Russia in the world wars

[Frodo]

i have a question that i have been wondering about for some time:  why is it that the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin performed so much better against Nazi Germany, than its Tsarist predeccessor did against imperial Germany in the First World War? was it because they were better industrialized, had better leadership, had American assistance through the Lend-Lease Act, or something else altogether?       

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

i have a question that i have been wondering about for some time:  why is it that the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin performed so much better against Nazi Germany, than its Tsarist predeccessor did against imperial Germany in the First World War? was it because they were better industrialized, had better leadership, the Lend-Lease Act, or something else altogether?     

Better industrialized, and its leader had more power.

[A18]

I thought the Lend-Lease Act was with Britain.

[ATFFL]

I thought the Lend-Lease Act was with Britain.

Lend Lease covered all US Allies.

[Rob]

Russia was invaded and suffered terribly, so the citizenry was mobilized.

[Erc]

Combo of a more fluid war, smarter Russians (well, marginally), and stupider Germans (on both the military, and perhaps just as important, the propaganda fronts--preventing a collapse of soldier morale/government on the Russian side).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush says who cares about Russia's 27 million lives lost, they shouldn't have had influence over the Baltic countries.

[dazzleman]

Bush says who cares about Russia's 27 million lives lost, they shouldn't have had influence over the Baltic countries.

That has nothing to do with the topic.  But it's interesting that you think Russia had a right to enslave the Baltic countries, which it did, by the way, before Nazi Germany invaded the Soviety Union.

In World War I, the tsarist government was on its last legs, and was rapidly losing power.  People hated the government, and saw no good reason to fight for it.  They had not been invaded to the extent they were in World War II.

In World War II, many Russians hated their government, but it had more power at that point.  Also, hate the government or not, their homes were invaded, and the Germans were even worse than Stalin in most cases.  In the Ukraine, Hitler's troops were greeted with open arms until it became clear that would treat the Ukrainians as badly as, or worse than, Stalin did.

There was also more effective help for the Russians in World War II, largely through American Lend-Lease.  We provided a huge amount of supplies for their armies.

[ATFFL]

Bush says who cares about Russia's 27 million lives lost, they shouldn't have had influence over the Baltic countries.

Is it your opinion that if enough people die your contry gets to brutally enslave other nations?

[Erc]

Russia occupied the Baltics in 1940, long before they lost a single man in World War II.  Unless, of course, you want to count the million men they lost fighting against evil Finnish Imperialist Agression, of course.

[dazzleman]

Russia occupied the Baltics in 1940, long before they lost a single man in World War II.  Unless, of course, you want to count the million men they lost fighting against evil Finnish Imperialist Agression, of course.

In fairness to the Russians, they attacked both Finland and the Baltic Republics in order to extend their line of military occupation further west, as a defensive measure against the Germans.

The US occupied Iceland in 1941 for much the same reasons, but of course we didn't repress the population, and we left after the war.

I think a benign military occupation as a defensive move against the extreme German threat of the time might have been acceptable, but to occupy and repress those countries long after the end of the war was not.

[??????????]

Bush says who cares about Russia's 27 million lives lost, they shouldn't have had influence over the Baltic countries.

So you agree with the reds and Stalin? Stalin was a worse dictator then Hilter and Patton was right about "Continuing the war to Moscow". To bad the moron Truman didn't listen to his wise words.

JFraud are you a pinko?

[they don't love you like i love you]

I think the biggest motivation for them was that Hitler had just stabbed them in the back in the worst way. They also had Zhukov, brilliant commander, that helped a ton.

[J. J.]

Bush says who cares about Russia's 27 million lives lost, they shouldn't have had influence over the Baltic countries.

You favor the Soviet occuppation and annexation of the Baltic republics?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Josef Stalin's "Five Year Plans" actually worked to transform a basically fuedal economy into an industrialized power in the span of a decade.  He concentrated the country's economy completely on industrial and military development.  This (along with a disasterous agricultural collectivization project) lead to widespread starvation among those who remained on the farms, and no market for consumer goods even in cities, but it did make the Soviet Union much better prepared for war than it had been under the Tsar.

[minionofmidas]

Russia occupied the Baltics in 1940, long before they lost a single man in World War II.  Unless, of course, you want to count the million men they lost fighting against evil Finnish Imperialist Agression, of course.

In fairness to the Russians, they attacked both Finland and the Baltic Republics in order to extend their line of military occupation further west, as a defensive measure against the Germans.

The US occupied Iceland in 1941 for much the same reasons, but of course we didn't repress the population, and we left after the war.

Did you? I thought you're still there. (But of course, the part about repression is spot on...in fact Iceland won its independence from Denmark through the US occupation.)

I think a benign military occupation as a defensive move against the extreme German threat of the time might have been acceptable, but to occupy and repress those countries long after the end of the war was not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dazzleman]

Russia occupied the Baltics in 1940, long before they lost a single man in World War II.  Unless, of course, you want to count the million men they lost fighting against evil Finnish Imperialist Agression, of course.

In fairness to the Russians, they attacked both Finland and the Baltic Republics in order to extend their line of military occupation further west, as a defensive measure against the Germans.

The US occupied Iceland in 1941 for much the same reasons, but of course we didn't repress the population, and we left after the war.

Did you? I thought you're still there. (But of course, the part about repression is spot on...in fact Iceland won its independence from Denmark through the US occupation.)

I think a benign military occupation as a defensive move against the extreme German threat of the time might have been acceptable, but to occupy and repress those countries long after the end of the war was not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US may be in Iceland as part of NATO, but it's not a military occupation.  There's a difference.

[minionofmidas]

They're there with the stated consent of the Icelandic government, yes.
IIRC the issue was a big one in Iceland politics for decades. Not any more, I think.

[Frodo]

follow-up:

could the Soviet Union have survived Operation Barbarossa -and by extension, the Second World War- without American support? how crucial were we to the continued existence of the Soviet Union as a sovereign nation in the face of the Nazi invasion in 1941?   

[Erc]

follow-up:

could the Soviet Union have survived Operation Barbarossa -and by extension, the Second World War- without American support? how crucial were we to the continued existence of the Soviet Union as a sovereign nation?   

We didn't even extend Lend-Lease to the Soviets until late September of '41--and the little that did get there in the next two months certainly didn't make a difference.

There was probably still a good deal more in '42...but by that time I don't think it made much more of a substantial difference outcome-wise.  Perhaps the Germans might have taken Baku...but even if they had, it wouldn't have been as devastating as it would have been...since Lend-Lease wasn't coming through there.

By '43/'44, it was definitely making a difference...but the Soviets didn't need it by then.

In short, all it probably did was hasten the Soviet arrival in Berlin.  So remember, Eastern Europeans...thank Lend-Lease for your subjugation!

[dazzleman]

follow-up:

could the Soviet Union have survived Operation Barbarossa -and by extension, the Second World War- without American support? how crucial were we to the continued existence of the Soviet Union as a sovereign nation?   

We didn't even extend Lend-Lease to the Soviets until late September of '41--and the little that did get there in the next two months certainly didn't make a difference.

There was probably still a good deal more in '42...but by that time I don't think it made much more of a substantial difference outcome-wise.  Perhaps the Germans might have taken Baku...but even if they had, it wouldn't have been as devastating as it would have been...since Lend-Lease wasn't coming through there.

By '43/'44, it was definitely making a difference...but the Soviets didn't need it by then.

In short, all it probably did was hasten the Soviet arrival in Berlin.  So remember, Eastern Europeans...thank Lend-Lease for your subjugation!

The US under Roosevelt had a policy of seeking to minimize American casualties by helping others to engage the Germans to the maximum extent.

Lend Lease served this purpose, and our whole policy ultimately put the Russians in a stronger position in Eastern Europe after the war.

But given our unpreparedness for the war, and military weakness for a long time into the war, and given the fact that we were unable to bring significant power to bear in Europe until 1944, we had little choice.  The military goods supplied to the Russians made German opposition to our western landings at D-Day weaker, and that served our policy.

The American people would not have tolerated a policy that significantly increased our casualties.  It's easy to look back and criticize, and surely many mistakes were made, but the biggest ones were made in the 1930s, not the 1940s.