The Critical Importance of the German-Soviet War in Winning World War II in Europe

Introduction

The outcome of World War II in Europe was determined primarily on the Eastern Front through the titanic struggle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union rather than through the Franco-British campaigns in North Africa and France. This reading examines why the Eastern Front proved to be the decisive theater of the European war by analyzing the scale of military engagement, strategic resource allocation, industrial capacity, human cost, and economic factors including trade agreements that shaped the conflict’s outcome.

The Scale of Military Engagement: Eastern Front vs. Western Campaigns

The sheer scale of the Eastern Front dwarfed all other European theaters of World War II. The Eastern Front stretched from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south, spanning more than twice the length of the Western Front. This vast geographical expanse required massive deployments of men and material from both sides.

When Germany launched Operation Barbarossa in 1941, it committed approximately 3 million troops, 3,000 tanks, 7,000 artillery pieces, and 2,500 aircraft to the invasion of the Soviet Union organized into three massive army groups under Field Marshals von Rundstedt, von Bock, and von Leeb. This represented the largest military operation in history up to that point.

By comparison, the North African campaign involved significantly smaller forces. The Western Desert Force that attacked Italian forces in December 1940 numbered only about 36,000 men, while even at its height, the Afrika Korps and Italian forces in North Africa never approached the scale of forces deployed on the Eastern Front.

Casualties and Human Cost: The Decisive Indicator

The casualty figures clearly demonstrate where the war was primarily won. The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people during the war, including 8.7 million military and 19 million civilians, representing the most military deaths of any nation by a large margin. Germany sustained 5.3 million military losses, with the majority occurring on the Eastern Front and during the final battles in Germany.

The evidence clearly shows that the Eastern Front consumed the vast majority of German military resources. One reason for the huge difference in German casualties between fronts was that German forces facing the Red Army tended to fight to the end for fear of Soviet captivity, whereas German forces facing the Western Allies tended to surrender without putting up much resistance.

In contrast, the North African campaign, while strategically important, saw comparatively limited casualties. The Western Allies took 134,000 German soldiers prisoner in North Africa and at least 220,000 by the end of April 1945 in the Italian campaign – numbers that, while significant, pale in comparison to the millions of casualties on the Eastern Front.

Industrial Capacity and Destruction

The Eastern Front witnessed an unparalleled level of industrial destruction and mobilization. The combined damage to the Soviet Union consisted of complete or partial destruction of 1,710 cities and towns, 70,000 villages/hamlets, 31,850 industrial establishments, 64,000 kilometers of railroad, and enormous numbers of public facilities. This devastation required a herculean industrial response.

Critically, the Soviet Union managed to evacuate significant portions of its industrial capacity. Recognizing the importance of their population and industrial production to the war effort, the USSR evacuated the majority of its European territory—moving 2,500 factories, 17 million people and great quantities of resources to the east, beyond German reach.

This massive industrial relocation allowed the Soviet Union to continue producing war materiel even as the German Wehrmacht advanced deep into Soviet territory. The scale of this industrial evacuation and reorganization dwarfed similar efforts in Western Europe.

Strategic Significance of the German-Soviet Trade Agreements

Before hostilities began, the economic relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union played a crucial role in enabling German war preparations. German planners in April and May 1939 feared massive oil, food, rubber and metal ore shortages without Soviet help in the event of a war.

The 1939 German-Soviet Credit Agreement and subsequent commercial agreements created a trade relationship that initially benefited both sides. Under the 1940 agreement, the Soviet Union became a major supplier of vital materials to Germany, including petroleum, manganese, copper, nickel, chrome, platinum, lumber and grain.

For Hitler, these agreements were strategic necessities. From Hitler’s point of view, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact offered Germany not only the opportunity to invade Poland without fear of Soviet retaliation, but also access to the grain, oil, and other raw materials necessary to fuel the Nazi war machine.

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, this economic relationship was severed, forcing Germany to rely on synthetic production and conquered territories for resources. This shift in economic balance became a critical factor in the eventual German defeat.

Logistics and Supply Challenges

Logistics proved to be a decisive factor in both theaters, but the challenges on the Eastern Front were of an entirely different magnitude. The combined damage to transportation infrastructure in the Soviet Union included 64,000 kilometers of railroad and 4,100 railroad stations destroyed, creating enormous logistical challenges for both sides.

In North Africa, while logistics were certainly challenging, the scale was much smaller. Logistics were a key factor in the desert war. Throughout the campaign, both sides found that the further they advanced, the harder it was to keep their forces supplied. Both suffered shortages of fuel at crucial moments.

The German focus on the Eastern Front inevitably starved other fronts of resources. Even before launching Operation Barbarossa, Hitler’s pressing for a German invasion of Poland in 1939 placed tremendous strain on the German war machine, which had been gradually gearing up for “total war” in 1942 or 1943.

Allied Strategic Considerations: The Second Front Debate

The Allied decision to open a second front in Europe was heavily influenced by the situation on the Eastern Front. The Allied invasion of French North Africa in November 1942 was intended to draw Axis forces away from the Eastern Front, thus relieving pressure on the hard-pressed Soviet Union.

This admission by Western Allied planners underscores the acknowledgment that the Soviet Union was bearing the brunt of the fighting against Nazi Germany. Operation Torch and subsequent operations in the Mediterranean were designed primarily to relieve pressure on the Eastern Front rather than being decisive in their own right.

Joseph Stalin had been consistently pressuring his Western allies to open a second front. Stalin had long been pleading for a second front to be opened to engage the Wehrmacht and relieve pressure on the Red Army. This pressure reflected the reality that the Soviet Union was carrying the main burden of the ground war against Nazi Germany.

Balance of Power Shift: The Eastern Front as the Turning Point

The decisive turning points of the European war occurred on the Eastern Front. The battles of Moscow (1941), Stalingrad (1942-43), and Kursk (1943) represented the major strategic defeats that ultimately doomed the German war effort. After these battles, the initiative on the Eastern Front permanently shifted to the Soviet Union.

While El Alamein (October-November 1942) was certainly important, serving as the climax and turning point of the North African campaign, its impact on the overall European war was more limited compared to the Eastern Front battles occurring at roughly the same time.

Conclusion

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the German-Soviet war was more critical to winning the war in Europe than the Franco-British campaigns in Africa and France. The Eastern Front consumed the vast majority of German military resources, inflicted the greatest casualties on German forces, and represented the decisive theater where the strategic balance of power shifted irrevocably against Nazi Germany.

While the Western Allied campaigns in North Africa, Italy, and eventually Normandy were crucial to the ultimate Allied victory, they succeeded in large part because the Soviet Union had already broken the back of the German military machine on the Eastern Front. The economic dimension of the conflict, particularly the German dependence on Soviet resources prior to Operation Barbarossa and the subsequent loss of those resources, proved to be a critical factor in Germany’s ultimate defeat.

The scale, intensity, and strategic significance of the Eastern Front ultimately determined the outcome of World War II in Europe, with the Western Allied campaigns playing an important but secondary role in bringing about Nazi Germany’s final defeat.

Resources List

1. “Eastern Front (World War II)” – Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)
2. “World War II casualties” – Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
3. “Military production during World War II” – Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
4. “North African campaign” – Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_campaign
5. “Casualties of World War II” – History of Western Civilization II – https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/casualties-of-world-war-ii/
6. “The struggle for North Africa, 1940-43” – National Army Museum – https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/struggle-north-africa-1940-43
7. “Eastern Front (World War II)” – Britannica – https://www.britannica.com/event/Eastern-Front-World-War-II
8. “Operation Torch: Invasion of North Africa” – U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command – https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/operation-torch.html
9. “German-Soviet economic relations (1934-1941)” – Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_economic_relations_(1934–1941)
10. “Friends of Necessity: The Effects of the 1939 German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact” – Tucaksegee Valley Historical Review – https://affiliate.wcu.edu/tuckasegeevalleyhistoricalreview/spring-2020/friends-of-necessity-the-effects-of-the-1939-german-soviet-nonaggression-pact/

This is part of a series of blog posts looking at different aspects of WW1 and WW2 that do not always get mentioned in the classroom. To read more of these stories follow the link 20th Century.