Was communism the greatest weapon Russia had against NAZI Germany?

Question

In invading western Europe the German fast moving war machine had modern paved roads to travel on. In communist russia there were very few paved roads. Once the rains started falling the roads became impassible where they could have moved fine with those rains in the west. So Germany was defeated in Russia long before the winter set in. If communism had been more efficient (or capitalist America sent more lend/lease money) Russia would not have lasted.

Answer 1

Communism was not an asset to Soviet Russia during WW2. Stalin's purge of the late 30's removed(executed) most of the Russian Officers above the rank of Colonel, which left allot of in-experienced officers to face the tempered German assault. During the onset of the German assault entire army groups surrendered to the German. Many Russian had hope that the Germans would liberate them, only to find out that the Germans treated them worst than the Soviets.
Hitler made a fatal error in his Russian Campaign. trying to force a political resolution using military force. The Russian campaign was lost by Hitler not.

Most of the Russian weapons & tanks were designed by the germans in factories that were contracted by the Germans (inculding the AK47). To avoid the restrictions placed upon Germany after WW1 in 1928 Germany began a secret trade agreement with Russia, First with Lenin the later it was expanded with Stalin in 1932. Germany and Russia already had a relationship with another so the division of Poland in 1939 should not have been to great of a suprise.

Communism was not a help to Russia, the ruthlessness of Stalin, the vast land mass that allowed Russia to sacrafice land for time, Hitlers involvement in delaying the orignal assualt date, changing the battle plan and diverting the armorder spear head south to the oil feilds, the failure for the germans to prepare for a winter campaign, and above all the US pumping in millions of tons of oil, food, weapons, munitions,money and gold prevented the fall of Soveit Russia.

Answer 2

I accept what you say about Germany's infrastructure assisting the Soviets in occupying Germany and the absence thereof hampering the Germans on the Eastern Front. But it's by no means the only important factor. 'General Winter' played a decisive role too in halting the Germany advance to Moscow in 1941 and killing hundreds of thousands of German/Axis soldiers. Hitler's refusal to allow a breakout from Stalingrad before the Soviet's completed encircling the city sacrificed 300,000 men. The Soviets were tipped off about the planned German encirclement of the Soviet army at Kursk and Hitler threw everything into that battle. After losing it, he blamed the generals and increasingly interfered in the planning of the war similar to how Stalin did in 1941-2 which had led to defeats by the Germans. Stalin's eventual hands-off approach and Hitler's later micromanagement complimented each other in ensuring the Nazi defeat from late 1942-45.

Answer 3

~Actually, the T-26, the T-28 and the KV series tanks were more than enough to repel an exhausted, fuel starved, frozen enemy fighting on two fronts without food, clothing or replacement parts. It didn't hurt, either, that Hitler split his forces and sent von Kleist south against the Caucasus oil fields and Paulus against Stalingrad. Outmanned, outgunned and with untennable supply lines, Hitler suffered the same inevitable fate as Napolean. Don't kid yourself about the impact of the Russian winter. Frozen tanks and frozen troops are not terribly effective against a patriotic army defending its home and way of life.

By your logic, the Nazis should have won due to their superior government which produced the first rockets, the first jets, and the new Blitzkrieg tactics. Only the influx of fresh troops and supplies from Sammy-come-lately on the Western front turned the tide of the war.

But if it makes you feel better to not recognize or realize the immence strides the Soviets made between 1917 and 1942, technologically, industrially and economically, that's ok. Don't let the facts get in the way of your pre-concieved notions.
Ah, the errors of not learning from history and reason. Why, if one is not careful, one could get embroiled in fiascoes such as Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Answer 4

The Soviet Union would have lasted simply because Nazi Germany couldn't fight a 2 front war. Communism had nothing to do with victory, it actually was an impediment, due to it's inefficiency. It was Nazi inefficiency that caused them to loose the war, namely yes the had the finest tanks, but they still produced the old obsolete ones. Yes, they had jet fighters, but they still produced the old ME-110's and 109's. Hitler was also afraid of some of his generals (Rommel is a good example) so he over ruled some of their plans..Von Runsted was a genius and could have defeated the Allies at Normandy, if he were allowed to act. Hitler had Hans Guderian on the Russian front and overruled him as well.

Answer 5

A good point, but Stalin's purges nearly cost them the war anyway, and it was only after he gave up on his communist rallying cries and reverted to calls to protect Mother Russia that the Great Patriotic War became a gut-level war of the Russian people.

Answer 6

I still believe the Soviets would have won. They had millions of soldiers to throw at the Nazis for cannon fodder.

Answer 7

Their greatest weapon was their countries size, army and people communist were just who happened to be in charge then.

Answer 8

I'm not so sure. They had many soldiers, true, but they were likely to die in hordes in combat. Mostly because they had guns pointed at their backs and were told to charge at the enemy or die.

Did you know this fun fact? Most of the officer's who died in the russian army were killed by their own men.