Did USSR work? (And impact of WWII in USSR)

mattabesta wrote:

the russians would have had more men to man theyer mssev tank force itf stalin hadn't exicuted evryone how knew how to use them

1. He executed mainly officers. Are you implying officers would have manned the Soviet tank force?
2. Reiterating, USSR didn't have enough tanks of high-enough quality in the early war to effectively face the german blitzkrieg.

mattabesta wrote:

and tactical retret can be the best thing to do when the enemy has nearly surounded you army

In order for industry to retreat effectively, someone had to hold the germans as much as possible.

mattabesta wrote:

germany lost to man power . germany was outnumberd 5:1

In the mid-war the T-34 proved to be a formidable opponent to German tanks, just as the inclusion of SU-152s and JS series of tanks really did meant a tactical problem to germans- they already didn't have the upper hand neither technologically nor tactically.

mattabesta wrote:

stalin was the reson the soviets nearly lost.

Really? USSR didn't nearly lost. If Germans had taken Moscow, (if that's what you're implying) government had been realocated in Kuibishev already and industry back in Urals. But they didn't even do that.
Again, Germany put most of its war effort against USSR, you couldn't expect low casualties from the soviet side, you couldn't expect whole cities to be effectively evacuated. And hey, take this funny fact into account: USSR is the only country of the whole European continent that didn't fall to the German invation, and notice, to the largest invation of all.

Simple as this: from the whole war no nation was as attacked as the USSR, Poland and Baltic States, in the European scenary, and in the Asian scenary no nation was as attacked and damaged as China. Both USSR and China were the most devastated countries that fought against the Axis and stood on their feet inspite of having to face most of their enemies' forces, and logically, it costed them millions of lives.

mattabesta wrote:

btw i have 15 books on WWII each one a4 size and 200 pages

Do you think the numbers also count in literature? Oh well I got like 12 220 pages books and like 3 400 pages books. Lets see: 12x220=2640pages + 1200= 3940 pages against your 3,000 pages. I outnumber you by a reason of 1:1.31. So I know more. Just kidding

Having lots of books on a topic doesn't ensure you know well the topic and does not prove your points. For example, I got books from German, US, Soviet and Japanese perspective and they vary in data, intention of writting and of course veracity.
Some authors are terribly biased on both sides of the war so you have to contrast and make an analysis by yourself employing logic and common sense and taking information from as many sides as possible and contrast them.

In the case of WWII. USSR had a death toll exceeding 25 million (some authors claim 20 million, others 23, others 24, others 27 and others even 33) while US had a death toll of 480,000. That is not a proof that US had better tactics than USSR, for example. Many factors have to be taken into account:

1. US was never invaded.
2. US wasn't even attacked by a nation with a strong land military. War barely hit US territory, not even hitting mainland.
3. For most of the war US battled against a nation with a weaker navy, weaker airforce and weaker land force in a series of islands. US intervention in Europe was for most of the time mainly aerial and naval, when US entered the land scenary most of the Wermacht had been destroyed in the Eastern front.

1. USSR was invaded by the most powerful, most tecnologically advanced land force in the world and most of that land force was put against the USSR.
2. For 3 years the whole Eastern front was held within Soviet boundaries, several Soviet main cities sieged and towns entirely destroyed. Most of German war effort was put on conquering USSR. And it was not the German army alone: Itialian, Romanian, Hungarian and even Spanish forces went to fight the USSR.
3. USSR had to slowly push back the germans taking advantage of lack of climatic readiness by the germans and the increase in military technology which was allowed by retreating industry to the Ural region. For 2 years Germany had had technological and even some tactic superiority against USSR.

You can't simply blame USSR casualties on the fact that Stalin killed thousands of experienced officers. You have to take into account that no other nation was as attakced as USSR and that even so it didn't fell as the rest of Europe did.
As for those officials, who knows, maybe many of them would have betrayed the USSR. If Stalin killed them is probably because many of them did oppose either his government or even the existance of USSR leaving many as possible suspects of oportunism and betrayal which in case of a war would have meant a greater hindrance to the USSR than to Stalin's government itself.

the reson i said stalin "killed his tank force was that he newly ordered old tanks to be destroyed and new ones built.
thes tanks saw serveci in the winter war wich by the way russia autnumbered the finns 7:1 and the finns had 35 tanks and rusia 3000
finns had nearly no planes but the russians hundreds yet the finns maneged to kill 270,000 soviets and 500,000+ were "never found again"
the fins lost 25,500 soliders . that makes the casulty ratio 1:30.
this happend becus ill traned men were sent against one of europes smallest armies. They were il trained becuse ther were no experiensed officals left to train them the same goes for the tanks.

the germans had better tanks for all the war.
the germans had better guns for all the war.
the germans had better planes for all the war.
the germans had better tactics till 1943( when hitler became ceif of the army)
the germans were out numbered ALL the war.

stalin never left moskov the only reson the germans din't attak was that the center group had nearly no tanks becuse they were in the south.

true the russans had moved theyer factoryes behind the urals but nearly al the army was in the west. taking a large part of the gas and oil reserves of the soviets in and around stalingrad would have crippeled the soviet armour divisions it would have been engf to take both leningrad and moskow.
when you get past the three major cities- Leningrad, moskov and stalingrad most of the soviet population has been occupied and then ther are fewer recruts thus a smaller army= defeat.

the itlayans, bulgars, romans and hungarans may have helped but very, very littel. Indeed they are the reson the soviets got stalingrad back.

mattabesta wrote:

the reson i said stalin "killed his tank force was that he newly ordered old tanks to be destroyed and new ones built.

T-26s or earlier were hardly of real use against German tanks.

thes tanks saw serveci in the winter war wich by the way russia autnumbered the finns 7:1 and the finns had 35 tanks and rusia 3000
finns had nearly no planes but the russians hundreds yet the finns maneged to kill 270,000 soviets and 500,000+ were "never found again"
the fins lost 25,500 soliders .
[/quote]

Yes, the Winter War was one of the most stupid military operations ever. Not only was it unjustified, but it was also terribly, stupidly planned. Complete disregard for camouflage, excess of trust in numerical superiority and in general poor previsualization of the whole operation reveal how poorly planned that invation was.

By the way there's no "500,000" never to be found again, but aside from KIA, 220,000 WIA.

mattabesta wrote:

that makes the casulty ratio 1:30.
this happend becus ill traned men were sent against one of europes smallest armies. They were il trained becuse ther were no experiensed officals left to train them the same goes for the tanks.

More than lack of leadership and inexperience in soldiers, it was lack of overall planification. It was like literally sending a wave of men expecting it to conquer a territory by their sole march.

mattabesta wrote:

the germans had better tanks for all the war.
the germans had better guns for all the war.
the germans had better planes for all the war.
the germans had better tactics till 1943( when hitler became ceif of the army)
the germans were out numbered ALL the war.

The germans didn't have better tanks during all the war. The T-34 proved superior to all early war German tanks, that is from Mk II to MkIV. Else, in the early war, the KVII proved to be far superior to any armoured vehicle Germany deployed from 1941 to 1942 Then appeared the Tiger and the Panther which were countered mainly by assault guns like the SU-122 and SU-152, and a more mobile but less effective countermeasure was the T-34/85. Then appeared the JS-II which was superior to any armoured vehicle fielded by Germany during all the war and even some JS-III are said to have served in Berlin.

Guns. 122mm and 152mm L42 guns were far superior to the 7.5cm and 88mm standard german guns.

Germans indeed had great planes, the Messerschmidt can even be called the most advanced plane of the war, yet, it didn't make much difference without radar.

Germans had better tactics until USSR could reorganize. Many like to blame Hitler for German defeat just as many like to blame Stalin on every soviet inneficience and none is completely true. As war advanced Soviets were learning how to deal with germans and their tecnology was increasing.

mattabesta wrote:

stalin never left moskov the only reson the germans din't attak was that the center group had nearly no tanks becuse they were in the south.

They actually got close enough to Moscow and did attack it, however, that wouldn't have meant Soviet defeat.

mattabesta wrote:

true the russans had moved theyer factoryes behind the urals but nearly al the army was in the west.

Great part of the army was in the East in case of a Japanese offensive.

mattabesta wrote:

taking a large part of the gas and oil reserves of the soviets in and around stalingrad would have crippeled the soviet armour divisions it would have been engf to take both leningrad and moskow.

Germans were unable to do that, though, there still were a lot of reserves in other parts of the USSR to continue battle.

mattabesta wrote:

when you get past the three major cities- Leningrad, moskov and stalingrad most of the soviet population has been occupied and then ther are fewer recruts thus a smaller army= defeat.

Great deal of the forces that pushed Germans back came from Central and eastern USSR and most of the industry had been allocated behind the Urals which let USSR prepare a counteroffensive.

In case Germans had taken Moscow and Leningrad there were still Novosibirsk, Nizhniy Tagil, Samara, Orenburg, Orsk, Omsk, Yekaterinburg, etc. to continue battling and not only that, Germany would have had to deal with a lot of Partisans.

mattabesta wrote:

the itlayans, bulgars, romans and hungarans may have helped but very, very littel. Indeed they are the reson the soviets got stalingrad back.

Are you implying that USSR was victorious in Stalingrad because of the inclusion of non-german forces? You got to be kidding...


Anyway, this is getting completely out of the context of discussion. You said Stalin was responsible for the 24 million deaths USSR had in WWII, I said that the simple fact that USSR had to deal with most of Germany's forces were a crucial factor in the damage USSR received.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The germans didn't have better tanks during all the war
Germans had better tactics until USSR could reorganize. Many like to blame Hitler for German defeat just as many like to blame Stalin on every soviet inneficience and none is completely true. As war advanced Soviets were learning how to deal with germans and their tecnology was increasing.

the germans bult the first assult rifels wich outmatch any weapon of that day they also built the tiger tank wich grounded the t's down.
however the t's were simpel and cheap and were made in wast numbers.

the german generals never got a real chans to show the full extend of theyer capebileties becuse of hitler.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

They actually got close enough to Moscow and did attack it, however, that wouldn't have meant Soviet defeat.

well i woudn't count an offencev of 300 men who were beaten down by villegers with shovels a real attack.
it would have meant a rela back slash for the rusians as moskov was and is the city that conects the high waies and rail roads, it would have made transport harder for the soviets.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Great part of the army was in the East in case of a Japanese offensive.

no only a small portion of the army ( small for russia) were in the east wating to brake the non-agression traty japan and ussr had.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Germans were unable to do that, though, there still were a lot of reserves in other parts of the USSR to continue battle.

true but itwuld have cut oil supply to the south and opend the way tomesopotamia.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Great deal of the forces that pushed Germans back came from Central and eastern USSR and most of the industry had been allocated behind the Urals which let USSR prepare a counteroffensive.

yes very true ussr's wast size and population made it imposseble to cqnker in 8 weeks like hitler thougt.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In case Germans had taken Moscow and Leningrad there were still Novosibirsk, Nizhniy Tagil, Samara, Orenburg, Orsk, Omsk, Yekaterinburg, etc. to continue battling and not only that, Germany would have had to deal with a lot of Partisans.

true but most of the population lives in the european part of russia.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Are you implying that USSR was victorious in Stalingrad because of the inclusion of non-german forces? You got to be kidding...

Atully i'm not italyan and roman forces were to protect the flanks of stalingrad but failed misrebly.

I edited your post so that it looked more organized, probably that's how you wanted it. Is that ok?

mattabesta wrote:

the germans bult the first assult rifels wich outmatch any weapon of that day they also built the tiger tank wich grounded the t's down.

Right on assault rifles. About Tigers... indeed those Tigers couldn't really be matched by the T-34 but once the JS's and the SUs appeared Tigers stopped being unmatched.

mattabesta wrote:

however the t's were simpel and cheap and were made in wast numbers.

"vast"

Yes, however being "cheap" and "simple" didn't make them uneffective. Just as they couldn't outperform the Köningstiger and would have a hard time with the Panther, they outperformed anything from the Mark IV and earlier.

mattabesta wrote:

the german generals never got a real chans to show the full extend of theyer capebileties becuse of hitler.

And more true is that USSR didn't get to half its potencial if it had been really communist..

mattabesta wrote:

well i woudn't count an offencev of 300 men who were beaten down by villegers with shovels a real attack.
it would have meant a rela back slash for the rusians as moskov was and is the city that conects the high waies and rail roads, it would have made transport harder for the soviets.

Yes it would have been much harder if Moscow had been taken...
Anyway, what for are those "what if" scenaries?
On those grounds I can simply say: If Germany had managed to invade Great Britain, it would have fallen or at least lots of its territory occupied.
If USSR had been really Communist it would have had it easier on the war presenting a more fierce resistance and having greater technological advances. And we can keep saying "what if" and "would".

We were arguing on Stalin's culpability

mattabesta wrote:

no only a small portion of the army ( small for russia) were in the east wating to brake the non-agression traty japan and ussr had.

It was a considerable enough ammount which helped a lot to push Germans back.

mattabesta wrote:

true but itwuld have cut oil supply to the south and opend the way tomesopotamia.

That's what crazy Hitler had in mind. That's why they lost.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

yes very true ussr's wast size and population made it imposseble to cqnker in 8 weeks like hitler thougt.

Not only the vast size and the great ammount of population, in the middle of the war also tactics and technology.

mattabesta wrote:

true but most of the population lives in the european part of russia.

Yeah, but not such a majourity as 80% and even so, that wouldn't have meant USSR's defeat, behind German lines there was always a very active Partisan force.

mattabesta wrote:

Atully i'm not italyan and roman forces were to protect the flanks of stalingrad but failed misrebly.

And Germans could have failed too.


Look, my point is that USSR had to suffer most of the momentum of the world's most powerful land army and that contributed to USSR's great death toll and detriment. As simple as that.

totally
germany did attack ussr the most but ussr wund'T have worked any better if they hadn't invaded indeed europe may have remanedunder nazi controlle much longer if they hadn't invaded

mattabesta wrote:

totally
germany did attack ussr the most but ussr wund'T have worked any better if they hadn't invaded

Here you're pretty wrong. If USSR hadn't been invaded it wouldn't have had the need to spend so much materials and workforce into war effort, wouldn't have lost so many lives and would have been able to develop more, even within its capitalist framework. Anyway it seems it was necesary for USSR in order to acquire more military experience and enhance its deffensive capabilities.

mattabesta wrote:

indeed europe may have remanedunder nazi controlle much longer if they hadn't invaded

Indeed.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Here you're pretty wrong. If USSR hadn't been invaded it wouldn't have had the need to spend so much materials and workforce into war effort, wouldn't have lost so many lives and would have been able to develop more, even within its capitalist framework. Anyway it seems it was necesary for USSR in order to acquire more military experience and enhance its deffensive capabilities.

ussr's econamy was STRENGHTHENED(SOZ) by the war not weakend

mattabesta wrote:

ussr's econamy was STRENGHTHENED(SOZ) by the war not weakend

Economy*

Industry was rushed and some regions experienced a higer growth due to the evactuation of Western USSR, however that could have happened even without war. Besides, logically technology had increased in 5 years and that has a direct impact on economy.

But had USSR not lost so many lives it would have had more workforce and materials to employ in more productive industries than military industry..

Time to intervene a little here.
The only reason USSR didn't fall to the Axis was ..........the USA
In fact two thirds of the UssR's tank force in early 1943 were made in the USA and given to USSR to aid against the Nazis.
American money and products not just kept the UK alive, but also Stalinland. Also the only reason the eastern USSR forces were able to attack the axis, was because Japan had to face a restructured american pacific fleet.
I'm not american so don't accuse me of patriotism. I'm just a poor history student in central europe.

Voice of Reason wrote:

Time to intervene a little here.
The only reason USSR didn't fall to the Axis was ..........the USA

This is a pretty denigrating, exagerated and of course and most importantly non-factual asseveration.

Voice of Reason wrote:

In fact two thirds of the UssR's tank force in early 1943 were made in the USA and given to USSR to aid against the Nazis.

A total of 4,000 M4 Shermans were given to USSR in the War. USSR had produced 6,000 tanks in 1941, nearly 24,500 in 1942, 24,000 in 1943, 29,000 in 1944 and nearly 4,000 in 1945 before the end of the War. In Total From 1941 to early 1943 USSR had produced nearly 30,500 tanks. For your statement to be true USSR should have lost 28,500 tanks between 1941 and early 1943 and USA should have given all those 4,000 M4Shermans at that moment. Thing that didn't happen.

Voice of Reason wrote:

American money and products not just kept the UK alive, but also Stalinland.

I won't desestimate US assistance, however, USSR had still enough terrirotry, workforce and resources to deal with the war.

Voice of Reason wrote:

Also the only reason the eastern USSR forces were able to attack the axis, was because Japan had to face a restructured american pacific fleet.

And that's the only thing Japanese could fight at: Sea. Japanese land army was not only busy controlling China, Indochina and Korea, it was too weak to pose a real threat to the Red Army.

Voice of Reason wrote:

I'm not american so don't accuse me of patriotism. I'm just a poor history student in central europe.

Why jumping into those accelerated conclusions? Is that what you would do?

Judge Dredd wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Judge Dredd wrote:

But it also stole secrets when it couldn't make technology. American traitors handed over Atomic secrets that could have helped us smash the USSR sooner.

USSR had been working on nuclear technology since long before stealing those secrets. Stealing them was merely to catalyse the development of nuclear weaponry so that USSR could deffend from US threat.

Still stole it. I thought stealing was against the Socialist way.

Actually americians stoled first it from nazis

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I edited your post so that it looked more organized, probably that's how you wanted it. Is that ok?

mattabesta wrote:

the germans bult the first assult rifels wich outmatch any weapon of that day they also built the tiger tank wich grounded the t's down.

Right on assault rifles. About Tigers... indeed those Tigers couldn't really be matched by the T-34 but once the JS's and the SUs appeared Tigers stopped being unmatched.

it is fun, that usa's sherman got 1 designing error: light armor. normally 4 shermans challenged 1 tiger xD

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Voice of Reason wrote:

Time to intervene a little here.
The only reason USSR didn't fall to the Axis was ..........the USA

This is a pretty denigrating, exagerated and of course and most importantly non-factual asseveration.

Voice of Reason wrote:

In fact two thirds of the UssR's tank force in early 1943 were made in the USA and given to USSR to aid against the Nazis.

A total of 4,000 M4 Shermans were given to USSR in the War. USSR had produced 6,000 tanks in 1941, nearly 24,500 in 1942, 24,000 in 1943, 29,000 in 1944 and nearly 4,000 in 1945 before the end of the War. In Total From 1941 to early 1943 USSR had produced nearly 30,500 tanks. For your statement to be true USSR should have lost 28,500 tanks between 1941 and early 1943 and USA should have given all those 4,000 M4Shermans at that moment. Thing that didn't happen.

Voice of Reason wrote:

American money and products not just kept the UK alive, but also Stalinland.

I won't desestimate US assistance, however, USSR had still enough terrirotry, workforce and resources to deal with the war.

Voice of Reason wrote:

Also the only reason the eastern USSR forces were able to attack the axis, was because Japan had to face a restructured american pacific fleet.

And that's the only thing Japanese could fight at: Sea. Japanese land army was not only busy controlling China, Indochina and Korea, it was too weak to pose a real threat to the Red Army.

Voice of Reason wrote:

I'm not american so don't accuse me of patriotism. I'm just a poor history student in central europe.

Why jumping into those accelerated conclusions? Is that what you would do?

the t's were made in american fctoryes.
without a scond front the ussr would have fallen

ivan55599 wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I edited your post so that it looked more organized, probably that's how you wanted it. Is that ok?

mattabesta wrote:

the germans bult the first assult rifels wich outmatch any weapon of that day they also built the tiger tank wich grounded the t's down.

Right on assault rifles. About Tigers... indeed those Tigers couldn't really be matched by the T-34 but once the JS's and the SUs appeared Tigers stopped being unmatched.

it is fun, that usa's sherman got 1 designing error: light armor. normally 4 shermans challenged 1 tiger xD

I dont think it was a design flaw. The light armor allowed them to go fast and our version of a blitzkrig was put on the Germans and we won the war in the west.

ivan55599 wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I edited your post so that it looked more organized, probably that's how you wanted it. Is that ok?

mattabesta wrote:

the germans bult the first assult rifels wich outmatch any weapon of that day they also built the tiger tank wich grounded the t's down.

Right on assault rifles. About Tigers... indeed those Tigers couldn't really be matched by the T-34 but once the JS's and the SUs appeared Tigers stopped being unmatched.

it is fun, that usa's sherman got 1 designing error: light armor. normally 4 shermans challenged 1 tiger xD

I dont think it was a design flaw. The light armor allowed them to go fast and our version of a blitzkrig was put on the Germans and we won the war in the west.

Diogritor wrote:

ivan55599 wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I edited your post so that it looked more organized, probably that's how you wanted it. Is that ok?

mattabesta wrote:

the germans bult the first assult rifels wich outmatch any weapon of that day they also built the tiger tank wich grounded the t's down.

Right on assault rifles. About Tigers... indeed those Tigers couldn't really be matched by the T-34 but once the JS's and the SUs appeared Tigers stopped being unmatched.

it is fun, that usa's sherman got 1 designing error: light armor. normally 4 shermans challenged 1 tiger xD

I dont think it was a design flaw. The light armor allowed them to go fast and our version of a blitzkrig was put on the Germans and we won the war in the west.

and the shermans had very large shots contary to theyer size and were very chead to make.

mattabesta wrote:

the t's were made in american fctoryes.
without a scond front the ussr would have fallen

*factories

No, T-34s were made in USSR.

Which second front are you talking about?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

the t's were made in american fctoryes.
without a scond front the ussr would have fallen

*factories

No, T-34s were made in USSR.

Which second front are you talking about?

north africa italy and the west theater.
the us held up over a million gearman soldiers in the westren front and complytly destroyed the rihine industyal area.

mattabesta wrote:

north africa italy and the west theater.
the us held up over a million gearman soldiers in the westren front and complytly destroyed the rihine industyal area.

*Rhine. completely

All the western front was the 1st front, opened by the German offensives to western European nations.

It's non-factual to state that Germany would have defeated USSR if it hadn't been for the concentration of troops in Western Europe.

Curiously enough, Germans still had a high productive rate by nearly the end of the war. While german industry was hindered by USA, it was not completely destroyed.

Inspite of all the western front Germany concentrated most of the Wermacht and its finest troops against USSR.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

north africa italy and the west theater.
the us held up over a million gearman soldiers in the westren front and complytly destroyed the rihine industyal area.

*Rhine. completely

All the western front was the 1st front, opened by the German offensives to western European nations.

It's non-factual to state that Germany would have defeated USSR if it hadn't been for the concentration of troops in Western Europe.

Curiously enough, Germans still had a high productive rate by nearly the end of the war. While german industry was hindered by USA, it was not completely destroyed.

Inspite of all the western front Germany concentrated most of the Wermacht and its finest troops against USSR.

this was becuse they din't force citicens to work till 44 and with 80million pepole at your sesposal it's esy to build new factoryes.
but if the rhine woul have beeen thet then they would have produced even more cusing more losses.

Matthias, please, try to organize better your posts and write more clearly ok?

mattabesta wrote:

this was becuse they din't force citicens to work till 44 and with 80million pepole at your sesposal it's esy to build new factoryes.

They still had a lot of foreign workforce by the end of the war.

mattabesta wrote:

but if the rhine woul have beeen thet then they would have produced even more cusing more losses.

I didn't get what you mean, could you elaborate a bit? Do you perhaps mean that if the Rhine factories hadn't been destroyed they would have produced even more?

You're trying to annoy him by using his real name right?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Matthias, please, try to organize better your posts and write more clearly ok?

mattabesta wrote:

this was becuse they din't force citicens to work till 44 and with 80million pepole at your sesposal it's esy to build new factoryes.

They still had a lot of foreign workforce by the end of the war.

mattabesta wrote:

but if the rhine woul have beeen thet then they would have produced even more cusing more losses.

I didn't get what you mean, could you elaborate a bit? Do you perhaps mean that if the Rhine factories hadn't been destroyed they would have produced even more?

my name Isn't matthías it's matthías már and you defintly can't pronunce it right.
yeah it's true they sill had millions of slave workers.