The Soviet Navy in WWII or When Hitler lost the war

[guest]

Re; See The Big Four.
One has to admire the many times that the Soviet Navy fought alongside the Home Fleet during Russian convoys, and at Barents Sea, and at North Cape, and the wonderful close support they gave during PQ17, and the many operations along the Norwegian coast from 1941 to march 1945. One has to wonder how the RN would have managed without their Russian partners.
AR

[JWintjes]

Re; See The Big Four.
One has to wonder how the RN would have managed without their Russian partners.

Indeed - probably not at all...

Jorit

[RNfanDan]

Yes, the subject of the Soviet Navy in WWII (not 11) has just been commented upon a bit further.

[Hugh Williams]

Hmmm,

Yup, but some required reading would be the German point of view, as found in 'The Soviets as Naval Opponents 1941-1945, by Friedrich Ruge, VADM, FGN (Ret). ISBN 0 85059 390 5. This discusses the conflict in all campaign areas.

Let's not forget for the Norwegian/Arctic area, the RN and the USN was operating in support of the Convoys taking much needed supplies to the Soviets, who came to the war on the Allied belatedly and involuntarily. Nobody else was around when close (Ocean Escort = Cruiser) support was deemed too dangerous for Convoy PQ17 and withdrawn. Notwithstanding this, It follows thar the Soviet Navy was, of necessity, acting in support of RN/USN operations.

As for the land campaigns, the Soviet Army was a necessary component in the defeat of the Nazi Forces, every bit as much as they had demanded a Second Front, and got the Normandy Landings in June 1944, when the Allies were able to carry out these operations. Not too political, I hope.

Regards,

Hugh Williams

[Hugh Williams]

Re; See The Big Four.
One has to admire the many times that the Soviet Navy fought alongside the Home Fleet during Russian convoys, and at Barents Sea, and at North Cape, and the wonderful close support they gave during PQ17, and the many operations along the Norwegian coast from 1941 to march 1945. One has to wonder how the RN would have managed without their Russian partners.
AR

See my comment, I am just awaiting some incoming. Your observations most 'juste', comme on dit en Francais.

[Yevgeniy]

Hmmm,
As for the land campaigns, the Soviet Army was a necessary component in the defeat of the Nazi Forces,
Hugh Williams

I would say that the Allies was necessary component in defeat ot Nazi Forces It is enough to look at Nazi losses in soldiers, tanks etc and resources on Soviet territory by 1944 and compare them with those achieved by Allies by that time. There was no more resources for Germany to resist it was just a question of time. Hitler lost WWII after Kursk (some researchers think Nazi lost even earlier after Moscow in various articles like 'when Hitler lost a war' but I do not share this opinion http://www.2worldwar2.com/when-hitler-lost.htm)

As to Soviet Navy - definitely main Soviet battles were not in sea

Also hope it does not get political.

Regards,

Yevgeniy

[Hugh Williams]

Hmmm,
As for the land campaigns, the Soviet Army was a necessary component in the defeat of the Nazi Forces,
Hugh Williams

I would say that the Allies was necessary component in defeat ot Nazi Forces It is enough to look at Nazi losses in soldiers, tanks etc and resources on Soviet territory by 1944 and compare them with those achieved by Allies by that time. There was no more resources for Germany to resist it was just a question of time. Hitler lost WWII after Kursk (some researchers think Nazi lost even earlier after Moscow in various articles like 'when Hitler lost a war' but I do not share this opinion http://www.2worldwar2.com/when-hitler-lost.htm)

As to Soviet Navy - definitely main Soviet battles were not in sea

Also hope it does not get political.

Regards,

Yevgeniy

No. Yevgeniy,

There isn't anything practical in reliving old disputes, just that there are differing views of events, as you have well demonstrated. On when Hitler lost the War, well IMHO, it was when he tried to invade England by attacking Russia. Thankfully, he got it wrong.......incidentally, I believe there is still a bond between RN and Russia, at least where the Arctic Convoys are concerned. This has been demonstrated by the recent replacement of Museum Ship Cruiser HMS Belfast's lattice masts. This involved close co-operation with Russian companies, both in the design and execution of the task. No small matter and something which may well have gone unobserved in the wider world.

Regards,

Hugh Williams

[JWintjes]

Hitler lost WWII after Kursk

Hitler started losing the war on October 11th, 1939 when the Einstein�Szil�rd letter was communicated to Roosevelt by Sachs. The war was definitely lost on October 9th, 1941, when Roosevelt approved the starting of an atomic research program geared towards producing a weaponizeable device. Any German military successes in Europe or Asia would invariably have ended up with B-29s dropping nuclear bombs on targets in Germany and Europe.

Messing with an economy that can pour billions of $ into a nuclear program is a bad idea...

Jorit

[Laurent]

Jorit,

wonderful point of view...

Regards,

Laurent

[Yevgeniy]

Hitler lost WWII after Kursk

Messing with an economy that can pour billions of $ into a nuclear program is a bad idea...
Jorit

I will not proceed with this discussion and it will be my final post in this thread as it is shipmodeling forum - there are many other places where these things can be discussed. But some final points can be interesting for consideration.

As history shows economy while useful is not a guarantee - during Russo-Japanese war 1905 Japanese economy and GRP was...10-20 times (numbers can be a little different but scope is correct) less then that of Russian Empire but you know who won.

As to WWII Hitler had it own nuclear bomb development program (with 100 or so less investment then in USA) but was able to develop it despite resistance from scientists etc, and just needed time to finilize it

Albert Speer, went even further in January 1945 in a face-to-face conversation and declared: "we have to stick it out just for one more year, then we will have won the war. There would be a new explosive, said Speer and pointed to a matchbox lying on the table, "an atomic explosive, as big as this matchbox, capable of destroying whole New York."

http://naziscienceliveson.devhub.com/bl ... ers-bombe/

Hitler also had missile program (which US did not have and based own missile program after the war fully on German developments) and was considering launching them to New York from submarine as early as in 1944 (or 1945 ?) for demonstration (no-no it is not science fantasy or diesel punk - references are easily googled).

Having saved his resources, millions of soldiers lost during war with USSR (1,5 million Nazis and their allies lost at Stalingrad only - funny or sad as it can be but Nazis lost approx. same number of soldiers capturing Paris in 1940 as they lost taking average 1 (one) building in Stalingrad), the alternative history who would win the war would be a big gamble.

Of course there are other points of view well demonstrated by Viasat History and Discovery TV-channels showing Battle of Normandy as key stage of the war. On the opposite during USSR age we were taught in schools that Allies decided to open second front in order not to let communists take whole Europe only after they understood Hitler lost the war and Russians paid gold for Allied supplies (which is true by the way). I see it is propaganda (1) vs. propaganda (2). However historic facts are a tough thing although some try to highlight one and hide/ignore the other to achieve certain opinion

Regards,

Yevgeniy

[JWintjes]

I will not proceed with this discussion and it will be my final post in this thread as it is shipmodeling forum - there are many other places where these things can be discussed. But some final points can be interesting for consideration.

I agree that this is better moved to History and Technology, but let me nevertheless allow some remarks.

As history shows economy while useful is not a guarantee - during Russo-Japanese war 1905 Japanese economy and GRP was...10-20 times (numbers can be a little different but scope is correct) less then that of Russian Empire but you know who won.

I agree that economy is not a guarantee for success; rather, the intention - and ability! - to concentrate it on the single purpose of defeating your enemy is. It is interesting - and to a certain extent mind-boggling - to see that the US economy never made the transition to a true war economy, all the while not only supporting the US war effort, but also that of most of the Allies. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the US economy did actually "defeat" the Third Reich, but it certainly provided many Allies - including the Red Army - with the means to do so.

As to WWII Hitler had it own nuclear bomb development program (with 100 or so less investment then in USA) but was able to develop it despite resistance from scientists etc, and just needed time to finilize it

Ehm, no.

I know that there is a lot of fantasizing about the "Nazi bomb", but this is all based on wartime propaganda and post-war wishful thinking. A lot of what has been published is actually "grey" literature, displaying little regard for proper physics or historical methodology. The simple fact is that Germany lacked what it needed to build the bomb.

Hitler also had missile program (which US did not have and based own missile program after the war fully on German developments) and was considering launching them to New York from submarine as early as in 1944 (or 1945 ?) for demonstration (no-no it is not science fantasy or diesel punk - references are easily googled).

Indeed - the fabled Pr�fstand XII. While that was indeed close to completion, all it could do was transporting one ton of explosives to the target, at an enormous risk and expense. Compare that to one B-29 capable of carrying around 9 tons of explosives. The V2-program, while technologically totally fascinating, was militarily an utter folly tying much needed resources to a project wasting valuable materials for little gain.

However historic facts are a tough thing although some try to highlight one and hide/ignore the other to achieve certain opinion.

Indeed - I couldn't agree more.

Jorit

[Admiral John Byng]

Hitler lost WWII after Kursk

Hitler started losing the war on October 11th, 1939 when the Einstein�Szil�rd letter was communicated to Roosevelt by Sachs. The war was definitely lost on October 9th, 1941, when Roosevelt approved the starting of an atomic research program geared towards producing a weaponizeable device. Any German military successes in Europe or Asia would invariably have ended up with B-29s dropping nuclear bombs on targets in Germany and Europe.

Messing with an economy that can pour billions of $ into a nuclear program is a bad idea...

Jorit

I disagree, Roosevelt would not have been able to get the US into a war with Germany if Hitler had not declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. He was not able to persuade the US voters that war with Germany was justified before Pearl Harbor and afterwards it would have been impossible to do anything against Germany as the entire focus would have been on defeating Japan. It was only Hitler's intervention that made "Germany First" a workable policy.

I think Hitler lost the war when he invaded the Soviet Union without defeating the UK first.

[phil gollin]

.

The amount of awful "cold war" re-writing of history that still seems to survive that tries to ignore the soviet contributions to WW2 is amazing and depressing (as is the "forgetfulness" of those who forget the soviet/German pact that allowed both countries to invade Poland and in essence allow WW2 to happen (arguable).

Jorit - read up on the MAUD committee report.

.

[JWintjes]

I disagree, Roosevelt would not have been able to get the US into a war with Germany if Hitler had not declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. He was not able to persuade the US voters that war with Germany was justified before Pearl Harbor and afterwards it would have been impossible to do anything against Germany as the entire focus would have been on defeating Japan. It was only Hitler's intervention that made "Germany First" a workable policy.

Quite so - point taken about the problem of mobilizing the US electorate for a war against Germany.

Perhaps we could agree then that Hitler lost the war on December 11th at latest?

Jorit - read up on the MAUD committee report.

Phil, as shocking as that may sound, I can actually read and I have actually read (or partly read) the March as well as the two July reports (mainly because a colleague has done some research on that; my own understanding of the physics behind all this is very, very limited).

That the Allies thought the Germans were quite advanced in their bomb program when in fact they were not is of course interesting. What I merely wanted to point out was that noone outside the USA had the economic power as well as the scientific capabilities to actually produce a functioning nuclear device - most certainly not the Germans.

Jorit

PS: Just to set the record straight - I did not in any way belittle the Soviet contribution to Allied victory in WW2, and as a matter of fact I can't see a post-cold war trend of ignoring it.

[Filipe Ramires]

PS: Just to set the record straight - I did not in any way belittle the Soviet contribution to Allied victory in WW2, and as a matter of fact I can't see a post-cold war trend of ignoring it.

I agree that the Soviet contribution for the Allied victory in Europe was most significant, specially in terms of the Red Army deeds. However I don't take lightly that people say that the Soviet Navy did more or at the same level then the USN, RN or DKM. I don't take lightly that people say that the Red Army performed in an outstanding way during the war and the same people tend to ignore how fruitless is was many times sending mere infantry charges against well defended German positions or armour corps; how it was allowed the raping of villages/population very often by Soviet soldiers (Poland and Germany for instance); how badly the Soviet hierarchy performed many times and traitors or losers were promptly executed or sent to a Gulag (Gulag = term deeply ignored by many historians/researchers for ages); how Stalin was complaining all the time that the Allied machines handled to him in the Arctic Convoys were of bad quality against the Germans and when there were Allied sailors being killed to carry them to him. Those are things that are not widely spoken of...!!

[phil gollin]

............. What I merely wanted to point out was that noone outside the USA had the economic power as well as the scientific capabilities to actually produce a functioning nuclear device ...........

I think that is highly debateale for the possible UK/Canadian Uranium bomb (with a longer development time) - that was what the MAUD committee report was about (amongst other things).

---------------------

(Re the post-war belittleing of the soviet efforts in WW2 - if you failed to "see" it, I think you need to re-read a lot of histories of WW2)

.

[Admiral John Byng]

I disagree, Roosevelt would not have been able to get the US into a war with Germany if Hitler had not declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. He was not able to persuade the US voters that war with Germany was justified before Pearl Harbor and afterwards it would have been impossible to do anything against Germany as the entire focus would have been on defeating Japan. It was only Hitler's intervention that made "Germany First" a workable policy.

Quite so - point taken about the problem of mobilizing the US electorate for a war against Germany.

Perhaps we could agree then that Hitler lost the war on December 11th at latest?


Jorit

Hi Jorit, I think that's a great idea!

[mermaid!]

PS: Just to set the record straight - I did not in any way belittle the Soviet contribution to Allied victory in WW2, and as a matter of fact I can't see a post-cold war trend of ignoring it.

I agree that the Soviet contribution for the Allied victory in Europe was most significant, specially in terms of the Red Army deeds. However I don't take lightly that people say that the Soviet Navy did more or at the same level then the USN, RN or DKM. I don't take lightly that people say that the Red Army performed in an outstanding way during the war and the same people tend to ignore how fruitless is was many times sending mere infantry charges against well defended German positions or armour corps; how it was allowed the raping of villages/population very often by Soviet soldiers (Poland and Germany for instance); how badly the Soviet hierarchy performed many times and traitors or losers were promptly executed or sent to a Gulag (Gulag = term deeply ignored by many historians/researchers for ages); how Stalin was complaining all the time that the Allied machines handled to him in the Arctic Convoys were of bad quality against the Germans and when there were Allied sailors being killed to carry them to him. Those are things that are not widely spoken of...!!

And why would one count himself a qualifying arbitrary on historical matters if the only thing one can demonstrate is being a victim of brainwash concoction of media myths , consisting of "gulags", deaths, rapes and other saucy things one probably read in some popular publications? If you one likes reading some sort of hate and gore literature of cold war why would they want to splash all that on unsuspecting fellow modelers?
It is absolutely unfair that very straightforward post about intriguing and obscure modeling subject : soviet navy in WWII being turned into the circus of ignorance and bad manners.

[JWintjes]

And why would one count himself a qualifying arbitrary on historical matters if the only thing one can demonstrate is being a victim of brainwash concoction of media myths , consisting of "gulags", deaths, rapes and other saucy things one probably read in some popular publications?

There is nothing "brainwash" or mythical about gulags, rapes and war crimes. It's a simple fact that it happened, whether you like it or not.

It is absolutely unfair that very straightforward post about intriguing and obscure modeling subject : soviet navy in WWII being turned into the circus of ignorance and bad manners.

I'd be careful with complaining about "bad manners" in general and "ignorance" in particular.

By the way - had you read Felipe's post carefully, you'd have noticed that he did not belittle, for example, the fighting spirit of the Red Army's soldiers. He commented negatively, and is absolutely correct in doing so, if I may add, on the political and the military leadership.

Jorit

[Filipe Ramires]

And why would one count himself a qualifying arbitrary on historical matters if the only thing one can demonstrate is being a victim of brainwash concoction of media myths , consisting of "gulags", deaths, rapes and other saucy things one probably read in some popular publications?

So, basically you are admiting that there were no such things as the Gulags and war crimes committed by the Red Army.