Did the Soviets singlehandedly defeat Hitler? Birdnow weighs in

By Aussiegirl

In response to the following article in The Australian, I asked
Tim Birdnow, of Birdblog to give me some historical perspective. I knew he'd know the answer.

First the article:

WWII victory was ours alone: Soviet veterans

WITH dozens of international leaders expected to attend, Moscow's celebrations to mark the end of World War II are being billed as a show of unity as well as remembrance.

But 60 years on, Soviet army veterans are accusing wartime British leader Winston Churchill of denying Russia credit for defeating the Nazis and are vowing to use the event to claim that they - not the allies - won the war.

"The role the Soviet army played in liberating Europe from the Nazis was deliberately played down in the post-war period," said Filipp Bobkov, a former top KGB general who fought in the war. "Our allies, especially Great Britain and Churchill personally, sought to show that the main role in the victory belonged to them.

We showed the world we could liberate half of Europe without the allies." The critics also accuse the allies and Churchill of delaying the opening of a second front with the Normandy landings while the Russians fought the Nazis in the east.

More than 25million Soviet soldiers and civilians died in the war and Russia saw some of the fiercest battles. Britain and the US lost fewer than 1million people.

Many veterans argue that Westerners believe Auschwitz concentration camp was liberated by the allies, when in fact it was stormed by the advancing Soviet army.

"The Soviets beat 607 German divisions. The allies destroyed 176," said Georgy Kumanyov, a leading Russian historian. "There was no force other than the Soviets that could have defeated the Nazis. "When the allies joined we could have won on our own." No other event in Russian history inspires as much patriotism. Barely a day goes by without television airing World War II films. There are even moves to rehabilitate Stalin, the Soviet dictator accused of sending 20million people to their deaths. At least three cities plan to erect a monument to mark his defeat of Hitler. Varvara Tomilina, 81, who took part in the fall of Berlin, said: "This victory cost us a lot of blood. Nobody can deny this is a victory that belongs to the Soviet Union."

And now the exchange of emails between Tim and yours truly:

Tim -- I've forwarded this article from the Australian saying that Soviet vets are saying that the victory over Hitler belongs completely to them. Now -- you are my history expert -- what would you say is the truth here?

I know just from what my mom has told me about the war and Hitler's occupation of their town, that the Germans were completely ill-prepared for the winter, so much like Napoleon. The Soviets withdrew, much as they had in Napoleonic times -- my mom tells me that by the time they began their retreat they were in full disarray -- and the officers who were staying in the house she occupied with her mother and her mother and my sister Julie (the officers were billeted there of course, and my mom and her mom had no choice) -- said to her as they were preparing to leave, "Deutschland Kaput!"

The officer who was billeted in their house was an Austrian, and he had made it clear to her on several occasions that he was forced into the German army, and she said when he said "Deutschland Kaput" -- he said it with some disgust and even relief. She said the soldiers and armies she saw retreating were a mess, ill-clothed, their equipment broken down, etc.

So -- that's one part of the story. The other thing she always mentioned to me was how the Soviets threw men into battle with literally nothing - no uniform, even no weapons -- they were simply cannon-fodder. When a soldier exclaimed that he had no gun with which to fight he was simply told "Never mind -- you march and follow orders -- and when one of your comrades dies -- you pick up his gun and remove his boots and coat and use them. So the figures that they always tout of all the millions who died -- well -- most died as a result of the indifference and inhumanity of the Soviets themselves, not to mention that Stalin had murdered almost the entire officer class and all his generals.

So - what is your take on this? I know there will be more and more of this stuff as that 60th Anniversary celebration in Moscow gets closer and closer.


Tim's response:

[It is true that the Germans] were ill-prepared. They had originally planned to invade Russia in April, but delayed until June to assist Mussolini. (If they had any sense they would have waited until the next year.)

Because they had delayed, and because they had hoped Britain would withdraw from the war (Germany sent out many peace feelers at this time; a late friend of my fathers had been at the Bulge, and he always insisted that the Germans let the Brits go at Dunkirk to make peace) or at least lay low, the Germans were forced to fight through the winter.

Their guns froze in the cold, and they were forced to urinate on them to get them to fire! They were unable to get an adequate supply of oil to their tanks and trucks (which likewise rarely started) and the men were unable to get proper winter gear. Hitler`s insistence on micromanaging the war also hurt them immensely; he refused to allow any sort of tactical retreat and his vicious nature repelled any potential allies within the Soviet Union itself. Further, he wanted the attack on Stalingrad which split the German forces at a critical moment.

Stalin was, of course, receiving enormous amounts of aid from the United States (without which they would have shredded like tissue).

When Stalin`s generals came to him, saying they had no equipment to fight the Germans, Stalin said ``you know what you have, general; use it!`` meaning, of course, manpower! Stalin didn`t care how many men he lost-every soldier shot dead was one less bullet the Germans could fire.

(Actually, he learned this from Ulysses Grant, who pioneered the technique and was refered to by Mary Todd Lincoln as a butcher.) The Germans who kept the POW camps loved the Russian soldiers because they were docile and somewhat grateful; they were used to taking orders and were being fed and housed better than they were used to!

Unfortunately for them, they would get a free vacation in the gulag if the Russians got them back. (Stalin figured they were traitors if they were taken POW and were corrupted by the ``soft`` western life of prison!)

It`s also important to note that the Russians did not lift a finger in the Pacific. We NEEDED them to help open a second front against the Japanese, but they failed to even declare war against Japan until the very last day specified by our treaty with them-and after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Stalin complained bitterly about our slowness in opening the second front in France (we were already engaging the Germans in Italy, while fighting the Japanese, but that didn`t matter to Uncle Joe) while he completely failed to do anything to assist us in Asia (where he was in a far better position than we were.) Had we not been fighting Japan, the Russians would have found Japanese troops taking Vladivostok and invading from the east. (Japan was Russia`s traditional enemy, after all, having humiliated them in the Russo-Japanese War.) Roosevelt was completely snuckered by Stalin. Churchill wanted to launch the invasion northward from Italy, driving through Hungary and Poland and cutting the Russian advancement off. Roosevelt vetoed this, wanting to give Stalin redress for the ``suffering`` of the Russians during the war (like they hadn`t suffered as much, or more, at Stalin`s hands!)

Under Roosevelt`s plan, we waited two weeks outside of Berlin for the Russian army to arrive, and then let THEM take the city. We could have avoided so much of the Cold War if we had simply did the sensible thing, but Roosevelt always believed Stalin was a bumpkin and that his urbane intellect would be able to control him. It`s too bad Truman didn`t take over before the end of the war; he understood exactly what was happening.