Was it acceptable to ally with Uncle Joe in WWII?

[Quackers]

Were there genuinely any "fresh" troops for Germany in '44? Wasn't it kids and old men by then? Or am I a bit early?

 

[red_elk]

Were there genuinely any "fresh" troops for Germany in '44? Wasn't it kids and old men by then? Or am I a bit early?

It was 4-5 divisions, including 2 SS panzer divisions, IIRC. Fresh enough to defeat Soviet forces under Radzymin and stop Belorussian strategic offensive. The battles continue during August 1944 and then it became clear that attempt to liberate Warsaw "on the fly" failed. After major advance of several hundred kilometers, it was required to move up reserves and repair infrastructure.

Edit:
Approach of the Red Army forces into the proximity of Warsaw served to initiate the Warsaw Uprising by the Home Army with expectation of help from the Red Army. The battle ended with Soviet's defeat; it is unclear to what extent this defeat contributed to Soviet's decision not to aid the Warsaw Uprising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Radzymin_(1944)

 

[Dachs]

Rather then commit hes strategic reserves and supplies on taking the Balkans, Stalin should have pressed forward through the Germans central front and Prussia, Instead the Germans were allowed time to rebuild forces, defences which cost them dearly when the Russians resume there offensive.

The other thing was that 2nd rate or green troops were mostly used on the central front which explained why the Russians performance at continuing to press forward failed so badly.

The Germans had time to do this because the destruction of Army Group Center and the subsequent efforts to push forward in the direction of Warsaw and East Prussia were exhausting efforts that could not be sensibly supported beyond their culmination point. (Both attacks ended up reaching culmination before the Red Army halted them, but Vasilevsky et al. did have the sense to not throw good money after bad once Stavka began to understand the shape of the post-Bagration situation.)

As I understand it, the offensives into the Balkans were a combination of a favorable situation - Axis forces there were significantly weaker than those in Poland after Bagration - and more easily exploitable strategic and operational prospects with the Soviets' own interest in securing themselves a Balkan empire. Directing military resources there was simply a product of Soviet doctrine, to reinforce success. It's not intrinsically unreasonable. German defenses further north had stiffened and in East Prussia the Nazis had even mounted successful local counterattacks.

I strongly disagree, however, that this initial diversion of resources in the summer and early fall of 1944 had lasting consequences on the winter campaign in Poland or the assault across the Oder and final drive on Berlin. By February and March 1945, the collection of Fronts the Red Army grouped in Poland for the final offensives significantly outmassed the forces that were then fighting in Hungary. If nothing else - and there was a great deal of "else" - political pressure within and without the Red Army would have made certain that the Belorussian and Ukrainian Fronts were, relatively speaking, manpower-complete and high quality. (I don't believe that there actually were serious quality differences by region among Soviet troops in 1945, but I admit that I'm not very well versed in that sort of thing.) It's very reasonable to state, as Patroklos did, that the lunge to and across the Oder represented the efforts of the best available forces at the Red Army's disposal in 1945.

But let's say you're right, hypothetically, and the forces in Hungary outmassed Zhukov's, Konev's, and Rokossovsky's Fronts in the spring of 1945, as well as being manned by superior quality soldiers. How does that argue against Patroklos' point, that the Red Army and/or its political leadership continued to suffer from serious problems - or from all new ones - by the end of the war? If the primary forces were devoted to Hungary instead of Poland as late as the spring, that suggests a grave grand-strategic decisionmaking failure at Stavka, not something to make anybody sanguine about an offensive against the Western Allies going forward. (Would Stalin and Vasilevsky order a general attack on Italy with the best Fronts, then, and leave Germany to the "2nd rate or green troops" [sic]?) And if the performance of the Red Army forces in Hungary against the crumbling Hungarian military and the last German panzer reserves at Lake Balaton is anything to go by, the troops you referred to as the cream of the remaining crop didn't cover themselves in glory anyway.

 

[Patroklos]

Perhaps it was about July 1944, when Soviet advance met fresh German reinforcements near Warsaw (see battle under Radzymin), and the USSR redirected advance to more vulnerable South direction. It was the time when Poles begun Warsaw uprising, trying to take control of the city before Red Army arrives. Their mistake was that they didn't coordinate uprising with the Soviets.

Or the reality, which was that the Soviets knowing full well most of the rebels in that particular action were pro Western waited for them to kill as many Germans as possible while being crushed themselves so they could avoid fighting either.

Another example of Soviet atrocities against their supposed allies in Eastern Europe.

 

[red_elk]

Another example of Soviet atrocities against their supposed allies in Eastern Europe.

Mikolaichik government did not consider USSR as their allies, they simply wanted to take advantage of Soviet army advance near Warsaw. Despite that, USSR continued military operations near Warsaw during August 1944, trying to secure bridgeheads to the North and South of the city, distracting significant German forces and helping the uprising.

Dachs can confirm this and describe it better than me. The USSR never betrayed its real Polish allies, which were Berling army and Polish Workers' Party.

 

[kochman]

Mikolaichik government did not consider USSR as their allies, they simply wanted to take advantage of Soviet army advance near Warsaw. Despite that, USSR continued military operations near Warsaw during August 1944, trying to secure bridgeheads to the North and South of the city, distracting significant German forces and helping the uprising.

Dachs can confirm this and describe it better than me. The USSR never betrayed its real Polish allies, which were Berling army and Polish Workers' Party.

Nor did any of those Eastern Europeans realize that the USSR would be so much more than an ally, but rather, an overlord exploiting them for decades.

 

[red_elk]

Nor did any of those Eastern Europeans realize that the USSR would be so much more than an ally, but rather, an overlord exploiting them for decades.

Looks like I triggered automatic trolling response from Kochman
USSR's atrocities are far behind the US with their imperialism, war crimes and continuing state terrorism.

 

[kochman]

Looks like I triggered automatic trolling response from Kochman
USSR's atrocities are far behind the US with their imperialism, war crimes and continuing state terrorism.

Facts are not trolling. Your post, on the other hand, basically is...

In the short and gruesome existence of the USSR, they managed to far out-evil the USA's (which has certainly not been perfect) 200+ years of atrocities, quite massively at that. Especially if we factor in "misery", which is pretty hard to accurately account for... the fact that Eastern Europe happily threw off the Soviet yoke finally makes that pretty obvious... How many people were trying to escape the West, in particular the USA, to go live in the USSR, comrade?

The US is hardly imperialistic, btw, empires tend not to give land back (again, see Eastern Europe). If we were an empire, we wouldn't give back places like Kuwait, Iraq, etc...

So, uh, nice try, no cigar (like an old soviet bread store). To even compare the USSR to the USA is really ludicrous...

 

[GhostWriter16]

The US is hardly imperialistic, btw, empires tend not to give land back (again, see Eastern Europe). If we were an empire, we wouldn't give back places like Kuwait, Iraq, etc...

I think we are. I don't buy the argument that we're the "Worst ever" that I've heard from some people, I think we mean well at least some of the time, but playing world police does certainly make us resemble an empire in many ways.

I get that the hyperbole is somewhat exaggerated, but what we are doing is, IMO, wrong and needs to stop.

Was the USSR worse? Of course it was. They, unlike us, had no notion of benevolence in their policing.

 

[kochman]

I think we are. I don't buy the argument that we're the "Worst ever" that I've heard from some people, I think we mean well at least some of the time, but playing world police does certainly make us resemble an empire in many ways.

I get that the hyperbole is somewhat exaggerated, but what we are doing is, IMO, wrong and needs to stop.

Was the USSR worse? Of course it was. They, unlike us, had no notion of benevolence in their policing.

Are we overly intrusive? Absolutely... it's hardly the same as being imperialistic.

 

[Crezth]

Imperialistic can be used to describe any entity that creates and maintains a persistent economic inequality elsewhere in its own favor. Under such a definition, the US is definitely imperialistic. You need not actually change the color on the map when you already have a dirty finger in every pie on Earth.

 

[kochman]

Imperialistic can be used to describe any entity that creates and maintains a persistent economic inequality elsewhere in its own favor. Under such a definition, the US is definitely imperialistic. You need not actually change the color on the map when you already have a dirty finger in every pie on Earth.

It's different than direct military occupation, is it not?

Again, we are overly intrusive and as Mitt Romney said "shaping world events", which I disagree with... that's Neo-Con thinking, which both parties are into...

But to compare the USA to the USSR is laughable.

 

[Crezth]

Direct military occupation? Yes, we do plenty of that.

I'm being facetious but it's because your point is specious. We don't need to occupy the entire world to be imperialistic. That's simple fact.

If our economic clout did not match our military might, you can be certain that we would be conquering the world through fire and steel. I mean, that's what we were doing at the turn of the 20th century. In bits and pieces, where we could break it off, but it made no difference to conquered Filipinos.

 

[History_Buff]

The US is hardly imperialistic, btw, empires tend not to give land back...

Looks at the British Empire...

 

[GhostWriter16]

Are Obama and Romney the same on foreign policy? As bad as Obama is, I've gotten the vibe that Romney might be even worse. And foreign policy is my #1 concern right now, barring none. If they are really the same I'll have to back Romney on economic grounds.

 

[red_elk]

Facts are not trolling.

What you wrote there is trolling. Because you didn't address my point about Warsaw uprising at all, just reiterated your usual anti-Soviet bashing, like you did about a dozen times in this very thread.

In the short and gruesome existence of the USSR, they managed to far out-evil the USA's (which has certainly not been perfect) 200+ years of atrocities, quite massively at that.

No, it was vice versa. USSR was far from perfect, but incomparable with USA's crimes.

How many people were trying to escape the West, in particular the USA, to go live in the USSR, comrade?

Where do you prefer to live, comrade? In the country with half of the world's GDP, possessing 70% of world's gold reserves and nuclear weapons, or in the country, completely devastated by recent war, lost 1/6 of its population and seen as an enemy by the richest and most developed nations of the world?

You can also ask yourself why the second managed to beat the first one in human spaceflight (where was W. Fon Braun, BTW?), building first nuclear power plant and other interesting things.

 

[Borachio]

I think Russia and the Russians are truly great. Shame about the government and the oligarchs, though. They stink.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Many people say the same thing about the US.

 

[Tahuti]

Looks at the British Empire...

The British Empire wasn't an Empire, nor was it British, nor holy.

 

[red_elk]

I think Russia and the Russians are truly great. Shame about the government and the oligarchs, though. They stink.

Thank's.
Though what was done in 50s-60s, were achievements of all Soviet people, not only Russians.
Government and roads are our eternal troubles