Reddit reviews Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941-1945

This is wrong headed to say the least. I would strongly recommend reading a book such as Richard Overy's Russia's War or something similar before making such a claim. Hard to beat Overy's work though.

The lend-lease programme was not really a factor during the battle of Moscow:
>That the Soviet victories of late 1941 were won with Soviet blood and largely with Soviet weapons is beyond dispute...Lend-Lease aid did not “save” the Soviet Union from defeat during the Battle of Moscow. But the speed at which Britain in particular was willing and able to provide aid to the Soviet Union, and at which the Soviet Union was able to put foreign equipment into frontline use, is still an underappreciated part of this story.

It was a factor during the battle of Stalingrad, but, operation Uranus would have succeeded either way as the 6th Army was left very depleted and without adequate support after Army Group South was broken up into Army Groups A & B with most of the good stuff (Hoth's 4th Panzer Army, etc) going to Army Group A on the ill fated Caucasus adventure. The 6th Army, part of Army Group B, was stuck in Stalingrad on an island surrounded by satellite divisions (Romanian, etc) holding its flanks. Those divisions were promptly brutalised by the Red Army and thus began the infamous encirclement of Stalingrad.

In the latter part of the war, /u/artoduhslord is essentially correct. I will quote my favourite answer on this topic:

> The need to have to fight on a second front in the west did weaken Hitler and hastened the demise of the Third Reich; however, Germany had received so many body blows even before Torch and Normandy that its defeat was assured at Soviet Hands. Operation Torch, the landings in North Africa, happened in October 1943 Edit: Original author was probably referring to the opening of the Italian front.; however, the German march eastward was forever stopped at Kursk earlier that year, in August 1943 (see Battle of Kursk). After Kursk, the Germans were in constant retreat. Normandy happened in June 1944; however, the success of Normandy, which merely established a beachhead in Northern France for allied forces to land and invade the continent, was massively eclipsed (though much less reported in the western press) by the much more successful Operation Bagration (Edit: Russian documentary on Operation Bagration in English), which commenced on June 22 (three years from the start of the German-Soviet conflict in 1941) and ended on August 19, resulting in the deaths of 1.5 million Germans, the destruction of an entire Army Group (Army Group Center), the loss of about 17 army divisions, and the liberation of Belarus.

>So my conclusion is that had America and Britain not invaded German-ruled Europe through Torch and Overlord, the Russians would still have won. The difference is that the map of Europe would have looked very different after the war. Instead of a democratic western Europe and a communist eastern Europe, the whole of Europe would have been painted red, and probably another few million Soviets would have died fighting.

>Could Russia have defeated the Germans without the substantial assistance of the US in terms of jeeps, trucks, food, and the like? I aver that it could have, but it would have doubtless taken them longer. The Soviets proved even in 1941 that they could defeat the Germans, with no allied aid, when they caused a million casualties to the German armies in front of Moscow (aided by General Winter), so I believe they could have single-handedly defeated the Germans - in time. Instead of the war ending in 1945, maybe it would have taken the Soviets until 1950 to finish the war on their own terms - by conquering the whole of continental Europe."

>It would have taken longer because they would not have had the advantage of speed which the jeeps and trucks gave them, and the battles with the Germans would have been longer and bloodier, but there was really no question that the manufacturing capacity of the Russians was continually increasing and the manufacturing capacity of the Germans was continually decreasing - so in time, the Soviets would have been able to - maybe by 1945 - been able to get their own production to a high enough level to be able to manufacture enough trucks and jeeps of their own to finally defeat the Germans by 1950. It would have been a battle of attrition, but one that the Soviets would have won.

Please read Richard Overy Russia's War
Very eye opening book that presents a gripping analysis of both the catastrophes and heroic effort by the Soviets on the eastern front.

This book list may interest you.

Since you seem more interested in the Eastern Front, here are a few more books not on the list which focus on it:
[Stalingrad](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_(book), and Berlin: The Downfall by Antony Beevor are must reads. Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941-1945 by Richard Overy is also a great summary of the entire Russian war from start to finish. Finally, for a good account from the perspective of Soviet tank crews, might I suggest T-34 in Action, from the Stackpole military history series. It’s a short read, but quite interesting. Hope this helps.

Just gonna keep digging the hole huh?

> This bullshit is how Russia rewrites history... not focusing on how they forced people to run at the Germans with no weapons, only to be cut down with machine gun fire, and if they turned back... cut down by their own people with machine gun fire.

This is a great example of an opinion that comes more from watching movies than it does from doing any actual reading on the subject. Yes there was great incompetence on the side of the Soviet, but you are ignoring the brutality of the conflict completely.

How many books have you read about the Eastern Front? Your opinions echo those of uninformed people who haven't read much on the subject, yet think they have a concise idea about the conflict.

Here are some you might learn something from:

(This one is a great place to start)

https://www.amazon.com/Ostfront-Hitlers-1941-45-General-Military/dp/1855327112

​

(Dry at times, but captures the struggle from both perspectives well)

https://www.amazon.com/Russias-War-History-Soviet-1941-1945/dp/0140271694

​

(A personal favorite of mine that focuses on the lives of Soviet Soldiers mostly using first hand accounts and interviews.)

https://www.amazon.com/Ivans-War-Life-Death-1939-1945-ebook/dp/B000SEGP2U

​

You originally claimed

> They had it worst due to their government, not because the Germans were extra vicious against them.

Anyone who has studied the conflict at all knows that it was because their government was shit and the Germans were extra vicious. Much like the Soviets were often extra vicious to the Germans in ways that were not seen on the western front.

http://www.amazon.ca/Life-Fate-Vasily-Grossman/dp/0099506165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299084352&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.ca/Ivans-War-Catherine-Merridale/dp/0571218083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299084381&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.ca/Russias-War-Richard-Overy/dp/0140271694/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299084464&sr=1-2