a front that had little chance of advancing. They could counter attack and move around a bit but no sweeping movements like in the years passed. 

The Soviets had just taken a big hit.  By the year’s end they lost territory that accounted for a lot of their industrial and agricultural products.  They lost 3/4 of their iron ore, coal and manganese production as well.  GNP was reduced by 1/3 overall. They lost lands with 50 million people on them if you count those occupied in the Baltics, Finland and Poland so they went from 190 million down to 140 million.  Due to the prior wars women accounted for a higher percentage of the population. In 1942 steel production had fallen to 8 million ton compared with 18 million before the war.  In the 1930s the Soviets began to build plants east of the Urals.  Some of these plants were built with American help and many were built using American designs. These plants were more efficient than the older ones in Europe but there were not enough to account for a lot of production and worse not a large population base where they were built.  Thus they still relied on the older less efficient plants until the war.  The loss of those plants forced them to rely on the new ones and they even built more of them.  They had to force a lot of people to move near them and forced 12 hour shifts on all workers.  This enabled to Soviets to continue to produce weapons.  Moscow was a major industrial center as well and production there continued. 

In 1942 some major issues developed.  One was that these plants were so far from the front.  This was the plan so they would not be within German bomber range but distance hurts both ways.  Most rail traffic from the East was routed through Moscow.  Many believe that if Moscow was lost the Soviets would have been unable to get equipment to the fronts any longer.  Even with Moscow under Soviet control it took some time for items to reach the front line and it was a large front.  The best way to express things is by building stocks of items on hand near the front and to move production to these stockpiles over time to keep them from being depleted.  Losing a lot of raw materials meant the Soviets were facing shortages though.  They were feeding hand to mouth.  The Soviets ordered long lists of raw materials from Lend-lease.  They also ordered a lot of planes so that they could use them until Soviet production was fully on line.  In 1942 they nursed their assets and thus had to conserve artillery shells and other equipment they were short on. 

The correspondence from Soviet leaders tends to indicate that by the end of 1942 they were in desperate need of raw materials or they would not be able to meet output requirements.  Indeed 55% of all aluminum used during the war came from the US. 45 percent of copper came from the US.  1/3 of all munitions came from the US.  1/3 or more of a huge number of raw materials came from the US.  Military weapons are built using machine tools. Roughly 30 percent of machine tools built during the entire war came from the US. The US provided enough steel to build 70,000 T-34 tanks. Since they didn't build anywhere near that many it means Lend-lease alone accounted for enough steel for all their medium tanks plus some to spare for other things.  It also means their entire domestic production was able to be used for other things.

There is no way to know how important the American contribution was in 1942 and 43.  In some 1942 months half of all munitions was coming from the US.  Suppose it took 1 month for munitions to reach solders from the time of being manufactured.  This means one month from the time used there could have been some type of shortage. We don’t know what the actual transit time to each area of the front nor do we know exact expenditures of each area so it is impossible to predict the exact time that there may have been a shortage. American production averaged out to certain numbers but at the time of delivery might have accounted for an even larger percentage of materials available at that time.  That being the case aid could have been downright instrumental at times.

To provide an illustration take the following into consideration.  The US stopped producing artillery shells because they had a surplus of shells and Congress cut off funding to save money.  The army burned through their stocks in 1944 and there was a shell shortage.  This certainly hurt the army’s progress.  While the US Army had relatively accurate fire and the best artillery during the war, the Soviets relied on numbers.  They had over 100,000 artillery weapons by the end of the war.  They launched massive bombardments and relied on the number of shells not on accurate fire. They thus burned through a lot of ammo.  Losing 1/3 of munitions would certainly reduce the number of shells stocked.  The US accounted for a large percentage of the materials used by the Soviets for their own shell production so the loss actually would have been more substantial than just a third.

In terms of equipment the Soviets would have had problems with transportation if not for Lend-Lease.   Domestic production was only perhaps 250,000 and the US provided more than double this amount of motor vehicles.  Moreover 90 percent of trains and rails were from the allies.  Since the factories were mostly in Eastern Russia railways were vital to moving equipment.  Railways were also vital to building up forces. The Soviets spent months sending units to Kursk for example.  The Soviets learned their mistake of launching an offensive along the entire front and learned to pinprick and stagger attacks at different times to keep the Germans off balance.  They also needed a lot of replacements given their high casualties and these were sent by rail and truck.  After supplies were unloaded from the rail they were brought to the troops by truck.  Trucks were extremely important for not only supplying the men but transporting them around.  Soldiers who march long distances are not very valuable in combat. Marches wear men down and make them much less effective.  Also the distance that can be covered is much less.  The USSR is huge and to say the rails and trucks were not significant would be crazy.  In order to advance all the way to Germany they needed transportation than they were able to produce.  The further they moved West the further from the Ural factories.  The German rails were constantly running throughout the war to supply their forces that was why they were targeted by Allied air power.   

The USSR was really at peak production given the manpower they had. As time goes on experienced workers get faster but there was little opportunity to build more plants and use even more workers.  Men were much more important in the military and as the war went on more and more men were pulled from work into the military.  By the end of the war 80% of agricultural workers and more than half of factory workers were women. It would have been really difficult for the USSR to have expanded the workforce and production too much more.  The upshot of this is that if the USSR needed to produce something else it would have had to stop producing something else in favor of the new item.  For example if the Soviets needed to build a lot more trains and railroad rails that would have meant less workers to build tanks and less steel to use on tanks as well because the steel was being used on the trains and rails.  If they wanted to build more trucks that too would have used resources that historically had been allocated to something else.  They would have needed to devote more to steel production and mining of metals which in turn would lower the resources for finished products.

As soon as the Soviets recovered land they pressed the men living in such territory into military service. That was how they fed the voracious manpower appetite of the Red Army.  But for Lend-lease though they would not have been able to liberate the lands when they did and thus would not have been able to press such men into service. They would have been forced to conserve their assets.  That in turn would have meant stalemate, they would not have been able to do anything besides hold their ground.  Since Germany lacked the logistics to get into Moscow and beyond again that means stalemate. 

Hitler wanted the USSR to sue for peace and give up the territory already won there was no actual intention to drive to the Urals he knew it wasn't possible and the land most valuable is what was already conquered.  If Stalin didn't receive help from the Allies no way he would have continued the war he would simply have agreed to peace, tried to rebuild and hoped he could eventually rebuild enough to resume the war and liberate the lost land.

While Germany would have to station troops on the border with the USSR just in case they would not have needed to leave 60% and thus when the Allies did decide to invade Europe Germany would have more forces to use and this means the Allies would have to devote more forces than they did historically.  This is why they wanted to keep the USSR in the war.  Stalin feared the Allies were providing lend lease aid in order to use his strategy of getting Germany and the USSR to exhaust one another so kept demanding they open the second front ASAP.  He periodically threatened to sue for peace if we didn't.

 

[guest2181]

I'm not surprised that it took two years to write.    :D

[susan]

Well, all this had kind of gotton out of hand! Still think Putin is an arse though

I don't

[Alias]

Now Putin is missing. Very odd for a head of state.

[Caroline]

Now Putin is missing. Very odd for a head of state.

Yes, I also heard that but wouldn't the news make more of it? Lets hope he's not in a 'bunker' somewhere!! 

[Caroline]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kremlin-wont-comment-report-putin-missing-moscow-n323961

[ngb1066]

I still have to reply to some of the crap posted on this thread.

[Caroline]

Now Putin is missing. Very odd for a head of state.

He's back! 

[Alias]

He's back! 

Shite! 

[gringo]

I still have to reply to some of the crap posted on this thread.

  You and me both NGB

[Caroline]

Shite! 

It might not be him though - the evil West might have kidnapped him and implanted an imposter 

[scipio_usmc]

I still have to reply to some of the crap posted on this thread.

You should read this book

http://www.amazon.com/The-Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Design/dp/1591148065

and if you don't want to bother then consider:

"In August, Stalin decided on an agreement with Hitler. A non-aggression pact with Germany assured the Soviet Union tangible advantages. The Soviets would recover eastern Poland, which had formerly belonged to Imperial Russia. The Germans pledged support in the USSR's claims on Bessarabia and agreed to define Eastern Europe's Baltic and Balkan states as belonging to the Soviet "sphere of interest."

Germany was preparing to invade Poland in case a territorial dispute and related grievances defied peaceful settlement. England and France supported Poland. Stalin reasoned that were he to conclude a military compact with the West, the powerful coalition would probably discourage Hitler from war.

A German-Soviet non-aggression pact, however, would give Hitler a free hand to invade Poland. England, as Poland's ally, would declare war on Germany, drag a reluctant France into the conflagration, and Italy would rush to Hitler's side. The Soviet formula for national security rested with aggravating the conflicting interests among the "imperialist" nations and maintaining neutrality as these states expended their resources in a prolonged struggle.

Stalin had defined the premise during his March 10, 1939, speech in Moscow:

Nonintervention represents the endeavor... to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then... (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally "in the interest of peace," to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents.2
On August 23, 1939, the German foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, was in Moscow. He and Molotov signed the historic German-Soviet non-aggression pact. The following evening, Stalin hosted prominent members of the Soviet Political Bureau in his apartment. Among the dinner guests were Molotov, Voroshilov, Lavrenti P. Beria and Nikita Khrushchev.

Stalin explained, as Khrushchev later recalled, that he considered war with Germany unavoidable, but had momentarily tricked Hitler and bought time. The Soviet premier described the treaty with Germany as a game of "who outwits whom."3 He concluded that the Soviet Union held the advantage both morally and militarily. A few months later, the Soviet Foreign Office explained Stalin's decision in a telegram to its embassy in Tokyo: "The ratifying of our treaty with Germany was dictated by the need for a war in Europe."4

On August 25, 1939, the Swiss periodical Revue de droit international published the text of a speech Stalin delivered on August 19 to a closed session of the Political Bureau in Moscow. He was quoted as follows:

It must be our objective that Germany wage war long enough to exhaust England and France so much that they cannot defeat Germany alone.... Should Germany win, it will itself be so weakened that it won't be able to wage war against us for 10 years.... It's paramount for us that this war continues as long as possible, until both sides are worn out.5
In November, Stalin responded in Pravda that the Swiss article was a "heap of lies."6 (The Russian researcher T. S. Bushuyevoy discovered Stalin's original text in the former Soviet archives in 1994; it conformed to the Swiss version.)

The Soviets seized a generous portion of Eastern Europe only days before France's surrender. In September and October 1939, the Soviet government had negotiated permission with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to establish military bases at their Baltic ports. In June 1940, Molotov reproached the Lithuanian prime minister, Anastas Merkys, for the alleged poor security provided the Soviet garrison; a Red Army soldier had supposedly been bushwhacked. On June 14, Molotov presented Lithuania's foreign minister with an ultimatum demanding reinforcement of the Soviet military contingent to prevent further "provocation." The diminutive republic acquiesced.

Similar ultimatums were presented to Latvia and Estonia. On the 21st, the Baltic states were declared Soviet republics, following sham elections. Molotov told the Lithuanian foreign minister on June 30, "Now we're convinced more than ever that the brilliant comrade Lenin was not wrong in asserting that World War II will bring us to power in Europe, just as World War I helped us to power in Russia."11

When Moscow presented its demand on June 23 to reoccupy Bessarabia, the formerly Russian eastern province of Romania, Ribbentrop pledged Germany's support. He asked only that the sovereignty of Romania's remaining territory be respected, to safeguard the Reich's economic interests.

Apologists for the USSR, and they abound among historians and sociologists in democratic countries, excuse these Soviet land grabs as defensive measures. The threat of potential German aggression supposedly compelled Moscow to extend the USSR's frontiers to blunt the impetus of a German offensive. The premise ignores the fact that the Soviet operations in the Baltic and into Bessarabia occurred opposite a virtually undefended German border. Four German infantry divisions and six militia divisions protected the demarcation line shared with the Soviet Union. Two were transferred to the western front in June."

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html


These works simply confirm what I learned years ago in College about Stalin.  There are many works that reveal the truth if one actually cares to learn the truth.

[Alias]

Now Putin is saying that Russia using the nuclear bomb is not out of the question.
Such a great guy!

[Alias]

Sorry, too lazy to translate this myself, so I put it through Google Translate.
http://politiken.dk/udland/ECE2597883/ruslands-ambassadoer-truer-danmark-med-angreb-med-atommissiler/#!ditpolitiken-1

Russian Ambassador threatens Denmark with attack with nuclear missiles
In an opinion piece comes the Russian ambassador to Denmark with a stark warning over NATO cooperation
Threat. The planet's most controversial man in the past year, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already soldiers into the Ukrainian land, but also NATO countries can be attacked, warns that large country in the east. - Photo: Pavel Golovkin (Archive) / AP

Threat. The planet's most controversial man in the past year, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already soldiers into the Ukrainian land, but also NATO countries can be attacked, warns that large country in the east. - Photo: Pavel Golovkin (Archive) / AP

If someone would think that Denmark's relations with Russia could become more strained, there may be cause for reconsideration.

In an opinion piece in Jyllands-Posten Saturday warned the Russian ambassador to Denmark, Mikhail Vanin, that Denmark will be the target of a possible Russian nuclear attack if we join NATO missile defense.

"I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences of what happens if Denmark joins the US-led missile defense. If this happens, the Danish warships targets for Russian nuclear missiles ".

"Denmark will be part of the threat to Russia. It will be less peaceful, and relations with Russia will be damaged. Of course it is your decision - I would just remind you that I will lose both money and security, "said Mikhail Vanin Jyllands-Posten.

READ Also Europe extends sanctions against Russia

Furthermore it mentions ambassador to Russia at the same time have missiles, "as guaranteed penetrate the future global missile defense system."

Crossing inspires wonder and anger among Danish politicians. Among them is Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard (R), despite the talk of attack calls for calm.

"If he has decided in this direction, it is obviously unacceptable. Russia knows very well that Nato's missile defense is defensive and not against them. We disagree with Russia on many important things, but it is important that the tone between us does not escalate, "said Martin Lidegaard Jyllands-Posten.

SF's defense spokesman and former foreign minister, Holger K. Nielsen, who himself is opposed to missile defense, is puzzled and says to the newspaper that "it is a crazy opinion that Denmark should be a target for Russian missiles".

[gringo]

Now Putin is saying that Russia using the nuclear bomb is not out of the question.
Such a great guy!

  The media are just making trouble, Alias. The reports a few days ago were talking about Putin even though he had said nothing, nor been seen. It is almost as if the media have an agenda at the moment. Whatever Putin does or even doesn't say is reported as news and people are being propagandised to see Russia and Putin as the enemy when really the enemies are much closer to home.
     It is Russia and Putin who have done the most to avoid conflict and there is much more to the whole story than is being told by western media at the moment. The facts do speak for themselves, and when you take away all the opinion and comment, US/UK, NATO aggression is the threat, not Russian aggression.
      Have a quick search on US NATO first use policy and you will find that they have always refused to sign up to a no first use(NFS) policy. Russia also have dropped this pledge in 1993. The reports about what  Putin allegedly said is nothing more than hot air. We have the same policy and therefore you could equally credibly report that the US/UK haven't ruled out using nuclear weapons. It is not a story, it's propaganda.
     The facts on the ground are that US has by some distance more armed forces in other countries than any other nation.I would confidently hazard that it has dropped more bombs since WW2 than the rest of the world combined. The bombing campaign in the Vietnam war accounted for a massive 7.6 million tons of ordnance being dropped. To put some context on this figure, it is three times the total amount of ordnance dropped during the entire second world war.
      Only one country ever in the history of the world has used a nuclear bomb( not once but twice) and that country is obviously the US.
      The invasions, wars and bombing campaigns of recent years have all been initiated by US/UK and have caused an untold number of deaths(murders), horrific injuries, millions of refugees and terrorists running amok in the Middle East. The US with it's dreams of world domination based on the belief of "American exceptionalism" has created chaos the world over and are self evidently the worlds biggest threat.
      The US/UK, NATO and EU are interfering and fomenting unrest in Ukraine and have been from the beginning. The anti Putin propaganda from the media and government became hysterical some time ago and we really should be asking far more searching questions of our own leaders, especially after Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than swallowing whatever is fed us as truth.
      If we didn't know before Iraq that our governments were willing to lie to launch an aggressive war and if we were still unaware that our media were incapable/unwilling to ask the questions that we expect from an effective and honest media, surely we know now.
       Putin is not a threat to world peace, US/UK, NATO are.
       Why else would the US need to spend 640 billion dollars compared to Russias 90 billion if not for aggression. If Russia really want to act aggressively on the world stage they need to up their arms spending.