In hindsight, should the WAllies not have helped the Soviets?

[thekingsguard]

Had we let the Soviets toss another 10-20 million Russian men into the German meatgrinder, it would have further crippled Russian demographics, and hampered thier ability to opress Eastern Europe and aid the Chicoms.

In other words, for the price of a few million Soviets, you possibly shorten the Cold War by decades, and save tens of millions of others from poverty and misery.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

According to p.314 of this well researched book the Germans had 495k trucks exclusive of all other vehicles, like cars, motorcycles, tracked vehicles, etc., which when added in totaled around 600,000.

Yes, and? That still all falls within the range of estimates I cited.

Thanks for the link.
Seems the total you list is for May 1st 1945, when the war was basically over and they had captured the stocks of Germany and the rest of the countries they had occupied.

Okay, and? We're comparing peak truck stockpiles during the war. The war was not over yet on May 1st 1945. And if we are to stop counting captured vehicles then we'll have to do so for the Germans too and believe me: that will affect the German numbers much more severely then it will the Soviets, as roughly around half the German truck park in June 1941 constituted captured vehicles.

Also only 355k are listed as being at the front. 586k available by the beginning of 1945 including tens of thousands of captured vehicles in 1944.

Eh? The total given for January 1st, 1945 is 621,284, of which 34,700 are captured models, with 439,200 are at the front.

Your 355,000 figure is the number at the front for January 1st 1944 (out of a total of 495,904), a year before hand.

Those numbers are for ALL vehicles, not just trucks.

Incorrect. Tractors were not counted, as they did not fall under the purview of the Automobile Directorate. I don't actually have the number for tractors yet: I'm still trying to track that down. I already broke down the listed vehicle numbers by type in my post. The total, excluding small cars and buses/pick-ups, is ~600,500 trucks.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Yes, and? That still all falls within the range of estimates I cited.

Your range doesn't correspond to anything accurately published, the most cited quote is 600,000 trucks and light vehicles for the Barbarossa invasion force (just the Germans) excluding tractors and the like.

Okay, and? We're comparing peak truck stockpiles during the war. The war was not over yet on May 1st 1945. And if we are to stop counting captured vehicles then we'll have to do so for the Germans too and believe me: that will affect the German numbers much more severely then it will the Soviets, as roughly around half the German truck park in June 1941 constituted captured vehicles.

Effectively are comparing numbers at the start of a campaign in the German case and the end of the war for the Soviets after they've had their pick of captured vehicles (not just German, but anything in occupied territories). Since we were discussing the peak of Soviet mechanized offensives vs. the peak of German mechanized offensives, it makes sense to compare vehicles on hand right before the main campaign, not a couple days before the end of the war. May 1st 1945 is a week before the war officially ended and after Germany was all but completely occupied. The Soviet January 1st numbers, right before the Vistula offensive is pretty much their peak combat campaign number of vehicles, which would be comparable to the June 22nd German numbers.
If we excluded numbers of captured Soviet trucks in 1941 vs. numbers of captured German trucks in 1944-45 that would a fair comparison; if you wanted to exclude German pre-invasion impressed vehicles from France and the like, then you'd need to remove LL numbers as well from the Soviet side.

Eh? The total given for January 1st, 1945 is 621,284, of which 34,700 are captured models, with 439,200 are at the front.

Your 355,000 figure is the number at the front for January 1st 1944 (out of a total of 495,904), a year before hand.

Including tractors.

Incorrect. Tractors were not counted, as they did not fall under the purview of the Automobile Directorate. I don't actually have the number for tractors yet: I'm still trying to track that down. I already broke down the listed vehicle numbers by type in my post. The total, excluding small cars and buses/pick-ups, is ~600,500 trucks.

They weren't counted in the German numbers either, so it is a like comparison. The 600,000 number for trucks includes tractors, which are not included in German numbers:

B. Changes by machine type.

By car types, the change in the fleet is characterized by data (thousand pieces):
Types of machines At 22.06.1941 At 1.01.1942 At 1.01.1943 At 1.01.1944 At 1.01.1945 At 1.05.1945 % increase over the war years
Freight 203.9 237.8 294.2 361.6 456.9 481.0 237.8
% to vehicle fleet 74.8 75.0 72.7 72.9 73.5 72.4
Including tractors 4.9 43.7 117.7 129.3
% to freight 1.7 12.1 25.7 27.0

The Soviet 1945 number of trucks then is 481k, which is slightly less than the June 22nd total for the Barbarossa invasion force.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Had we let the Soviets toss another 10-20 million Russian men into the German meatgrinder, it would have further crippled Russian demographics, and hampered thier ability to opress Eastern Europe and aid the Chicoms.

In other words, for the price of a few million Soviets, you possibly shorten the Cold War by decades, and save tens of millions of others from poverty and misery.

If the Soviets lost another 10 million men the Soviet economy would have imploded before the end of the war.

 

[LHB]

Had we let the Soviets toss another 10-20 million Russian men into the German meatgrinder, it would have further crippled Russian demographics, and hampered thier ability to opress Eastern Europe and aid the Chicoms.

In other words, for the price of a few million Soviets, you possibly shorten the Cold War by decades, and save tens of millions of others from poverty and misery.

Because that somehow excuses all of the brutality that took place in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere in the the world in the name of Western power or the very likely probability of at least a million more dying in the Holocaust.

Any calculus that says a few million more Soviets dying possibly averting the Cold War somehow excuses all of the other death, destruction and carnage caused also assuming that the USSR won't somehow become an even nastier place in a situation where there's less resources to go around and means to harvest them is one that's totally bankrupt. That's the dictionary definition of Devil's Arithmetic.

 

[marathag]

Because that somehow excuses all of the brutality that took place in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere in the the world in the name of Western power or the very likely probability of at least a million more dying in the Holocaust.

No, it doesn't.
Most would gladly trade a Pinochet over Pol Pot, a Papa Doc for Mao any day of the week, twice on Sunday, however.
Are Cambodian and Chinese lives worth less? Weakening what would become the 2nd World before it becomes a thing would be well worth it. The cast of horribles supported by China and the USSR were far, far worse than the SOBs the West supported

Would you want to live under Smith and Botha or Barre and Mugabe?

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Had we let the Soviets toss another 10-20 million Russian men into the German meatgrinder, it would have further crippled Russian demographics, and hampered thier ability to opress Eastern Europe and aid the Chicoms.

In other words, for the price of a few million Soviets, you possibly shorten the Cold War by decades, and save tens of millions of others from poverty and misery.

You know, I think the USSR was pretty evil and rather despise communism. But...wow.

FYI, Stalin still gets the bomb and might be willing to use it in this ATL. I mean, if you're country is half dead...

 

[BobTheBarbarian]

P.315 specifically cites the Soviet vehicle park of 1941, 272,600, as being for all vehicles, with trucks being only 193,200 of that. The additional vehicle requisitions from the civilian economy in 1941, 204,900, only included about 33,000 trucks.

Interestingly in your link they note that nearly half of the USSR's total stock of cars was lost in 1941, as they were concentrated in territories overrun by the invasion.

By January 1945 the entire Soviet military possessed 379,344 trucks in all theaters, including inactive (under repair or in non-combat zones) and reserve vehicles. Of these, 268,428 were in the Operational Fronts and 14,423 in the STAVKA reserve.

By comparison, at the same time the Western Allies had 970,000 trucks in Western Europe alone, excluding Italy.

 

[marathag]

FYI, Stalin still gets the bomb and might be willing to use it in this ATL. I mean, if you're country is half dead...

Does he? What if the Soviets get no farther west than the Vistula?

They don't get to loot Eastern Europe, probably unable to help Mao as OTL, much poorer nation, longer to rebuild with more war deaths and less infrastructure from LL. Uncle Joe will be seen as a far weaker figure than OTL, a horrific War, and little to show for it.

Bomb will be delayed, as it was, took years to go from Joe-1 to a deployable bomb, in this ATL, it's likely the UK does a Test first, and this changes the dynamic of the Cold War, ontop less Soviet adventurism in influencing CP around the globe

 

[Deleted member 1487]

By January 1945 the entire Soviet military possessed 379,344 trucks in all theaters, including inactive (under repair or in non-combat zones) and reserve vehicles. Of these, 268,428 were in the Operational Fronts and 14,423 in the STAVKA reserve.

By comparison, at the same time the Western Allies had 970,000 trucks in Western Europe alone, excluding Italy.

Where is that chart from?

 

[Faeelin]

Had we let the Soviets toss another 10-20 million Russian men into the German meatgrinder, it would have further crippled Russian demographics, and hampered thier ability to opress Eastern Europe and aid the Chicoms.

Does nobody understand how disliked and incompetent the Nationalists were?

 

[Faeelin]

Too poor to support the military to large levels without major shortages at home; don't get to capture and loot Eastern and Central Europe to help rebuild their economy post-war. You can survive the war in a heavily damaged state and especially without help then implode. Or in the case of the KMT even with outside help.

If the Soviets can support a massive military to drive the Germans back, then they aren't that poor. And Eastern Europe was arguably more of a loss than a benefit. Does Conquest Pay makes the argument that the empire in Eastern Europe cost more than the Soviets got out of it. Meanwhile, the Eastern European states are a run of far right quasi-fascist regimes, assuming they're like Eastern Europe in OTL's 1920s-1930s....

But you sort of prove my point? The Soviets don't collapse! They just lose 20 million more people and are in the fight somehow! Then they collapse after the fact for some reason.

Wait what?

But I guess it'll be real funny when a fascist KMT conquers most of Asia in this timeline in the 1960s.

 

[Faeelin]

No, it doesn't.
Most would gladly trade a Pinochet over Pol Pot, a Papa Doc for Mao any day of the week, twice on Sunday, however.

I'm gonna be a radical, but isn't the comparison for Pinochet someone in Latin America? I mean, a right wing military regime is carrying out an actual genocide in East Asia right now in Burma, so it's not like you can just say without communists the region will be great. I guess if your analogy is Batiste vs. Castro it's not a great example of how much better the world would be without the Soviet Union around.

Or if you want another example, look at the February 28 Incident in Taiwan under the KMT.

Would you want to live under Smith and Botha or Barre and Mugabe?

Why is the analogy for Botha not, umm, Nelson Mandela, who actually ran South Africa?

Edit: Anyway, the ideal scenario is one where Hitler gets the crap beat out of him earlier but the USSR liberalizes in the 1950s, rather than tossing more people onto the bonfire so white people can rule Africa longer and Chiang Kai Shek's Blue Shirts can gun people factory workers in Shanghai, but that's just me.

 

[longsword14]

Chiang Kai Shek's Blue Shirts can gun people factory workers in Shanghai, but that's just me.

I agree. I prefer the Great Leap Forward.
That said, once it were evident that Hitler was not going to close the game in the East then there was no reason to help the Soviets any further. Trouble is how much should have been cut off ?
The USSR was going to be trouble, preparing for that was simply wise, but again, at one state the West would have been happy to prop the Russians up at any cost, then there was no question of 1938 borders for E.Europe, after that it was too late.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Does he? What if the Soviets get no farther west than the Vistula?

They don't get to loot Eastern Europe, probably unable to help Mao as OTL, much poorer nation, longer to rebuild with more war deaths and less infrastructure from LL. Uncle Joe will be seen as a far weaker figure than OTL, a horrific War, and little to show for it.

Bomb will be delayed, as it was, took years to go from Joe-1 to a deployable bomb, in this ATL, it's likely the UK does a Test first, and this changes the dynamic of the Cold War, ontop less Soviet adventurism in influencing CP around the globe

There's a lot of butterfly handwaving going on in this thread.

First off, Lend Lease peaked in 43 and 44, which means Soviet offenses are less effective. If you really want to argue the Ukraine is more devastated because it takes a year longer to reconquer it, ok.

Second, once the allies land, the Germans need to move divisions from the eastern front to the western and they'll probably have to pull back to shorten their lines. On a percentage basis, the US and UK are much worse off than the Russians in terms of casualties. Fighting through the bocage is 10x more difficult let alone crossing France.

Third, there were a lot of communist sympathizers in the US during this time. I can easily imagine a situation where they are more apt to provide more assistance than OTL if the Soviets are hung out to dry.

Finally, OTL, Stalin was fairly accommodating - let Greece and Turkey go to the West. Stayed out of Korea. Pulled out of Iran, with a nudge. He's going to be far less accommodating ATL. And given the relative weakness, he will make obtaining the Bomb a much bigger priority. Yes, he doesnt get to loot East Germany but he might stick around in northern Iran and I have a feeling Turkey goes communist. Finland might not get the kid gloves either in this scenario. Asia is a lot harder to game. But I bet the Soviets are even more aggressive with asymmetric in the post war climate in South Asia and Africa. The resources to aid these places arent great and the Soviet Union is going to be a lot more brutal and less accommodating to the West in 45-49.

Finally, we're all ignoring the elephant in the room. Both sides feared the other would make a separate peace. Let's say the Soviets make peace with the Germans in 1944 - give us Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Finland. By this time the Soviets have modernized their military and industrial infrastructure to protect against a future German attack. And now the Wehrmacht can turn west against the US and UK. Even if you think this is ASB in hindsight, the fear of it at the time made this debate absurd.

 

[longsword14]

snip

That all might be true, but the bomb is still a no-no. Whenever it all ends there would be a window in which the USSR would be hobbled in every way imaginable, so going for the bomb would only get them smashed worse.
Nothing is worse than getting nuked.

 

[BobTheBarbarian]

Where is that chart from?

Великая Отечественная: Действующая армия (Great Patriotic [War]: The Active Army).

Another example - 1 July 1943, right before the Battle of Kursk:

 

[Soup]

The amount of anti-communist drooling over the prospect of a weaker or collapsed Soviet Union built upon the corpses of millions in this thread is quite frankly disgusting. To answer this thread's question: No, it makes no sense tactically, strategically or morally. Less Soviet aid means millions more deaths on both fronts, in addition to the millions who will die in death camps who either survived them or were never there to begin with OTL.

 

[marathag]

I'm gonna be a radical, but isn't the comparison for Pinochet someone in Latin America? I mean, a right wing military regime is carrying out an actual genocide in East Asia right now in Burma, so it's not like you can just say without communists the region will be great. I guess if your analogy is Batiste vs. Castro it's not a great example of how much better the world would be without the Soviet Union around.

Cuba under Batista was the richest country in the Caribbean, and some European countries. Castro jailed tens of thousands more, and economically, are better than Haiti.

But hey, Doctors, Literacy, and 1956 DeSotos for the win, eh?

Why is the analogy for Botha not, umm, Nelson Mandela, who actually ran South Africa?

because he wasn't Prez while the USSR was around

 

[GoulashComrade]

Would you want to live under Smith and Botha or Barre and Mugabe?

Hey, uh, just popping in to say that the Somali Democratic Republic was by far the nicest of those places to live in, without the insane racism of Botha and Smith. Proto-Dengist economy was trucking along well, repression was low because the liberal "democracy" that preceded the SDR was a total fucking disaster that everyone wanted gone, open borders where Somali citizens were free to travel, greatly increased standards of living compared to the past, a wave of new music and art because the Siad government wasn't into heavy censorship or blocking Western media. I mean, post-Ogaden War, Siad shows his true colors (the bastard nailed some of my uncles during his campaign on the North) but I'd much rather live in the SDR than those Western ally states you mentioned.