USA vs USSR

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Reply to Maur13

Eh, no. I am saying that the Soviet population had very little knowledge of the millions killed by Stalin, and I am saying the London-based Polish government in exile knew the results of the Yalta and Teheran conference.
Yes,average Russian probably did not know anything about famine in Ukraine, but Ukrainians did not forgotten it. And i suppose that average Pole didn't know about Jalta and Teheran. And even if goverment knew it (i'm not sure that it did), it wouldn't ally with Stalin, you know .Besides, all of that agremeents would be null and void after war outbreak.
Well, actually 'free and democratic elections' were agreed in Jalta. Of course, they weren't.


Hold it. I’m getting confused here. I am not talking about any famine taking place in Poland. I was taking about Soviets being deported to Siberia or killed.
Oops, i expanded 'HERE' too much.
I meant Ukraine(famine) by that.

I do not have any knowledge about how the ordinary Soviet population viewed news printed in the Pravda, therefore I cannot say whether they trusted them or not. If you have any information showing that the Soviet population of the 30s did not, I would be happy to read it. Besides my point was that the killings were not announced in the Pravda, so since they weren’t mentioned, who cares who believed the paper? That’s hardly the issue.

About believing in newspapers. Well, i think no one has reliable info on it. Actually, in communist states there was no reliable info AT ALL.(often including soviet archives, not to speak of public info).
I made that assumption on what hapenned in Poland, where majority of population didn't believed in communist propaganda.Well, of course were many info about purges. That's not Orwell '84. But of course, victims as traitors, criminals, sabouteurs, etc.
And famine as 'deKulakization' (kulak-rich peasant, i don't know if there is word for it in English)


I do not have any information on the number of Communists in Poland in 1940 (do you?), but I fail to see the relevance as well. After all we are talking 1945 here, when there were plenty of Communists as well as a well equipped and Communist lead Polish army.

Well, i don't.
Though given facts that Stalin killed or imprisoned old Polish Communist party, and that Poles saw communism as another Russian way to threaten their (and Russia never really were popular in Poland) there weren't many.

So they were forced into the Polish army. Sounds intriguing. Do you have any more information on how the Polish army was recruited?

Uh, you misunderstood me.
By saying they had no choice, i meant that thay was only sensible way to fight against Germans.
Anders army, formed in 1942, quickly departed through central Asia into Palestine, later forming bullwark of 2nd Polish Corps(8th British Army, Tobruk and Monte Cassino).
Many people travelling from Siberia to join, arrived too late. New Polish Army were controlled by new Polish communists.
But people volunteered, they weren't forced.

The Polish Home Army was effectively crippled in 1945 and the remnants were quickly disbanded and imprisoned by the Soviets, so there would be no crippling of rail transport.

So how it was possible for crippled army to fight after end of the war, after disband order, against superior NKVD and communist militia forces till 1947?

Besides, and I know you’ll hate to hear this, the Warsaw uprising and the resulting tragedy can just as well be blamed on very poor planning from the Home Army leadership.

I won't. Because it was well planned.
Of course, arms were scarce, trained soldiers too. But it doesn't mean that uprising was poor planned. For example, sewer warfare:
Entrances were guarded, plans were only available to commanders and messengers. Germans only fully understood importance of it when all soldiers in Old City dissappeared overnight. And except one evacuation of Molotow (there were four), all went smooth.

I sincerely hope you are kidding, in which case I’ll better grin
oh, well, i don't remember
it seems that i was in the mood for a small flame war, sorry

Regards,

EoE

Well, i might add something to discussion about strategic bombing in Russia.
Basically, you're right, there are no targets in range.
All industry there was already destroyed, or transported east, manpower was also sewerely depleted.
I'm speaking about Soviet Union, not Central Europe (Ploesti, for example).

And I'm a bit surprised that anybody think that Stalin cared about soviet people

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Most evidence we have of Russians in war shows us, that they can withstand considerable sufferings, and that they adversity makes them rally around the flag. The only episode in history, were that wasn't the case, was during the later stages of WWI.

Stalin diverted resources to Leningrad to keep Leningrad in the war. Not because he cared for the fate of individuals.

Why would the evacuation and feeding of women and children keep Leningrad in the war?

At El Alamein Monty had a 3:1 superiority if we are generous: 220,000 men vs. 108,000. 900+ planes vs. 345 etc. Until then there had been air parity. Now the Allies had air superiority, but they still had not air supremacy

I really should stop trying to remember numbers 1200:350 is the figure Murray and Millet give.

We simply do not agree about the diversion strategy. A better approach would be to deploy fighters along avenues of approach. If you tied fighters to a city, you effectively tie them to an environment were they cannot fight (due to AA) and were it is to late to fight since the bombers probably would have dropped their bombs already.

The German Luftwaffe probably knew more about defending bombing raids than either of us. Looking at a diagram of their fighter bases they are not arranged in a frontier blocking fashion; only one base in the Netherlands, bases close to important targets, and defense in depth. The typical tactic was to attack the formation before it reached the AA belt, pull out, then attack the planes again returning from their targets, so AA will not interfere with the fighter defense. I would imagine it was easier to defend Germany using the frontier defense method, as the land area is much smaller. Trying to do that in Russia would require a fighter defense spread out from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

So the German air attacks were "illegal aerial attacks on Rotterdam, Warsaw, Belgrade, Coventry, and Pearl Harbor(sic!", while the Allied attacks were in response to those attacks (reprisals), but even if they had not been it was an "act of legitimate warfare, namely the bombing of a city". Illegal or legitimate - even the court seems to have had a hard time finding a common ground. No wonder, we can't.

What's good for the goose is not good for the gander The allies simply wanted those men hung without regard for legal arguement. The allied campaign was referred to as legitimate, the German one illegal.

At the time of Warsaw and Rotterdam there was never any question of those operations being illegal. Warsaw was bombed because the Poles were defending it, same with Rotterdam (although the Dutch had surrendered the city, the message did not reach the German flight.)

The only reason why I am stating that air warfare was regulated by the Hague Convention is, that a source I have read on the US bombing campaign an legal issues before, during and after the war, states quite clearly that it was the common perception the US airforce that the Hague Convention indeed laid of air warfare rules as well.

This is an interpretation by the source. Technically city area bombing was not internationally legislated against until 1977. I would argue that any source claiming the Hague Rules applied to air warfare would be to ignore the directives of allied air command during the war.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Reply to Maur13:

Yes,average Russian probably did not know anything about famine in Ukraine, but Ukrainians did not forgotten it. And i suppose that average Pole didn't know about Jalta and Teheran. And even if goverment knew it (i'm not sure that it did), it wouldn't ally with Stalin, you know.

What I meant was the the Home Army leadership and the government in exile in London definitely did know about the Yalta agreement. Hence their strong reaction against it.

Obviously it the hardcore group would not ally with Stalin, but part of the national group actually played the Communists’ game and took part in the rigged elections after the war.

When Stalin could get Poland in the Yalta conference it was of course because it was a fait accompli situation. He and the Polish communist were the de facto leaders of that country, and there wasn’t really anything the Allies could do about it. They still betrayed Poland though, IMHO.

So how it was possible for crippled army to fight after end of the war, after disband order, against superior NKVD and communist militia forces till 1947?

I searched, and I have not been able to find a single mention of any large-scale (or even small-scale) partisan warfare taking place in Poland 1945-47. Any info on that would be welcome, especially on numbers and the amount of damage done by the partisans.


Regards,

EoE

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Reply to Sean9898:

Why would the evacuation and feeding of women and children keep Leningrad in the war?

Leningrad was hard to supply as witnessed by the famine. By removing noncombatants and nonworkers, you’d simply use your resources more efficiently.

The German Luftwaffe probably knew more about defending bombing raids than either of us. Looking at a diagram of their fighter bases they are not arranged in a frontier blocking fashion; only one base in the Netherlands, bases close to important targets, and defense in depth. The typical tactic was to attack the formation before it reached the AA belt, pull out, then attack the planes again returning from their targets, so AA will not interfere with the fighter defense. I would imagine it was easier to defend Germany using the frontier defense method, as the land area is much smaller. Trying to do that in Russia would require a fighter defense spread out from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

Reread my post. I said there were multiple approaches to air defence, not that a solid wall of bases along the frontier – and nowhere else – would be the way to go. Then look at a map of Russia and note how the important resources and political/economical centres are quite centralised.
By scattering their fighter bases all over the place, the Soviets would of course allow the Allies to gain air superiority in any chosen sector. That’s pretty obvious – even for a Soviet commander who for some reason is never regarded as being able to think. So given the massive numbers of fighters at hand and the concentration of likely targets I really do believe the Soviets would have been able to put up quite a credible defence.

At the time of Warsaw and Rotterdam there was never any question of those operations being illegal. Warsaw was bombed because the Poles were defending it, same with Rotterdam (although the Dutch had surrendered the city, the message did not reach the German flight.)

The bombing of Rotterdam caused quite an outcry across Europe since it evidently showed the ruthlessness of the nazis and how they quite deliberately would bomb a city to kill its inhabitants. That was quite unheard of in warfare and considered barbarous – bordering(?) to a war crime.

This is an interpretation by the source. Technically city area bombing was not internationally legislated against until 1977. I would argue that any source claiming the Hague Rules applied to air warfare would be to ignore the directives of allied air command during the war.

The source (time I dig it up ) says that the prewar US Airforce considered itself to be under the Hague Rules of ground warfare. That’s not an interpretation, that’s a fact. The interpretation had been done by the US Airforce.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Leningrad was hard to supply as witnessed by the famine. By removing noncombatants and nonworkers, you’d simply use your resources more efficiently.

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to let them starve?

Reread my post. I said there were multiple approaches to air defence, not that a solid wall of bases along the frontier – and nowhere else – would be the way to go. Then look at a map of Russia and note how the important resources and political/economical centres are quite centralised.

Whatever the allies might claim their targets were people. So any city with a reasonable population would be a target. The coincedence of that city containing anything worth bombing maintains credibility. A farmstand would be enough justification, and the cities are adequately spread out enough to prevent a frontier type defense.

By scattering their fighter bases all over the place, the Soviets would of course allow the Allies to gain air superiority in any chosen sector. That’s pretty obvious – even for a Soviet commander who for some reason is never regarded as being able to think. So given the massive numbers of fighters at hand and the concentration of likely targets I really do believe the Soviets would have been able to put up quite a credible defence.

I'm not claiming the Soviet command would not think and react to the situation. However, Germany spent 3 years trying to defend bomber attacks without succeeding. During this time the allies gained experience in how to reduce cities, and with the recent byproduct of attriting air defenses. The Soviets are facing this tactic for the first time. Now, the most efficient method of dealing with bombers is to ignore them, the next to try and concentrate fighters over known flight plans. The least efficient is to spread the air defenses out. You are assuming that the Soviets will automatically decide to allow the bombing of their cities, or attempt a frontier type defense. The Soviets did not react particularly effectively to new tactics, it took them 18 months to figure out how to avoid a Blitzkrieg encirclement (as did the allies) why would you assume that the Soviets will take the path which offers the most efficient defense?

The bombing of Rotterdam caused quite an outcry across Europe since it evidently showed the ruthlessness of the nazis and how they quite deliberately would bomb a city to kill its inhabitants. That was quite unheard of in warfare and considered barbarous – bordering(?) to a war crime.

For propaganda purposes. At the time of Rotterdam however, no attempt was made at retaliation, or using bombs against cities. It was recognized that defended cities were targets for artillery, naval and air bombardment. The complicating factor with Rotterdam is that the city surrendered before the raid allowing the German action to look like a war crime, when it was tactical air support.

The source (time I dig it up ) says that the prewar US Airforce considered itself to be under the Hague Rules of ground warfare. That’s not an interpretation, that’s a fact. The interpretation had been done by the US Airforce.

Whatever the claims, the fact is that the US airforce did not constrain air attacks to the ground rules of Hague. While it may be speculated, or documented that any airforce had pre-war rules of engagement the fact of the matter is that no international treaty was in effect which prohibited the area bombing of cities.

When Stalin could get Poland in the Yalta conference it was of course because it was a fait accompli situation. He and the Polish communist were the de facto leaders of that country, and there wasn’t really anything the Allies could do about it. They still betrayed Poland though, IMHO

I wholeheartedly agree. The betrayl of Poland is often overlooked in history, after all it was supposedly Polish soveriengty which started the whole mess. You don't think that Poland was simply an excuse to enter the war now do you

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Reply to Sean9898

Hi again

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to let them starve?

Starve they did, in droves actually. Quite bad for moral. So, if you got zillions and loaded trucks going into a city only to return empty, you might as well load’em with those people that are in the way. The cost of that is exactly zero.

Whatever the allies might claim their targets were people. So any city with a reasonable population would be a target. The coincedence of that city containing anything worth bombing maintains credibility. A farmstand would be enough justification, and the cities are adequately spread out enough to prevent a frontier type defense.

Again: I am not advocating a frontier defence. There are actually quite few population centres in the Soviet Union and I refuse to believe that anyone would bomb a 10.000+ city, and even if they did: who’d care?

I'm not claiming the Soviet command would not think and react to the situation. However, Germany spent 3 years trying to defend bomber attacks without succeeding. During this time the allies gained experience in how to reduce cities, and with the recent byproduct of attriting air defenses. The Soviets are facing this tactic for the first time. Now, the most efficient method of dealing with bombers is to ignore them, the next to try and concentrate fighters over known flight plans. The least efficient is to spread the air defenses out. You are assuming that the Soviets will automatically decide to allow the bombing of their cities, or attempt a frontier type defense. The Soviets did not react particularly effectively to new tactics, it took them 18 months to figure out how to avoid a Blitzkrieg encirclement (as did the allies) why would you assume that the Soviets will take the path which offers the most efficient defense?

First of all the Germans scored quite a few successes early in the bombing campaign while the Allies were trying to figure out how to conduct strategic bombing.

In times of war it not unusual early on the cling on to untested or outdated prewar concepts, while tactical, operational and strategic development later on happens at quite a fast pace. Simply because only the most gifted and versatile individuals are left in command.

The Soviets – as the only force fighting the Germans – actually had a very sound prewar concept on how to defeat blitzkrieg, but were unable to carry it out due to lack of training and tactical rigidity. If you read early German accounts of Barbarossa, you’ll note the extreme concern expressed by German officers on Soviet tactics, especially the flanking attacks on German armoured spearheads.

Later in the war the Soviets showed a remarkable ability to develop new tactical/operational thinking and to bring it into practical use against the Germans. I find it highly likely that the air arm would show such a flexibility as well.

Back to your question: why do I assume that the Soviets would adopt the most efficient approach and simply ignore Allied bombings of the civil population. Well, first of all the bulk of evidence shows that the Soviet high command never gave priority to the protection of civilians at the expense of the military. Secondly, who of these strikes you like the most likely Comrade Stalin:

"Oh my god! Are the Allies bombing our poor women, children and old men!? This will not do. Withdraw the fighters from the front, we have to protect our population any way they can. They might not help the war effort, but they are our people. Oh... and make sure to send a truckload of teddy bears to the poor children!".

Or:

"Muahahahaha! The imperialist pigs are wasting their resources by bombing cities empty of everything but totally useless people. Let’’em go on so they won’t bomb our soldiers or our industry! Muahahahahaha!!!"

BTW: why would the Allies ever consider bombing a Soviet city?

For propaganda purposes. At the time of Rotterdam however, no attempt was made at retaliation, or using bombs against cities. It was recognized that defended cities were targets for artillery, naval and air bombardment

Uhm, recognised by whom?

Whatever the claims, the fact is that the US airforce did not constrain air attacks to the ground rules of Hague. While it may be speculated, or documented that any airforce had pre-war rules of engagement the fact of the matter is that no international treaty was in effect which prohibited the area bombing of cities.

Agreed. So if the prewar US Airforce abided to the ground rules of Hague, but abandoned those during the war in response to the German bombing attacks, and those Germans were later accused of war crimes because of the bombings, were does that leave the US Airforce?

I wholeheartedly agree. The betrayl of Poland is often overlooked in history, after all it was supposedly Polish soveriengty which started the whole mess. You don't think that Poland was simply an excuse to enter the war now do you

One question I have never found a satisfactory answer to, is how France and Britain could NOT declare war against the Soviet Union when she invaded Poland.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Starve they did, in droves actually. Quite bad for moral. So, if you got zillions and loaded trucks going into a city only to return empty, you might as well load’em with those people that are in the way. The cost of that is exactly zero.

The cost is not 0, it costs more gasoline to move full trucks, and there is no need to use ships across the lake solely for evacuation purposes.

The Soviets – as the only force fighting the Germans – actually had a very sound prewar concept on how to defeat blitzkrieg, but were unable to carry it out due to lack of training and tactical rigidity. If you read early German accounts of Barbarossa, you’ll note the extreme concern expressed by German officers on Soviet tactics, especially the flanking attacks on German armoured spearheads.

I would say that the fault lay with those who ordered the Ukranian front armies to hold at all costs rather than retreat. Whatever the concern by German officers, the number of prisoners captured prior to the Stalingrad campaign was enough to put most countries out of the war. The difference from mid-42 onwards is stark.

"Oh my god! Are the Allies bombing our poor women, children and old men!? This will not do. Withdraw the fighters from the front, we have to protect our population any way they can. They might not help the war effort, but they are our people. Oh... and make sure to send a truckload of teddy bears to the poor children!".

Or:

"Muahahahaha! The imperialist pigs are wasting their resources by bombing cities empty of everything but totally useless people. Let’’em go on so they won’t bomb our soldiers or our industry! Muahahahahaha!!!"

BTW: why would the Allies ever consider bombing a Soviet city?

Because they could. They would cling to the weakening of morale theory. Those bombers are not going to sit idle, they would be used.

Uhm, recognised by whom?

Recognized at least by the British who did not begin strikes against German cities until the accidental bombing of London.

Agreed. So if the prewar US Airforce abided to the ground rules of Hague, but abandoned those during the war in response to the German bombing attacks, and those Germans were later accused of war crimes because of the bombings, were does that leave the US Airforce?

It leaves both Britain and US not guilty of breaking any international treaty by bombing cities.

One question I have never found a satisfactory answer to, is how France and Britain could NOT declare war against the Soviet Union when she invaded Poland.

I think realism may have tainted those brave ideals which saw Britain and France leap to the defense of Poland. Had Poland survived longer, then perhaps they might have considered war, as they did during the Winter War, but the realization that the Soviet Union had conquered Poland meant that there was nothing which could be done.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Reply to Sean9898

The cost is not 0, it costs more gasoline to move full trucks, and there is no need to use ships across the lake solely for evacuation purposes.

You are right of course. A loaded truck uses more fuel than an empty truck, so let me rephrase that and say that the cost isn’t zero, but very, very small. To the best of my knowledge fuel wasn’t a problem for the Soviet Union from a stockpile point of view, but only when it came to the supply of extended spearheads.

I have no knowledge of empty ships going to Leningrad solely to evacuate civilians, are you sure they weren’t loaded with supply and simply shipped civilians across on the return trip?

Leningrad was extremely important for Soviet propaganda in the early phase of the war. For the first time the Soviets had been able to stop the Germans and offer seemingly unbreakable resistance. Of course the propaganda machine made the most of it, so evacuations of civilians was probably a media ploy as well as a means to ensure that city supplies only went to combatants and workers.

Other Soviet cities saw no, are very little, evacuation of civilians. And certainly not in any organised way. In fact the citizens of Kiev, Kharkov, Moscow and Stalingrad were told to stay put.

I would say that the fault lay with those who ordered the Ukranian front armies to hold at all costs rather than retreat. Whatever the concern by German officers, the number of prisoners captured prior to the Stalingrad campaign was enough to put most countries out of the war. The difference from mid-42 onwards is stark.

Yes, but those were strategic faults, like massing a million men around Kiev and telling them to stay, which of course invited encirclement. My point was that the Soviets early on had a sound concept for the defeat of Blitzkrieg on an operational or tactical level, but that they totally lacked the training, leadership and flexibility to carry it out.

Because they could. They would cling to the weakening of morale theory. Those bombers are not going to sit idle, they would be used.

Agreed, they probably would unless the tac air supporters convinced them that heavy bombers could be put to better use against more important targets than Mrs. Babushka, little Sergey and old Comrad Ivanovich.

It leaves both Britain and US not guilty of breaking any international treaty by bombing cities.

IMHO it leaves the strategic bomber forces as hypocrites that applied one standard to the German bombings and another to their own.

I think realism may have tainted those brave ideals which saw Britain and France leap to the defense of Poland. Had Poland survived longer, then perhaps they might have considered war, as they did during the Winter War, but the realization that the Soviet Union had conquered Poland meant that there was nothing which could be done.

Agreed, though I’m surprised that I haven’t seen ANYTHING that points to a debate taking place in the French and British high command or public.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
I have no knowledge of empty ships going to Leningrad solely to evacuate civilians, are you sure they weren’t loaded with supply and simply shipped civilians across on the return trip?

They probably were mostly loaded on the way in, though I have seen pictures of Ferry-type boats crammed full of refugees on the way out.

Other Soviet cities saw no, are very little, evacuation of civilians. And certainly not in any organised way. In fact the citizens of Kiev, Kharkov, Moscow and Stalingrad were told to stay put.

It was quite usefull in Moscow as the civilians became combat engineers, digging trenches etc. I still see a distinction though between this behaviour and allowing cities to burn to the ground full of civilians. We won't agree on this issue, and I will admit that your assumption is as valid as mine.

Agreed, they probably would unless the tac air supporters convinced them that heavy bombers could be put to better use against more important targets than Mrs. Babushka, little Sergey and old Comrad Ivanovich.

Yes, I agree, I think they would fly a number of tac missions, but Harris convinced himself that without the D-Day distraction he would have won the war on his own. I'm sure he'll want to try again in Russia.

IMHO it leaves the strategic bomber forces as hypocrites that applied one standard to the German bombings and another to their own.

Agreed completely, same too for Doenitz getting time for sub warfare.

Agreed, though I’m surprised that I haven’t seen ANYTHING that points to a debate taking place in the French and British high command or public.

I don't know whether it's embarrasment, or something else, but I too have pulled a blank on the reaction to the betrayl of Poland. I read that Churchill was angered that Stalin would not allow British planes to refuel in Soviet territory during the Warsaw uprising but other than that, nothing. Come to think of it, I have no idea what happened to the London Polish government in exile after the war.

It was a shameful episode and for me, Poland was a convenient excuse to enter the war before Germany grew too powerful.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Reply to Sean9898

Jeez, Sean - there's nothing left we can disagree on. Now how am I going to spend my office hours? Working? Nah, get real

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(592)]

It is relatively easy to find indices that the aforementioned incident was no planned terror bombardement as opposed to the British ones later in the war. One of them is that there was virtually no flame bomb load in the planes, while a typical raid for city destruction features a relatively high percentage of these. Other sources claim that the fires wouldn't be half as devastating if the fire brigades had less antique equipment. You could call this combat support or an accident but for sure it was no intended terror raid as, say, Dresden.